III. In interpreting this first cosmogony the greatest difiiculties encounter us at the earlier stages of the drama a.s it unfolds to us, and the only means of dispelling the obscurity is a closer ana, moreover, a comparative study of the Heb. Semitic cosmos. An endeavour will therefore be made to throw light on this subject from the data of Phoen. as well as Bab. mythology, preserved for us either in Greek writings or upon inscriptions, BO as to present as clear and vivid a conception as possible of the ancient Heb. cosmos.
The Ph(En., like the Heb. and the Bab. cosmo- gony, starts with the concei)tion of a dark abyss of waters or chaos, called by the Hebrews nj-j oVnn ' great TchOm ' (Gn 7")i or simply oVin, and by the Babylonians Tidmat (Tifiintu). According to the Pha;n. cosmogony cited by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. i. 10) from Philo Byblius, this watery material was generated from desire (ird(?os) and spirit (iryeuiia). Here we find a point of contact with the D'n^(; ij" of Gn 1", though in the biblical cos- mogony the water is not regarded as a product of the action of spirit, but appears to stand as a coelficient with si)irit of the subsequent generative proces.se8. Now the three clauses,
The earth was waste and void,
And darkness was upon the face of the deep (Tehrtm),
And the breath (spirit) of God was brooding over the waters, conduct us to the conclusion that the writer re- gards waste and void (tf)hu wabohu), deep (TchOm), and waters, as three epithets designating the same thing, viz. the chaotic watery abyss. Accordingly, we may infer that when God entered upon the
* On the distinction between image and nmilUude amonj; Rom. CAth, tbeoloiruuu, see Nilzach, Kvang. Dogmatik, v. 871 ff.
creative work there was no distinction between (a) day and night, (i) heaven and earth, (c) dry land (earth) and sea. All that existed were (1) darkness; (2) Tchi'im = T6hu wabohu = waters, i.e. the chaotic watery abyss ; (3) the brooding spirit of God materialized as air. (a) The first distinc- tion emerges with the creation of light, whereby day is separated from night (v."). (6) The second distinction arises when the firmament or ' heavens ' are formed (v.*). (c) The third distinction was effectuated by the separation of water from land, whereby 'dry land,' or 'earth' in the narrower sense, was formed.
The T6h6m (njT o'lnri) was no mere figment of the imagination, or the conception of some far distant cosmic condition, to the mind of the ancient Heb- rew. Though it apparent ly assumed the latter char- acter in cosmogonic narrative, it was also a very present and vivid reality. The accompanying diagram will enable the reader to comprehend the
ordinary conceptions of an ancient Semite (whethei Babylonian or Hebrew) resjjecting the universe in which he lived. The writer of this article sketched this outline from a study of numerous OT passages about twelve years ago, and found in Jensen's Cosmoloqie der Bab., published in 1890, a diagram almost identical in character, descriptive of the universe according to Bab. conceptions, and based purely upon the data of the cuneiform inscriptions. In both we have a heavenly upper ocean, and in both the earth was conceived as resting upon a vast water-depth or Tiihflm (called also in baby- Ionian apsu). The Hebrews thought of the world as a disc (Jin, cf. Is 40") ; and to this earthly dise corresponded the heavenly disc (also called «n, cf. Job 22", Pr 8"). Beneath the earth rested the unknown and mysterious TfhOm RnhhAh (cf. the lang\iage of Ps 24'). The flood not only descended through the windows of heaven (see above), but also ascended from the deep nether springs, called ' springs of the great Tcliftm ' (Gn 7" P«), which were cleft open. These deep springs were accord- ingly called TlhOmCth (Pr 3*), and were believed to communicate through the depths of the earth by means of passages with the great Tohrtm which lay below. In a striking jia.ssage in Am (7*) the prophet portrays a jiulgment in which the fire of J" will devour this great water-depth. Within the earth itself lay the realm of the ueparted, Shedl or Hades.
That mythical ideasand personifications clust«red round this mysterious chaotic water-depth in the thoughts of the ancient Semites, is abundantly
504
C0SM0G02s'Y
CUSMOGO^' Y
shown, not only in the legends of the Babylonians, preserved in their inscriptions, to which we shall presently refer, but also in the references to be found in Heb. literature. The dark water-depth was represented as a dragon or serpent, and was called by various names. Images were formed of it* (E.1C 20^). Sometimes it is called Rahnb, a dragon which entered into conflict with J" and was destroyed by Him (Is SI*"-, Job 2&-<'-). At other time." it is named Leviathani (Job 41, cf. Ps 74""''), or again it is simply called the 'serpent' (Am 9^- •).
IV. We shall now proceed to quote from those Sem. cosmogonies, which should be brought into comparison with the Heb. narrative. Since the Hebrews were Semites, and were nurtured from a common stock of ancient Sem. inheritance, both as to beliefs and usages, such a comparison will be fertile of results.
(A) The Phanictan cosmogony has come down to us in a very fragmentary and dubious condition. It is contained in the Prceparatio Evangelica of Eusebius (I. chs. ii. x. and IV. ch. xvi.). He obtained his materials from the 0oi>'i»n} laropla of Philo Byblius. According to Eusebius, i. 6, as well as Porphyry, Philo of Byblus translated these frag- ments from a Phcen. original by Sanchuniathon. It is not possible for us to enter into the discussion respecting Sanchuniathon. (It will be sutiicient to refer the reader to Baudissin's elaborate essay in his Studien zur Sem. Jieligiongeschichte, i. pp. 1-46, where references to the literature on this subject are fully given. ) We shall content ourselves with citing in summarized form the Phcen. cosmogony so far as it can be intelligibly presented from the obscure pages of Eusebius.