• How widespread this conception was of a primeval rending afunder of sky and earth Into an upper and lower half may be gathered from the New Zealand Maori myth quoted in Tylor, Prim, Cuiture, 1. 32'.! IT. This feature, we are told, is *a far- spread Polynesian legend.'
(cf. Schrader, COT i. pp. 43 ff., 52-r)5). This problem of the relation of the Bab. epic to Gn 1 lias recently been made the subject of a search- ing investigation by Gunkel, Scliopf. u. Chaos,' from which quotation has already been made. This writer does full justice to the glaring con- trasts. In the Bab. epic we have wild, grotesque, tumultuous mythology expressed in poetic form. In the biblical account we have serene majestic calm and sober prose. In the one, the gods rise into being in the course of the drama. In the other, God pre-exists and remains from the first the creative source whose command summons each new order of created things into existence.
Yet the parallels are as remarkable aa the con- trasts. For (1) in both the world at the beginning consists of water and darkness. (2) The Tehftm of the 2nd verse is the Babylonian Tidmtu (Tiamat).
(3) God divides the primal waters by means of the firmament into two parts. This feature corre- sponds to the episode in the 4th tablet of the creation epic (lines 137ff. in Fried. Delitzsch's version)—
* He cleft her (Tiftmat) like a fish ... in two halves. From the one half he made and covered the heaven : He drew a barrier, placed sentinels, Ck)mmanded them not to let its waters through.'
(4) In Gn 1 light arises before the creation of the heavenly bodies. Also in the Bab. myth we may suppose that light appeared before the coming of Marduk the youngest of the gods, since light be- longs to the essence of the 'upper gods.' (5) The creation of sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day may be placed parallel with the creation of the heavenly bodies by Marduk, recorded in the 5th creation tablet, special mention being made of the moon-god (Nannaru) as ruler of the night (lines 12tJ'. in Fried. Delitzsch's ed.). (6) God beholds all, and calls it good. Compare the hymn of praise to Marduk (already quoted) at the conclusion of the Bab. epic. (7) Creation of the beasts of the field, wild animals, and creeping things is also found on a fragment (copied in cuneiform by Delitzsch, Assj/i: Lesest.'), but it is not certain whether it belongs to the same Creation Epic Series above quoted. (8) Lastly, the seventh day, or Sabbath of divine rest, is essentially of Bao. origin. See Schrader, COT i. p. 1811. ; Sayce, Expos. Times, March 1896, p. 204.
It has been forcibly argued by Gunkel that the Bab. creation myth, involving a conflict between Tiftmat, the dragon of chaotic darkness, and Marduk, the god of light and order, had influenced Israel Ion" before the Exile period. It is true that passages Tike Is SI""- (where Kahab the dragon is a reminiscence of TiAniat) belong to the Exile period, and Cheyne thinks ' there is suflicient evi- dence that there was a great revival of the mytho- logic spirit among the Jews in the Bab. and "Pers. periods, and it is very possible that the old myths assumed more definite forms through the direct and indirect influence of Babylonia.' t On the other hand, it must be remembered that Jer 4^"'* (cf. 5'^-) is a genuine proiluct of the 7th cent. (cf. Cornill's ed. in SJiO'J'), and this nii|iarently reflects the same tradition of J"'s conflict with watery chaos (an idea which we also meet in Nah 1*), while the reference in Am ff' to the serpent at the bottom of the ocean belongs to the 8lh cent., and the brazen sea of Solomon's temple ( I K 7"*'"), with it-s twelve supporting oxen, carries us back to the loth. This last was evidently ba.sed on the apst or ocean-abysses of the temples of Marduk.^ (Cf. Schra<ier, JilB iiL 1, pp. 13, 143, and footnotes.)
• See the discriminating review of this work by Prot Oheyns In Cn(. Jiev. July 1805. t CHI. Hen. ih. p. 2«). I Cf. Sayce, Jixpo: Timu, March ISIKI, p. 2«4.
506
COSMOGONY
COSMOGONY
These facts, as well as the features in the Jah- wistic narrative above referred to, justify us in seeking a much earlier period than the Exile for the original adoption by primitive Israel of the elements of Bab. tradition. The most probable theory is that these influences found their way into Palestine, together with certain features of Bab. civilization (including measures of weight and money) some time before B.C. 1450 (the age of the Tel el-Amama inscr.), and along this path passed ultimately into the possession of ancient Israel, and became assimilated into their stock of intel- lectual possessions. It then became, in the course of centuries, gradually modified and stripped of its mythological features. In Gn 1' we have it in the purified Judaic form. There ia a complete obliteration of the polytheistic elements of the genesis of the gods, and the titanic struggle be- tween Ti&mat and Marduk, which preceded the creative process in the Bab. myth. On the other hand, it contains certain features which clearly reveal a primitive Bab. type. Driver {Guardian, July 29, 1896) accurately states the true relation of the biblical to the Bab. cosmogony when he says : ' The narrative of Gn 1 comes at the end of a long process of gradual elimination of heathen elements, and of gradual assimilation to the purer teachings of Israelitish theology, carried on under the spiritual influences of the religion of Israel.'