The Christian View of the Old Testament Part 9
The spirit permeating the two systems is one of humaneness and kindness. Hammurabi describes himself as a shepherd chosen by the G.o.ds to care for his people, to lead them into safe pastures and to make them dwell in peace and security. He compiled the code, "that the great should not oppress the weak; to counsel the widow and orphan, to render judgment and to decide the decisions of the land, and to succor the injured." This is the same spirit that permeates the Pentateuchal legislation.
The picture at the head of the code, representing Hammurabi standing before the sun-G.o.d Shamash, "the supreme judge of heaven and earth," is very suggestive, for it reminds one of the narrative in Exodus which represents Moses as receiving the Hebrew laws directly from Jehovah.
Certainly, there are also differences between the two systems; and this is only what we should expect, since the civilization of Babylon was far in advance of and much more complex than that of the Israelites, even during the period of the latter's highest development. Besides, the lower religious conceptions would inevitably influence the legislation.
{199}
Attention may be called also to some similarities between the Decalogue and certain requirements in Babylonia, the existence of which is implied in an incantation[28] in which these questions are asked: Has he broken into the house of his neighbor? Has he approached the wife of his neighbor? Has he spilled the blood of his neighbor? Has he grasped the garment of his neighbor? These questions would seem to imply the existence of laws like these: Thou shalt not break into the house of thy neighbor; Thou shalt not approach the wife of thy neighbor; Thou shalt not spill the blood of thy neighbor; Thou shalt not grasp the garment of thy neighbor.
In view of all these similarities, the question naturally arises whether the Babylonian legal system exerted any influence upon the lawmakers of the Hebrews, for the resemblances are too close to be explained entirely on the basis of coincidence. Those who admit some relation between the two legislations are not in agreement as to the nature of the connection. Some hold that there is direct dependence; that the author or authors of the laws of the Pentateuch was or were acquainted with the laws of Hammurabi, and made these laws the basis of the Hebrew legislative system. The possibility of such dependence cannot be denied. Surely, an acquaintance with the Code of Hammurabi in the Arabian {200} desert or in Palestine at the time of the exodus or later cannot appear strange in view of the evidence of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, showing that some time before the exodus intercourse between Babylon and the West was frequent; that religious, political, and literary influence was widespread, and that the language of Babylon was the _lingua franca_ throughout Canaan. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the parallels and a.n.a.logies between the two codes are due to the common Semitic origin of the two systems. The Babylonians and the Hebrews were Semites, originally dwelling in a common home. When they left this home they carried with them their common traditions, laws, customs, and practices. In their new homes they developed them and impressed upon them their own individuality. The result among the Hebrews, determined in a large measure by their peculiar religion, is seen in the legislation of the Pentateuch, while the outcome in Babylon is best represented by the Code of Hammurabi.
Which of these two explanations is correct it may be impossible to say with absolute certainty. To me it seems that both contain elements of truth. Sometimes the one, sometimes the other may be correct, while in other cases the similarities may be due to coincidence. In any case, the value of the Pentateuchal legislation remains {201} unaffected, for it depends, not upon its origin or process of growth, but, rather, upon its inherent spirit and character.
Attention may further be called to the existence in Babylonia of stories showing almost startling resemblances to the accounts of the creation of the world, of the origin of man and of sin, of a Deluge, and other narratives contained in the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis. Several distinct creation stories, originating in different religious centers, have been handed down. The most remarkable of these, called _Enuma elish_ (when above), from its opening words, has been deciphered from tablets found in the library of Ashurbanipal in the ruins of Nineveh. These tablets represent a copy made in the seventh century B.C. The time of the composition, or compilation of the story, is not known. However, pictorial representations of some of the scenes in the epic, and allusions in other literary productions whose dates can be fixed, make it certain that the story, or at least the most important component elements of the story, existed before B.C. 2000. In its present form it belongs to a period later than the elevation of Babylon to be the national center, which took place under Hammurabi, about B.C. 2000, for the chief place is a.s.signed to Marduk, the G.o.d of Babylon.[29]
Echoes of this story are found in several Old {202} Testament pa.s.sages, especially in the poetic and prophetic writings. In these Jehovah is represented as having contended with a great primeval monster, called in some pa.s.sages Rahab, in others Leviathan, or Dragon. This being seems to symbolize chaos, or to personify the primeval ocean, which existed when the process of creation began. In the conflict between Jehovah and this monster the hostile creature and its helpers were overthrown, after which the heavens and the earth were created. A few of these pa.s.sages may be quoted:
O Jehovah G.o.d of hosts, Who is a mighty one, like unto thee, O Jehovah?
And thy faithfulness is round about thee.
Thou rulest the pride of the sea: When the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them.
_Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain;_ _Thou hast scattered thine enemies with the arm of thy strength._ The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: The world and the fullness thereof, thou hast founded them, The north and the south, thou hast created them (Psa. 89. 8-12).
Rahab is a reflection of the Babylonian Tiamat; Jehovah takes the place of the Babylonian G.o.d, Marduk, the conqueror of Tiamat; the _enemies_ are the _helpers_ of Tiamat mentioned in the Babylonian poem. The order of events is the same in the two accounts: first the conflict, then creation.
He stirreth up the sea with his power, And by his understanding _he smiteth through Rahab._
{203}
By his Spirit the heavens are garnished; _His hand hath pierced the swift serpent_ (Job 26. 12, 13).
G.o.d will not withdraw his anger; _The helpers of Rahab do stoop under him_ (Job 9. 13).
Yet G.o.d is my King of old, Working salvation in the midst of the earth.
Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: _Thou brakest the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters._ _Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces;_ Thou gavest him to be food to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
Thou didst cleave fountain and flood: Thou driedst up mighty rivers.
The day is thine, the night also is thine: Thou hast prepared the light and the sun.
Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: Thou hast made summer and winter (Psa. 74. 12-17).
The similarities between the Babylonian story called _Enuma elish_ and the narrative of creation in Gen. 1 are especially p.r.o.nounced: (1) Both accounts recognize a time when all was chaos. In the Babylonian conception this chaos is personified in Tiamat; in Gen. 1. 2 occurs the word _tehom_, translated "deep," which is the same as Tiamat, changed but slightly in pa.s.sing from one language to the other. (2) In Genesis light dispels darkness and order follows; in the Babylonian account, Marduk, the G.o.d of light, overcomes the demon of chaos and darkness.
(3) The second act of creation is the making of the firmament, which "divided the waters which were under the {204} firmament from the waters which were above the firmament" (Gen. 1. 6-8); in the Babylonian poem the body of Tiamat is divided and one half becomes the firmament to keep the heavenly waters in place. (4) The third and fourth acts of creation in the Hebrew story are the creation of earth and the beginning of vegetation (Gen. 1. 9-13); the corresponding Babylonian story has been lost, but it seems quite probable that these acts were described in the same order on the fifth tablet. Berosus, in his summary of the Babylonian account, says that Bel formed the earth out of one half of Omorka's body--Omorka is probably a corruption of _Ummu-Khubur_, a t.i.tle of Tiamat--and as in every instance where the narrative of Berosus has been tested it has proved to be correct, we may a.s.sume that in this also he gives a correct reproduction of the Babylonian tradition. Moreover, at the beginning of the seventh tablet Marduk is hailed as "bestower of fruitfulness," "founder of agriculture," "creator of grain and plants," he "who caused the green herb to spring up." (5) The fifth act of creation is the making of the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1. 14-19). With this the Babylonian parallel shows close similarities, for it states that Marduk
Made the stations for the great G.o.ds, The stars, their images, as the constellations he fixed, He ordained the year, marked off its divisions.[30]
{205}
(6) The sixth and seventh acts of creation were the creation of fishes and birds and of land animals (Gen. 1. 20-25): the Babylonian parallels in _Enuma elish_ are wanting at present; but Berosus hints that they were created at the same time as man, so that it is probable that the account of these acts of creation appeared somewhere in the lost portions of the fifth or sixth tablet. From allusions in other writings we learn that Marduk was looked upon as the creator of the animals and other living creatures of the field. (7) The eighth act of creation, that of man (Gen. 1. 26-31), finds its parallel upon the sixth tablet:
When Marduk heard the word of the G.o.ds His heart moved him and he devised a cunning plan.
He opened his mouth and unto Ea he spoke, That which he had conceived in his heart he made known unto him.
"My blood will I take and bone will I fashion, I shall make man that man may ...
I shall create man, who shall inhabit the earth, That the service of the G.o.ds may be established and that their shrines may be built."[31]
In order to estimate rightly the relations between the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts the differences between the two must also be noted. To begin with, the order of the separate acts of creation is not quite the same. For example, in the Babylonian account, the creation of the heavenly bodies follows immediately upon the {206} making of the firmament, while in the Hebrew story it follows the making of the earth and the springing up of vegetation. Certainly, this difference is of no special significance, and the change may easily be explained as due to the desire of the Hebrew writer to crowd the creative acts into the six working days of the week. The real difference is more fundamental and appears especially in the conception of the nature and character of Deity. The Babylonian story opens with these words:
When above the heaven was not named And beneath the earth bore no name, And the primeval Apsu, who begat them, And Mummu-Tiamat, the mother of them all-- Their waters were mingled together, And no reed was formed, no marsh seen, _When no one of the G.o.ds had been called into being,_ [And] none bore a name, and no destinies [were fixed], _Then were created the G.o.ds in the midst of_ [_heaven_].
Compare with this the simple, yet majestic, conception, "In the beginning G.o.d created the heavens and the earth." In one case many G.o.ds, in the other one G.o.d almighty; in one case the G.o.ds are a part of the process of creation, in the other the uncreated G.o.d is in the beginning. Genesis presents G.o.d as almighty, but also as kind, beneficent, loving; Marduk, the Babylonian creator, is represented as a great hero, but exceedingly selfish. He undertakes the mighty task of {207} overcoming Tiamat only after making arrangements for a suitable reward. The description of the heavenly banquet scene, to which reference has been made earlier in the chapter, implies a conception of the character of the G.o.ds which is separated by an impa.s.sable gulf from the Old Testament ideal.
No one can read with an unbiased mind the two accounts without realizing the great differences between the mythological, polytheistic account of the Babylonians and the simple, solemn, sublime, monotheistic picture in Genesis. The soberness, the dignity, the simplicity of the Hebrew account lift it far above its Babylonian counterpart. From it the crude nature myths have all been stripped away. No drunken G.o.ds hold revels in its solemn lines. Above and behind and in all is one righteous and beneficent G.o.d. In this sublime ethical monotheism the Hebrew story rises infinitely above the story that originated in the Euphrates-Tigris valley.
Another Babylonian tradition, the close relation of which to the biblical account has long been recognized, is the story of the Deluge.
In its cuneiform text it was first discovered on fragments of tablets brought from the library of Ashurbanipal. But that the Babylonians possessed a story of the Flood was known before from an outline preserved by Berosus. The tradition brought to {208} light by archaeology forms an episode in an epic which narrates the exploits of Gilgamesh and occupies the eleventh of the twelve parts into which the epic is divided. Gilgamesh sprang from a city, Shurippak, which afterward completely disappeared. He became king of Erech, where he ruled as a tyrant until the G.o.ds created Ea-bani to destroy him. The two, however, became bosom friends. Together they delivered Erech from the Elamite oppressor, Khumbaba. Ishtar, the G.o.ddess of love, then offered her hand to Gilgamesh in marriage, which he spurned with scorn.
Out of revenge, she sent a scorpion, whose sting proved fatal to Ea-bani. Gilgamesh himself she smote with an incurable disease. To find relief, the latter set out for the dwelling place of his great-grandfather, Ut-napishtim, far away on the isles of the blessed.
When he finally reaches him the latter tells him all about the great Flood from which he escaped to enjoy eternal life.[32]
The most striking resemblances between the Babylonian and Hebrew stories of the Flood may now be noted: (1) Compare the instruction given by G.o.d to Noah (Gen. 6. 13-22) with the words addressed by the G.o.d Ea to Ut-napishtim:
O man of Shurippak, son of Ubaratutu, Pull down thy house, build a ship, Leave thy possessions, take thought for thy life,
{209}
Thy property abandon, save thy life, Bring living seed of every kind into the ship.
The ship that thou shalt build, So shall be the measure of its dimensions, Thus shall correspond its breadth and height, Into the ocean let it fare.[33]
(2) In both accounts the destruction is due to sin. This is definitely stated in Gen. 6. 5-7. For the Babylonian story it is implied in the rebuke given to Bel by Ea:
On the sinner lay his sin, On the transgressor lay his transgression.
Forbear, let not all be destroyed.[34]
(3) In both accounts, only a seed of life sufficient to replenish the earth is saved. Compare Gen. 6. 19, 20 with the command, "Bring living seed of every kind into the ship," or with the statement:
I brought into the ship my family and household; The cattle of the field, the beasts of the field, craftsmen, all of them I brought in.[35]
(4) Both stories tell of a great storm and deluge of water. Gen. 7. 11 reads, "The fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights." Compare with this:
The dawning of that day I feared, I feared to behold that day.
I entered the ship and closed the door.
When the first flush of dawn appeared There came up from the horizon a black cloud.
{210}
Adad thundered within it, While Nabu and Marduk went before.
They go as messengers over mountain and valley.
Nergal bore away the anchor.
Ninib advances, the storm he makes to descend.
The Anunaki lifted up their torches, With their brightness they light up the land.