Creation's dawn

Preface

The early chapters of Genesis have been the subject of numberless commentaries and systems of interpretation. As knowledge has advanced, and our conceptions of the ancient world have changed, new interpretations have been put forward ; some plausible, some the reverse. But there is always room for a fresh theory, when backed by originahty and learning.

Hence, I venture to hope that the author of the present book will find a hearing in the world of letters.

His views, at any rate, lack neither originality nor daring.

Starting with the same fact as that on which the so-called Higher Criticism is built, he has a new explanation to give of the varying use of the Divine names — Elohim and Yahveh. They are not the names of one and the same divinity, but of two separate Gods.

A

Preface

The Creations described in the first two chapters of Genesis are the work of different deities, not diverse forms of a cosmological system which is ascribed by the Biblical writer to the same God.

Elohim creates the Pre-Adamite ; Adam and his descendants, are the creation of Yahveh.

Up to the creation of man, the two Gods had worked together, until Elohim’s exhortation to Yahveh : “ Let us create Man in our image.”

The Pre-Adamite was made in the image of Elohim, but without a soul ; the endowment of Adam with a soul was reserved for a later day.

The “ soulless ” Pre- Adamite was given dominion over all previously existing organisms, and like them was bidden to increase and multiply ; for the “ soul-endowed ” Adam a new flora of higher type was introduced into the world.

But between the two Gods, there was neither hostility nor opposition.

It was Elohim who had told Eve not to touch the Tree of Knowledge, and Enoch and Noah are alike said to have“ walked with ” Him.

The mixture of the two races was, however, contrary to the designs of Yahveh ; Adam had been

Preface

created expressly in order that there might be a race of men into whom a “ soul ” had been breathed.

Hence the marriages of Cain with a “ soulless ” Pre- Adamite, and of the “ Sons of Elohim ” with the “ Daughters of Adam ” was directly opposed to the will of Yahveh, and was the reason assigned by Him for the destruction of mankind by the Flood. The reason assigned by Elohim is different ; it is that the animal creation had been acting against the Divine law, “ each after his kind,” and so corrupting their way upon earth.

The Commands given to Noah to take “ Two of a kind ” and then “ Seven of a kind ” into the Ark, are the commands of different Gods.

An answer to the old question : “ Who was

Cain’s wife ? ” and “ Who were the inhabitants of the Land of Nod ” whom Cain feared might kill him ? has been found before in the theory of a Pre-Adamite man. But, so far as I know, this is the first time that the writer of Genesis has been held to denote two different deities under the names of “ Elohim ” and “ Yahveh.”

That the use of the plural pronoun in Chapter i. Verse 26, is no example of a “ Pluralis Majestatis ”

Preface

seems undoubted ; if it were so, we should find Elohim speaking elsewhere of himself in the plural instead of the singular.

But the theory that the deluge is represented by a “ Gap ” which occurs in the monumental history of Babylonia after the Age of Sargon of Akkad, and in that of Egypt after the fall of the Sixth Dynasty, stands on a different footing. Assyriologists are harder to convince than Biblical scholars.

A. H. Sayce

Dahlia Istar, Egypt

25M November 1907

Chapter I

The Creation of the Universe . . . .

The Creation of the Universe. Fact or Myth ? — ^The TWO Creations of Man — The Semitic-Babylonian Religion — The Preface to the Christian Bible borrowed from the Semitic- Babylonian Literature. The Universal Deluge — Statements of the First Chapter of Genesis.

CHAPTER II The Two Creations

The TWO Creations, and the two Gods — The names “ Elohim ” and “ Yahveh Elohim ” never interchangeable — The Differences between “ Pre- Adamite ” Man and Adam — Chronological Difference between the Two Creations — Existence of “ Pre-Adamite ” Race — The “ Sons of God.”

SO

Contents

Chapter V

Yahveh’s Reasons for bringing about a Deluge — Elohim’s Reasons — Elohim’s commands to Noah. Yahveh’s commands to Noah — The Pre-Adamites in the Ark, and Proofs that they came out of the Ark — Proofs of a Deluge by means of a “ Gap ” in the History of Babylonia, also a “Gap” in the History of Egypt — Other “ Deluge Histories.”

Chapter I

1. The Creation of the Universe. Fact or Myth ?

2. The TWO Creations of Man.

3. The Semitic-Babylonian Religion.

4. The Preface to the Christian Bible borrowed from the

Semitic-Babylonian Literature.

5. The Universal Deluge.

6. Statements of the First Chapter of Genesis.

The Biblical Creation Narrative, as detailed in the first two Chapters of Genesis, has formed the basis of endless discussion and controversy. Theologians have passionately maintained these records to be inspired — and therefore literally true — whilst Scientists, on the other hand, have pertinaciously endeavoured to prove them utterly unworthy of credit. During the past half-century Science has advanced, especially with regard to Geology, and the strata of the Earth have been laid bare, exposing the layers of the earth’s crust which contain the fossilised remains of organic life.

Evolution has formulated its Laws with regard to the period at which this organic life came into existence, and Scientists have come to the con-

II elusion that Man — ^the first Man — ^must have been in existence more than 6000 years ago, thereby disproving the Biblical inference that Adam was the first man ever created, b.c. 4000.*

Past commentators have failed to bring any fight to bear upon the Creation which would tend to render obscure passages clear, but this version explains at once the origin from whence the wife of Cain was obtained.

It accounts for the presence of Man on the earth before b.c. 4000.

It explains the terms “ The Sons of God,” and “ The Daughters of Men.”

It elucidates the seeming contradictory commands given to Noah, to take “ two of a kind,” and to “ take SEVEN of a kind ” into the Ark with him.

To be brief, it clears up all former difficult points, and explains discrepancies connected with these Chapters, which, after aU, are not discrepancies at all.

The purport of this book is to bring before the public an entirely new conception of the Biblical Creation, and of the Deluge.

The main points which it will endeavour to prove are :

(a) That the Biblical Narrative of the Creation has been misread from its beginning, and that instead of there having been but one Creation of Man there have been two Creations — the Pre-Adamite and the Adamite.

* The Hebrew reckoning is used throughout this book.

(&) That as we repeat in our Nicene Creed : “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in the Holy Ghost,” that these Two Gods are separate deities, and that They took part in the Creation and in the deluge under the names “ Elohim ” and “ Yahveh Elohim ” or “ Yahveh.”

(c) That “Elohim” (God) created Pre-Adamite Man, and “Yahveh Elohim” (The Lord) created Adam.

{d) That the Universal Deluge is a fact, and that it can be substantiated as such, by the proofs of a “ Gap ” in the history of Babylonia, as well as in the History of Egypt.

This book is not written to challenge Scientists, but to set down in plain language the result of several years’ careful study of the Biblical Creation and of the Deluge, the effect of which tends to show that these records are true.

Archaeology has also joined the ranks, and its discoveries have indubitably showm that Man existed prior to b.c. 4000 ; for there are in the British Museum records of Sargon I. of Agade, which, according to the information given on the cylinder of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, b.c. 556-539, state that Sargon ruled 3200 years before Nabonidus.

' This would bring the reign of Sargon to about B.c. 3800. Before the reign of Sargon we have the names of a considerable number of Sumerian Kings, and although we have no record of the lengths of their reigns, yet the fact of their having possessed the art of writing their complex cuneiform script, presupposes a long antecedent existence.

It would therefore seem, at the very outset, the lie direct could be given to the usual impression that the Biblical Narrative assumes, that Man — the first Man — came into existence about 4000 b.c.

The matter, however, becomes easy of explanation if we allow that the Biblical Narrative has been misread.

Adam was created at, or about, 4000 b.c., but we have ample evidence that the Biblical Narrative in Genesis has never intended to assume that Adam was the first man. In fact, it has stated that before Adam came into existence there was .another race of men, who had been created anteriorly to Adam — the Pre-Adamites — and who differed entirely in many essential respects from the Adamites.

This statement can be amply verified, both in the Bible itself, and in the cuneiform writings which exist, and are in the British, and other museums.

If this can be proved to be a fact — viz. that the Bible states that man existed before Adam — one of the great drawbacks to the belief in the Biblical Narrative of the Creation will be swept away, and it will open the field of research to prove whether the Universal Deluge may also have a possibility of actuality.

The Old Testament is purely and simply a record of Adam and his descendants — what they said, and what they did ; and it differs from other histories in this respect, that, as Adam was the special creation of Yahveh (the Lord God), we have records of both Yahveh’s and Elohim’s conversations, and doings, with respect to their Creations. The first two Chapters, however, are different in kind, and in matter, to the histories of other Nations, for we have in these Chapters the record of events which took place from the very beginning of the formation of matter, and which records go on in a sequential order.

We may therefore state, that the first two Chapters of Genesis are the exposition of the “genesis,” or of the Creation ; and the remainder is the sequential narrative of the descendants of one Man — Adam. The first Chapter in itself comprises aeons of time, and the term “ Day ” can in no wise be taken to mean a “ day ” of twenty -four hours, for until the fourth “ day ” the sun — which is our means of measuring time — ^was non-existent according to Genesis, and therefore the word “ Day ” could not mean a twenty-four-hour day, for the first three periods of the Creation.

That the term “ day ” is very loosely used can be seen on referring to Chapter ii. verse 4. “ These

are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the ‘ Day,’ that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Here we have the whole of the heavens and the earth expressed as being created in one day, and not in six days, although, on the other hand, this expression is but a repetition of the first Verse of the first

Chapter : “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.” The period of time, therefore, which may be taken to express the term “ Day ” is entirely unknown, and can at the very best be but purely conjectural.

There is, however, one “ Day ” which, both biblically and geologically, is synchronous, and that is the second part of the third “ Day,” for in that “ Day ” plant life is stated to have been first created, and therefore we have some basis to go upon with reference to the hmitations of time in regard to the Biblical Creation, and as to the appearance of the first plant life on this globe.

If the Geologist can definitely state in terms of years the precise date of the appearance of the first plant life, the Biblist will have a better chance of defining the term “ day,” for the Creation of plant life comes in as a half-way limit to the six “ Days ” of the Creation.

The Bible, however, is not the only Book which contains a record of the Creation, for the Bible does not pretend to be more than it is, and it cannot be too clearly understood that the Bible is “ Adam’s descendants’ ” Book, and theirs alone.

The other records which exist are the records of that other race — the Pre-Adamites — so totally different from Adam’s race, and their records can be seen in the British Museum, impressed on the clay tablets which were unearthed by the late Mr George Smith and others, and are thought by some to have

i6 been the original tablets from which our Bible borrowed its cosmogony.

Adam and his descendants were Semitic Babylonians.

The Pre-Adamites and their descendants were Akkado Sumerians, Pre-Dynastic Egyptians, in fact they were the peoples who were in existence before B.c. 4000 — the date at which Adam came into existence.

That these Pre-Adamites were a great people, an artistic people, a people well versed in the art of weaving so as to be able to make tents, and who knew the art of metallurgy, so as to be able to excel in brass and iron work, who also could make and play on instruments of music, is stated in the fourth Chapter of Genesis, and these were the people from whence Cain obtained his wife.

When Adam was young these Pre-Adamites could then boast of a remote past.

If we wish to learn the History of the Pre- Adamites we shall find but a very scanty allusion to them in our Bible, for this Bible is not their recording medium, and we shall have to search the tablets in our museums, and dig into the tumuli of Babylonia and Egypt, to recover the fragmentary records of that long-forgotten race.

Therefore, before the time of Adam, we shall find records of Sumerian, Akkadian, and Akkado Sumerian peoples, with monumental evidences of a high state of civilisation, and yet this evidence in no wise condemns the Biblical Record of un veracity, on the other hand it tends to confirm its hitherto hidden truths.

Although we have records of Sumerian Kings having reigned before b.c. 3800, we have no record of Semitic Kings before that date, a fact which would tend to support the Biblical Narrative, for it is from Adam that the Semitic race originated.

The name Naram-Sin (the son of Sargon of Agade) indicates that its possessor was a Semite, and consequently that the Semitic Babylonian language was used in his time, and therefore it becomes quite a possibility that, at no distant date, we may be in possession of those ancient Semitic records, written in the cuneiform character, which would correspond to the Biblical Narrative of the Creation in the original.

The Semitic Babylonians were a Race entirely separate from the Akkadians and Akkado Sumerians, with whom they lived side by side.

They possessed a language of their own, which was understood by the Akkado Sumerians, and the tablets which we have give translations of Akkado Sumerian into Semitic Babylonian.

The Semitic Babylonians also possessed a religious belief of their own, and the Semitic Religion — or the Hebrew Religion — exists to the present day as a monotheistic one. It has survived the mutations of time, the fall of Dynasties, the Rule of Empires and whilst other contemporaneous beliefs have perished, it now stands prominently as the Preface to our Christian Bible, upon which the Christian Faith is based.

All this is more remarkable, for whilst the Semitic Religion survives, the Jewish race has for over 2000 years possessed no country of its own, no head, and no constitution ; but on the other hand it has existed a hunted and reviled race, with this Book — the Bible — as the sole remaining record, to preface the belief of another people.

However, at no period of its existence has the Jewish Church ever argued that the initial pages of the Old Testament contained “ Allegorical ” or “ Mythical ” fables, but they have ever affirmed with pertinacity that the record is literally and verbally true ; a statement which some of the authorities of the Christian Church have denied.

If Scientists and Theologians have asserted that the Biblical Creation is mere “ Allegory ” and “ Myth,” they have with more certainty affirmed that the universal Deluge is also to be allocated to the land of “ Fairy Tales.”

Scientists are more certain of this on account of the Theory of the “ laying down ” of the strata of the earth in their sequential chronological order.

Prof. Adam Sedgwick, the great authority on the earth’s strata, the one who formulated laws governing this theory, has however said : “ When the Biblical account of the Creation is thoroughly understood, I have no doubt that it will be in accord with Geology.”

That this statement wUl be amply verified, time alone will show, but it will be found that the Universal Deluge has played a most important part in the order of stratification of the earth’s crust, and that the different layers owe their superposition — not to the hand of time alone — ^but to the potent agency of this mighty cataclysm.

Be this as it may, it still remains an indubitable fact that, however mildly one may accept the supposed veracity of the Biblical Creation, yet the statement that the Universal Deluge is a fact would rouse nothing more than ridicule in those who have ever read Geological works with any small amount of understanding.

Yet the actuality of this Universal Deluge can be maintained from historical evidence ; for, as we know — at the period at which the Flood is supposed to have taken place, about b.c. 2348 — ^there was a teeming population both in Babylonia, and in Egypt ; both these nations possessed documents and monuments before and after that date, and the languages of both of these countries can now be easily deciphered.

It therefore follows that, if there was a Universal Flood, there must be historical evidences of such, for if the whole of the population of these countries was swept away, and finally both Babylonia and Egypt were repopulated from those who were in the Ark, there must be distinct evidences of “ Gaps.” in the sequential histories of these Nations. For instance, if Babylonia had been (previous to the Flood) governed by Akkadians, and those in the Ark were Semitic Babylonians, the latter must leave an indication of their having succeeded the Akkadians by unmistakable evidences of change of Dynasty, of Language, of Religion, of Monumentary and Documentary exemplifications, and these changes must be sweeping and complete.

However, as this change came about by a convulsion of nature, and not by means of conquest, we shall have this radical houleversement without any monumental or documental evidences of there having been any great battle, or series of engagements.

If, as well, we have the same condition of things obtaining in Egypt, we are bound to come to the conclusion that such a great mutation must have been fairly widespread to account for a country so far distant having been subjected to the same sweeping ordeal.

However, as Egypt is far distant from the seat of repopulation, a much greater lapse of time must have taken place before Egypt became repopulated than the time which must have elapsed before Babylonia became so.

With regard to the Scientific portion of the question of the Creation, it is necessary to see whether the statements of the first Chapter of

B

Genesis have any basis to go upon to account for the Creation of the Earth and of the Universe, as it is therein stated.

Present-day Science gives a very different origination of inorganic matter from that of the Biblical record.

La Place’s theory bases its assumption of the origination of our solar system on the premise that the Sun was the originator of all the planetary bodies of our System ; whereas the Bible assumes that the earth existed “ three days ” before our luminary came into existence.

Geology and Palaeontology give a different sequential order of events (as to the coming into existence of the different organic beings which inhabited and now inhabit our planet) from that given by the Biblical record, but it is open to argument whether the Bible has not as much right to state its case plainly as to its Creations ais both Geology and Palaeontology.

The difference between the Bible and Science is, that the statements of the one are immutable ; whereas in Science the “ truth ” of to-day, may become refuted by the discovery of to-morrow.

The Bible must stand or fall by its own assertions.

In the first Chapter of Genesis it is stated that the Creation took six periods of time, which are called “ Days.” As the Sun was not supposed to have been created until the fourth “ day ” it becomes evident that each “ day ” could not have been measured by that standard which limits our day of twenty-four hours.

This is plainly shown in the Chapter ii. verse 4 : “ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.”

Here the time taken up for the whole of the Creation is called one “day.” In the second Chapter of Genesis, we come to an entirely different Creation of Man, of vegetable life, of beasts of the field, and of fowl of the air, and finally we come to the last of all the Creations, Woman.

Posteriorly to these events, there was a Universal Deluge, the data being given so accurately, the date at which it commenced and at which it ended being so precisely stated, that there cannot be any doubt about the fact, that it WcLS intended to convey the idea that it was actuality and not fable or myth.

Either this Universal Deluge did take place, or it did not.

It is also stated that the world was repopulated from a place in Armenia shortly after the Deluge, and the details of the descendants of Noah are accurately given, together with the land which they occupied, so that no mistake can be made as to this having been stated as fact and not as allegory.

Either the world was repopulated from this spot in Armenia, or it was not.

If in those early days men had been ignorant unlettered savages, it might be allowed that these stories were told to teach certain lessons, or to announce in mythical language certain facts. We have, however, proofs that this was not so.

In the time of Sargon I. of Agade men wrote in the cuneiform script on clay tablets, of which we have scores and hundreds in our museums.* The cuneiform syllabary consists of nearly 500 different characters, each of which has at least two different phonetic values.

In addition each character may be used ideographically to denote an object or idea. But this is not all. The cuneiform script was invented by the primitive population of Chaldea, who spoke, not a Semitic, but an agglutinative language, and in passing to the Semitic Babylonians not only did the Pre- Semitic words denoted by the single characters become phonetic values, but words denoted by two or more characters became compound ideographs, the characters in combination representing a Semitic word, the syllables of which had no relation whatever to the phonetic values of the separate characters which composed it. It thus became necessary for the learner not only to commit to memory the actual syllabary, but also the hundreds of compound ideographs which existed by the side of it.

If we examine the Biblical Record, we shall see how accurate the writer was, in recording the ages of each of Adam’s descendants. As a rule, it is only the descendants of the eldest son who are

* Prof. Sayco.

named and the genealogical table is carefully preserved.

There are two conclusions at which we can arrive :

1. The Biblical records of the Creation and the Flood are untrue, in substance and in fact, being simply the fabrication of Man ; or,

2. They are literally true records of the events which have taken place, exactly as they are written.

If the first conclusion is accepted then the Bible may be dismissed as an interesting but unveracious relic of a bygone literature. If the second be accepted, the Bible must be taken as an inspired Book, for the events recorded in the first two Chapters of Genesis are events which no mortal man could have witnessed, or could have obtained knowledge of, except by means of a revelation to the original chronicler by the Creator Himself.

Chapter II

1. The TWO Creations, and the two Gods.

2. The names "Elohim” and “ Yahveh Elohim’’ never inter-

changeable.

3. The Difference between " Pre- Adamite ” Man and Adam.

4. Chronological Difference between the Two Creations.

5. Existence of the “ Pre- Adamite ” Race.

6. The “ Sons of God.”

The first great point of difference between the first and second Chapters of Genesis is that we find there are two different names given for “ God.”

In the first Chapter the name “ Elohim ” stands for God, and in the second Chapter we find the name “ Yahveh Elohim,” which stands for the Lord God.

Dr Jean Astruc, a French medical professor, who founded the modern criticism of the Pentateuch, elaborated a theory, in which he states that two separate authors were responsible for the Pentateuch ; the one who uses the name “ Elohim ” for God is called the “ Elohist,” the other, who uses the name “ Yahveh ” for God, is called the “ Jehovist.”

The “ Elohistic ” and the “Jehovistic” writings became blended together, and hence we get the names “ Elohim ” and “ Yahveh,” which are interchangeable.

This, in short, is Astruc’s theory.

However, the two names “ Elohim ” and “ Yahveh ” were never interchangeable, and no Jew would ever dare to substitute the one name for the other.

The TWO names are distinct, and the one is never substituted for the other. The name “ Elohim ” means “ Mightinesses,” and is the plural for “ Eloah,” The name “ Yahveh ” is the third person singular of the hiphil, or causative conjugation of the verb “ to be,” and “ Yahveh ” means “ He shall cause it to be.”

Endless discussions and criticisms have taken place over the fact that “ God ” is called “ Elohim ” at one place and “ Yahveh ” at another ; and even now critics are undecided as to the real meaning of these two names for “ God.” Certain it is that the true elucidation has never been given, for all explanations fall wide of convincing proofs.

The ONE explanation which has not been given, is that the two names stand for separate Gods — viz. that “ Elohim ” is one God, and that “ Yahveh ” is ANOTHER God.

Subversive as this statement may seem it is however capable of ample verification, and this is precisely what the Bible means when it calls God “ Elohim,” and when it calls the Lord God “ Yahveh Elohim ” or “ Yahveh.”

Upon this theory the “ keynote ” of the

“ Creation ” and of the “ Deluge ” explanations depends.

It may appear at first sight as if it were a reversion to Polytheistic dogma, but if we consider that our “ Credo ” — ^the “ Nicene Creed ” — and the Apostles’ Creed embrace in their teaching the existence of “ God the Father ” and “ The Holy Ghost,” as well as “ Christ ” we shall see that the Creeds are no less Polytheistic than the theory that there are in existence two separate Gods, “ Elohim ” and “ Yahveh.”

Substitute the names “ Elohim ” and “ Yahveh ” for “ God the Father ” and “ The Holy Ghost ” and we stand precisely in the same position as before.

It is the Athanasian Creed, with its belief in a “ Unity in Trinity,” and a “ Trinity in Unity,” which forms the stumbling-block to our belief in the separate entities of Two Gods ; but that Creed is the outcome of Man’s imagination.

As Darwinians have been more Darwinian than Darwin, so the followers of Athanasius have been more Athanasian than Athanasius.

Wherever (in the Chapters with which we are dealling) we find the name “ God ” let us substitute the Hebrew name “ Elohim,” and wherever we find the name “ the Lord God ” let us substitute the Hebrew name “ Yahveh Elohim,” or “ Yahveh.”