The beginnings of history according to the Bible and the traditions of Oriental peoples

Front matter

BoGk.___

Copyright^

COFfRSGHT DEPOSIT.

Introduction

The distinguished scholar, one of whose maturest works is now offered to English readers, is well fitted, both by early training and by later studies, to secure attention to whatever he may write. His father, Charles Lenormant, was an accomplished student and professor of archaeology, and he himself found his native enthusiasm directed into similar channels when he was little more than a boy. At twenty-one he wrote a treatise on a problem in numismatics, which received the prize from the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, in 1857, and from that time on he has devoted himself with restless zeal to investigations in many parts of the wide field of antiquities. His versatility, energy, rapidity in work and retentive memory are alike remarkable. He has been by turns traveler, excavator, essayist, decipherer, grammarian, historian, editor, instructor, and can point to productive labor in all these pursuits. After growing thoroughly familiar with classical antiquities, he was ready, when the science of Assyriology began to attract general attention, to throw himself eagerly into this new department, and soon took his place among the leading Assyriologists. He has been always a prolific writer, and has of late years chosen most often such themes as had some connection with recent discoveries in Mesopotamia. At least two of his books have been translated into English : the Manual of the Ancient History of the East, 2 vols., London and Philadelphia, 1869-70, the original of which was first published, in con-

iii

IV

Introduction.

neetion with E. Chevallier, in 1808-9, and, after beingcrowned by the French Academy, has passed through many editions, — and Chaldccan Magic, London, 1877. He has, besides, frequently written for English periodicals. He is now in his full prime, being about forty-seven years old.

It will be readily seen that Professor Lenormant's wide and long-continued studies fit him in no mean degree for a work like the present, whose value depends largely upon a full collation of the records and legends of ancient peoples, and whose sources of interest to the general reader are so unique. It appeals to a far wider circle than anything he had previously written. The prominent place given, in the title and throughout the book, to the early chapters of the Bible, links this volume with our own private beliefs, and our most fundamental and persistent ideas about society and the human race. But the interest attaching to any fresh treatment of these topics is enhanced in the present case by the stand-point from which they are discussed. Especial attention should be paid to the author's preface, in which he emphatically claims for himself a genuine Christian faith without prejudice to an untrammeled critical freedom. And since among ourselves the practical bearings of scholarship are justly held to be of the last importance, it may not be out of place to say that the time has long gone by when the religious life could afford to look askance upon critical study of the documents from which it is itself fed. Each year is teaching us more plainly that spiritual truth suffers far \Worse injury from any attempt on the part of its champions to repress or trammel reverent investigation than it ever can even from the excesses of radical criticism. Although Professor Lenormant is tar from being a rationalistic critic, yet it is not to be supposed that his views will be at once and generally accepted. Some of them may never be accepted at all. He holds in regard to the early chapters of Genesis that they represent for the most part selections from the stock of Shemitic traditions common to the Hebrews with the

Introduction. v

Babylonians, Phoenicians and their kin, but cleansed of their impurities, altered in their polytheistic tendencies; in a word, transformed into fit vehicles for spiritual instruction by the divine Spirit, under whose influence the Hebrew writers stood. Yet, however little in accord with our traditional notions this may be, the thorough reverence manifest in Professor Lenormant's pages, and his full recognition of the spiritual advantages of Israel over its neighboring and kindred peoples, forbid our dismissing it without appreciative examination. The same may be said of the details. In the interests of religion, to say nothing of scholarship, we cannot afford to reject conclusions which are put forward in such an unexceptionable spirit, except on rational grounds established as the result of temperate and candid argument. It must be noted that the value of the book does not depend upon the correctness of this or that opinion maintained in it. His warmest admirers will not claim for the author that he is always judicious. It is natural that so ardent and original a scholar should sometimes be incautious and hasty in his conclusions, and that so facile a worker should not always observe the greatest care in minute particulars. The worth of the volume, however, consists not in the safety with which we may take refuge in its opinions, but in the opportunity it gives us to form just opinions of our own. In this point of view, the spirit of its investigations, as above described, is one of its two great advantages : the other is its full presentation of the historical and literary facts. With immense industry and patience, the author has collected materials from all available quarters, and arranged them for purposes of proof or illustration. To the specialist even, and particularly to the student of Assyriology, there cannot fail to be much that is instructive in the facts or their grouping, and the general reader of intelligence will find a mine of information in regard to the early traditions of all the great peoples of the earth, as far as these can be brought into connection, whether organic or merely formal, with the begin-

VI

Introduction.

nings of the Hebrew records. These characteristics give the book its lasting value.

The desire of the publishers has been simply to present the original work in an English dress. In accordance with this purpose, even where the rapid advance of discovery and decipherment, or the expressed judgment of many scholars, might have seemed to lend authority to an emendation of detail, this has not been resorted to. Any attempt to annotate the book would have swelled it to unwieldy proportions, and it was thought best to let the author speak wholly for himself. In the spelling of Oriental and other foreign names, the endeavor has been to represent the sounds correctly to the English, as the author aimed to represent them to the French, ear. Under this limitation, also, the author's transliteration of all Shemitic words has been, with but one considerable exception, followed throughout. His method of representing the stronger Shemitic gutturals has been modified, partly in the endeavor to remove what seemed to be an occasional inconsistency in the original, but partly also with the hope of showing more clearly the relationship of words in the different languages of the family. As here given, 'Ayin is indicated by ' , and Cheth by h or h, according as it corresponded to the Arabic Ha or Ha. Initial Aleph is not indicated. Medial Aleph, with consonantal force, is occasionally denoted by ' , which serves to mark, also, the weak aspirate in Assyrian. In regard to the other consonants, it is necessary to say only that the original has been followed vJ in representing Teth by t, Ssade by g , Qoph by q, and Shin (in Assyrian transcriptions) by s (originally = sh, afterwards s). The publishers and the printers have heartily cooperated in the endeavor to secure accuracy in these respects, but all who have had experience of the typographical difficulties in such w T orks as the present will understand that no claim is made of perfect freedom from errors, and will be indulgent towards such as thejr may detect

Introduction. vii

Much labor has been spent upon the references in which the book abounds. All of these have been verified, unless the works cited were inaccessible, which happened in a comparatively small number of cases. Numerous errors in citation have been silently corrected. The name or date of the edition quoted has sometimes been added in brackets. In a very few instances, where the reference was plainly wrong, and a diligent search failed to supply the means of rectifying it, it has been left standing, but followed by a bracketted interrogation-mark, thus: [?] Frequent references to other editions than the one named by the author, or to English translations of foreign books, have been added to those in the original ; the purpose has been not to secure theoretical completeness, but to facilitate the use of the book by English and American students. Such additions have in all cases been enclosed in brackets, and signed Tr. When the author quotes the French translation of an English book, the latter has generally been substituted. It is hoped that possible mistakes and defects in this part of the work will not be too severely judged.

It remains only to add that the thanks of the public are due to Miss Mary Lockwood, of Washington, D. C, who has discharged the laborious work of translation with fidelity and skill. Francis Brown.

Union Theological Seminary, N'eio York, October, 188:/.

VJ

Preface

— Montaigne.

I HAVE a right to inscribe this sentence as the heading of a book which was composed without any other purpose than that of sincere and conscientious search after scientific truth. By the very subject which it treats, however, this book directly touches questions of the utmost gravity and of a particularly delicate nature. Therefore I owe both to myself and to my reader some preliminary explanations in regard to the spirit in which I have approached them. It is important that no doubt should exist on this point, nor any obscurity cloud my thought.

I am a Christian, and just now, when my belief may be a cause for reprobation, I am more than ever desirous to proclaim it emphatically. But at the same time I am a scholar, and as such I do not recognize both a Christian science and a science of free thought. I acknowledge one science only, needing no qualifying epithet, which leaves theological questions on one side, as foreign to its domain, and accepts all investigators, working in good faith, whatever their religious convictions, as equally its servants. This science it is to which I have devoted my life, and I should think I had failed in a sacred, conscientious duty, if, influenced by any prepossession of another order, however worthy of respect it might be, I should hesitate to tell the truth in all sincerity and simplicity, as I believe myself to have apprehended it. My faith rests upon too solid a foundation to be timid, and

ix

VJ x Preface.

should I happen in the course of my researches to encounter an apparent antinomy between science and religion, I should not for a moment dream of understating or concealing it. I should boldly put forth the two contrary statements, certain beforehand that a day will come when they will attain a harmony which I should not have been skillful enough to discover. But I must add, in all sincerity, that never yet, in the course of a career which already reckons a quarter of a century given to study, have I come face to face with a genuine conflict between science and religion. As far as I am concerned, the two domains are absolutely distinct and not exposed to collision. There can be no quarrel between them, unless one encroach improperly upon the territory of the other. Their truths are of a different order ; they coexist without contradiction,^^ I shall never consent to sacrifice one set to the other, for I shall never find it necessary to attempt it.

With special reference to Biblical questions, one series of which is treated in the present work, I believe firmly in the inspiration of the Sacred Books, and I subscribe with absolute submission to the doctrinal decisions of the Church in this respect. But I know that these decisions extend inspiration only to that which concerns religion, touching faith and practice, or, in other words, solely to the supernatural teachings contained in the Scriptures. In other matters, the human character of the writers of the Bible is fully evident. Each one of them has put his personal mark upon the style of his book. Where the physical sciences were concerned, they did not have exceptional light; they followed the common, and even the prejudiced, opinions of their age. " The intention of Holy Scripture," says Cardinal Baronius, "is to teach us how to go to heaven, and not how the heavens go," still less how the things of the earth go, and what vicissitudes follow one another here. The Holy Spirit has not been concerned either with the revelation of scientific truths or with universal history. In all such matters, "He has

Preface. xi

abandoned the world to the disputes of men," tradidit mundum disputationibus eornm.

The submission of the Christian to the authority of the Church, in all that relates to those teachings of faith and morals to be drawn from the Books of the Bible, does not at all interfere with the entire liberty of the scholar, when the question comes up of deciding the character of the narratives, the interpretation to be accorded to them from the historical stand-point, their degree of originality, or the manner in which they are connected with the traditions found among other peoples, who were destitute of the help of divine inspiration, and lastly, the date and mode of composition of the various writings comprised in the scriptural canon. Here scientific criticism resumes all its rights. It is quite justified in freely approaching these various questions, and - nothing stands in the way of its taking its position upon the ground of pure science, which demands the consideration of the Bible under the same conditions as any other book of antiquity, examining it from the same stand-points and applying to it the same critical methods. And we need fear no diminution of the real authority of our Sacred Books from examination and discussion of this nature, provided that it be made in a truly impartial spirit, as free from hostile prejudice as from narrow timidity.

Such is the liberty that I have desired to use, and strict fidelity to Catholic orthodoxy did not interfere with my right to do so, nor do I conceive that I have exceeded orthodox limits on any point, even when I may appear to many most daring.

Thus, I do not believe it possible to continue to hold the opinion of the so-called uaity of composition of the books of the Pentateuch. It is my conviction as a scholar that a century of external and internal criticism of the text has led to positive results on this point, which I have not accepted without demur, though finally compelled to yield to evidence. This is not at all the place to enter into a demonxii Preface.

stration of this important fact, which of itself would call for a large book, and which many before me have given, byproofs which I could but have reproduced with merely a difference in the spirit of presentation. I must confine myself to the declaration of a sincere and well-considered conviction on this point, which has required for its establishment reasons all the stronger that, as I was aware, it ran counter to venerable tradition and to the opinion still universal among Catholic doctors — an opinion, however, I make speed to add, which is not dogmatically defined, and never will be, for it does not belong to matters about which one can dogmatize.

As is admitted to-day by the highest authorities among writers of the orthodox Protestant school in Germany and England, not less resolute defenders of revelation and of the inspiration of the Scriptures than the Catholics, I hold as fully demonstrated the distinction between the two fundamental documents, Elohist and Jehovist, which served as sources to the final editor of the first four books of the Pentateuch, who has done little more than establish a sort of concordance between the two, while leaving their redaction intact. These two primary texts may be restored almost without gaps, and it is easy to point out a certain number of discordances between the two, similar to those that may likewise be observed between the different versions of the same event as related in two books of the Bible like Kings and Chronicles. We must not, however, exaggerate V these discordances, which bear only upon facts of an historic character, and not on matters essential to faith. And it is especially the manner in which the final editor or compiler has abstained, beyond a certain degree, from harmonizing the two texts by removing their divergences, that seems to me a decisive proof of the holy and inspired character which he already recognized in their composition.

But this is simply a question of hoiv the books of the Pentateuch were formed, and, taken bv itself, reduced to its

Preface. xiii

essential terms, and detached from those consequences which too often have been made a part of it, but do not of necessityflow from it, the documentary theory, as it has been called, has nothing in it which could not be accepted by the most scrupulous orthodoxy, and I will go so far as to say that many Catholic doctors, perhaps without altogether admitting the fact to themselves, are gradually tending toward it. The learned theologian to whom we are indebted for a Manuel Biblique, recently published for a text-book in the seminaries^ 1 ) acknowledges that nothing hinders the admission that the author of the Pentateuch "has included in his work, with few or no modifications, written or oral traditions handed down from ancient times, of whose exactness he was satisfied. It was quite possible for him to allow them to retain their distinguishing features, such as the special use of certain divine names, peculiar or archaic phrases and expressions, etc., limiting himself to an adaptation of them to the framework into which he desired to fit them. It is impossible to make any well-founded objection to this explanation." Taken in itself, the documentary theory amounts to no more than to extend to the whole book the use of anterior redactions, thus accepted as a possible thing, and to define the nature of these redactions.

The distinction of the two primitive books, Elohist and Jehovist, combined by the final editor, where rationalistic criticism seems to me to have reached a plain demonstration which orthodox criticism may perfectly well accept, is one thing; quite another is the question of the date which should be assigned to the composition of these two original writings, and to their final combination in a single book. Here we are so far from a substantial result that each one has his own private system, and into the foundation of all these different systems enter considerations no longer belonging exclusively to the domain of science. For my part, I have not yet

0) The Abbe Vigouroux, Professor of Sacred Scripture in the Seminary of St. Sulpice.

VJ xiv Preface.

lighted upon a single one presenting sufficiently decisive marks of demonstration to be adopted as scientific truth, and to finally subvert a tradition so ancient that independent criticism ought at least to take serious account of it. Considering the question from a purely scientific stand-point, without any religious prepossession, it appears to me still undecided, and I do not believe that a definite result can be reached until more account is taken than heretofore of the new elements brought to bear upon the problem by studies in Egyptology and Assyriology. One single point is already, to my thinking, almost settled, and that by the most recent criticism, contrary to long-received opinion, and that is that the Jehovist, whatever may be his exact date, is considerably older than the Elohist ; that his work actually represents the very earliest book relating to the beginnings of Israel, its exodus from Egypt and its sojourn in the desert.

But in these questions of dates and authors, criticism has the right to claim absolute liberty. It is confronted with a tradition which it cannot lightly put aside ; it does not encounter a formal dogma. Whatever the results which it may reach, provided these results have a certain and genuinely-scientific character, there is no reason to fear them. We must learn to bring the same breadth of view to this study as did the old Fathers, especially St. Jerome, when he wrote : " Sive Mosen dicere volueris auctorem Peutateuchi, sive Esdram ejusdem inskiuratorem operis, non recuso." Even should we end by establishing the fact that the Pentateuch, under the definite form that we possess, does not date back farther than the return from the Captivity, the religious authority of the Sacred Books in all essentials need not, therefore, suffer in the eyes of Christians. It is a matter of faith that the divine inspiration was preserved in the Synagogue until the coming of Christ, and that consequently the character of the supernatural help received by the authors of the Biblical writings does not depend upon the fixing of

Preface. xv their date. Whether recent or remote, they occupy the same position for the believer.

Christian doctrine makes in the Bible a distinction between two different things, revelation and inspiration. Everything in the Book is inspired, but not everything is revelation. Inspiration in no way excludes the use of documents of a human character, the acceptance, by the authors, of ancient popular traditions, spontaneously formed in the course of the ages, common to the Hebrews and to the nations whose only help lay in the natural lights of mankind, nations given over to the errors of polytheism.

How then should the first chapters of Genesis be regarded? As a revealed account, or as a human tradition, preserved by inspired writers as the most ancient record of their race? This is the problem which I have been led to examine in comparing the narrations of the Sacred Book with those current long ages before the time of Mosheh among nations wdiose civilization dated back into the remote past, with whom Israel was surrounded, from among whom it came out. As far as I myself am concerned, the conclusion from this study is not doubtful. That which we read in the first chapters of Genesis is not an account dictated by God Himself, the possession of which was the exclusive privilege of the chosen people. It is a tradition whose origin is lost in the night of the remotest ages, and which all the great nations of western. Asia possessed in common, with some variations. The very form given it in the Bible is so closely related to that which has been lately discovered in Babylon and Chaldaea, it follows so exactly the same course, that it is quite impossible for me to doubt any longer that it has the same origin. The family of Abraham carried this tradition with it in the migration which brought it from Ur of the Chaldees into Palestine, and even then it was doubtless already fixed, either in a written or an oral form, for beneath the expressions of the Hebrew text in more than one place there appear certain things which can be explained only as

\J xvi Preface.

expressions peculiar to the Assyrian language, as, for instance, the play of words in Genesis xi. 4, which clearly has its source in the analogy of the words zikru, "remembrance, name," and zikurat, "tower, pyramid with stories," in the last-named idiom. The Biblical writers, in recording this tradition at the beginning of their books, created a genuine archaeology, in the sense attached to the word by the Greeks. The first chapters of Genesis constitute a "Book of the Beginnings," in accordance with the stories handed down in Israel from generation to generation, ever since the times of the Patriarchs, which, in all its essential affirmations, is parallel with the statements of the sacred books from the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris.

But, if this is so, I shall perhaps be asked, Where then do you find the divine inspiration of the writers Avho made this archaeology — that supernatural help by which, as a Christian, you must believe them to have been guided ? Where ? In the absolutely new spirit which animates their narration, even though the form of it may have remained in almost every respect the same as among the neighboring nations. It is the same narrative, and in it the same episodes succeed one another in like manner; and yet one would be blind not to perceive that the signification has become altogether different. The exuberant polytheism which encumbers these stories among the Chaldaeans has been carefully eliminated, to give place to the severest monotheism. What formerly expressed naturalistic conceptions of a singular grossness, here becomes the garb of moral truths of the most exalted and most purely spiritual order. The essential features of the form of the tradition have been preserved, and yet between the Bible and the sacred books of Chaldaea there is all the distance of one of the most tremendous revolutions which have ever been effected in human beliefs. Herein consists the miracle, and it is none the less amazing for being transposed. Others may seek to explain this by the simple, natural progress of the conscience of humanity ; for myself,

Preface. xvii

I do not hesitate to find in it the effect of a supernatural intervention of divine Providence, and I bow before the God who inspired the Law and the Prophets.

It did not enter into the plan of my book to examine the problem, perhaps forever insoluble, as to how much in this tradition is actual fact, and how much symbolic. I wished to occupy myself only with the origin and the universal character of its narratives. But if the result of the facts which we have grouped should lead to the extension beyond what is usual of the part taken by allegory and symbol, here again the latitude of interpretation allowed by orthodoxy is so great that Faith has nothing to fear from the researches of science. The school of Alexandria in general, and Origen in particular, in the first centuries of the Church^ interpreted the first chapters of Genesis in the allegorical sense ; in the sixteenth century, the great Cardinal Cajetan revived this system, and, bold as it may appear, it has never been the object of any ecclesiastical censure.

I owed these explanations to those whose belief I share, and whom it would give me much pain to scandalize, even in making use of my indisputable rights. As to the pure rationalists, it will disturb me but little should they smile at these scruples, which do not affect them. To such as they I have but a single remark to make : This is a scientific book; read it, and find a single point where my Christian convictions have embarrassed me, and proved an obstacle to the liberty of my research as a scholar, or where they may have prevented me from adopting the well-ascertained results of criticism.

I make no pretension to infallibility. I expect to have my book raise numerous discussions, and to have it assailed from very different stand-points. Doubtless mistakes and errors will be pointed out in it. They were inevitable in so extended a course of research, bearing upon so many difficult subjects. But, at least, what I think even the severest censors will have to recognize is the fact that the study has been xviii Preface.

conscientiously pursued, and on thoroughly scientific principles. I may have deceived myself, but I have done so always in perfect good faith, and while on my guard, to the best of my ability, against bondage to a system.

In regard to the typographical errors which the volume may contain, I beg the indulgence of the reader, requesting him to take into account the special difficulties in its printing. Here again I have endeavored to do my best, and I must in justice say the same for my printer and publisher.

\J

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE

Introduction iii

ix

THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT.

Preface

I. The Creation (Elohist form) 1

II. The Creation of Man and Woman (Jehovist form) . . 7

III. The First Sin (Jehovist form) 10

IV. Qain and Habel and the Race of Qain (Jehovist form) 14 V. The Race of Sheth (Elohist version) 19

VI. The Children of God and the Children of Man (Jehovist source) 23

VII. The Deluge (combination of the two versions, Jehovist

and Elohist) 24

VIII. The Curse of Kena'an (Jehovist source) 36

IX. The Peoples descended from Noah (Elohist source) . 38

X. The Tower of Babel (Jehovist version) 42

XL The Origin of the Terahites (Elohist version) .... 44

XII. The Migration of the Terahites (Elohist version) ... 46

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE BIBLICAL AC- COUNT AND OF PARALLEL TRADITIONS.

CHAPTER I. THE CREATION OF MAN. Conception of the autochthony of the first men among the

ancients 47

Phoenician traditions 48

Libyan traditions 48

Egyptian traditions 48

xix xx Table of Contents,

PAGE

Man formed of clay 49

Man at first inert, subsequently animated by a divine breath 50 Various original versions that have come down to us of the

Chaldseo-Assyrian Genesis „ 53

The god Ea, creator of man 55

Adiuru, the first man, according to the Chaldeeans . . . . 57

Myth of Prometheus, the former of man 57

Earlier conception among the Greeks of a spontaneous generation of men . 58

Men issued from the trunks of trees, in the conceptions of a

large number of nations 58

The Creation in the doctrines of Iranian Mazdasism .... 59