238 W. r. JAMES, ESQ. 



selves according to tlieir weight and other physical qualities, 

 until Laud and Sea were distinct from each other. From the soft 

 slime of the still moist earth the Sun^s rays produced various 

 animals. But it is impossible to say how far Diodorus has 

 altered the legend, which in itself has not a very archaic look. 

 In consequence of the obscurity and uncertainty still brooding 

 over the subject of Egyptian religion, we must leave their 

 cosmogony without any further comment. Probably, in any 

 case its intensely idolatrous outer form would render it 

 thoroughly distasteful to the Hebrew sojourners in Goshen. 

 This consideration seems to suggest a reasonable explanation 

 of the silence of the Pentateuch about a life after death. The 

 Jews in Egypt must have been most familiar with the con- 

 ception. The trial-scene of the departed soul before Osiris 

 met their eyes on a thousand tombs, and was wrapped up in 

 a thousand papyrus rolls, but accompanied everywhere by 

 grotesque, repulsive, and ever hideous symbols. No wonder 

 that Moses was silent about a doctrine thus saturated, to his 

 mind, with polytheistic errors, — and, indeed, almost bound up 

 with the worship of Osu'is. Moreover, the Egyptian religion 

 in general was one of terror and mystery, suited for a nation 

 of slaves. The escape from the colossal temple-courts of the 

 Delta of the Nile to the free air of the desert of Sinai was 

 religiously, as well as politically, an exchange of servitude for 

 liberty. 



5. Ohaldea. — If Egyptian literature, as far as we know it, 

 seems to have exerted little or no influence on the Jews, 

 many are inclined to ascribe a very different role to that of 

 the early Chaldeans. The deciphering of the cuneiform in- 

 scriptions is so wonderful a feat of patience and sagacity that 

 criticism is almost silent in the face of such unexpected 

 additions to our knowledge. And no one can quarrel with 

 Assyriologists for assigning a high value to their own dis- 

 coveries. I may assume that the members of this Institute 

 are familiar with the facts of the discoveries made under the 

 rubbish-mounds of Babylonia and Assyria, many of them by 

 our valued fellow-member, Mr. Hormuzd Bassam. Conse- 

 quently, without any further preface, I may advance to the 

 examination of the famous Creation-tablets. 



When we compare them with the account in Genesis, the 

 first thing to bear in mind is that the Chaldean account, as 

 we have it, is admitted to be a comparatively modern re- 

 cension. Professor Sayce says [Chaldean Account of Genesis, 

 by George Smith, new edition, 1880, page 56): — '^ It is 

 evident that in its present form it was probably composed in 



