ON ACCOUNTS OF THE CREATION. 239 



the time of Assur-baui-pal (who reigned from B.C. 668). It 

 breathes throughout the spirit of a later age^ its language and 

 style show no trace of an Accadian original^ and the colophon 

 at the end implies by its silence that it luas not a cojjy of cm 



older document Excavations in Babylon may yet 



bring to light the early Chaldean form of the legend. Bid 

 this we do not at present possess." If this be really the case, 

 why has it been paraded as a parallel to a very much older 

 record ? 



In the next place_, it is now admitted that it was premature 

 to describe it as a record of a six- days' creation ; as a matter 

 of fact, the first tablet itself alludes to " a long course of 

 days.'" Of course^ we must remember that the tablets are 

 mutilated. 



But the immense gulf which separates this cosmogony from 

 that of Genesis will be best seen by actually quoting the so- 

 called First Tablet :— 



, When above the heiivens were not yet named, 



And below the earth was without a name, 

 The limitless abyss was their generator, 

 And the chaotic sea she who produced the whole. 



Their waters flowed together in one, 

 No flock of animals was yet collected, no plant had sprung up. 



When none of the gods had as yet been produced, 

 When they were not designated by a name, when no fate was as 

 yet (fixed). 

 The great gods were then formed, 

 Lakhmu and Lakhamu were produced (first), 



And they grew in (solitude). 

 Asshur and Kishar were produced (next), 

 (Then) rolled on a long course of days (and) 



Ami (Bel and Hea) 

 (Were born) of Asshur and of Kishar.* 



Now, what we have here is, in reality, a cosmology like 

 that of the Hindoos or ancient Greeks, and not an historical 

 statement like that of Genesis. It begins with pre-existent 

 matter which has apparently had no origin out of itself. 

 From this primeval matter the universe is conceived of as 

 arising by a series of self-begettings or developments, among 

 the products of which are " the great gods " themselves. The 

 notion of creation proper is absent. And here, perhaps, it is 

 time to give a definition of creation . I will do so not in the 

 language of theologians, who may be supposed to have taken 

 a side, but in that of philosophers, as given in Franck's 



* The translation is taken from Lenormant's Beginnings of History, Eng. 

 trans., p. 491, and varies slightly from that given by Prof. Sayce. 



