240 W. p. JAMESj ESQ. 



Dictionnaire des Sciences PhilosoijJnqucs . The editor of 

 that work himself defines creation proper as "^ the act by 

 which the Infinite Power, without the assistance of any pre- 

 existing matter, has produced the world and all the beings 

 which it contains" (under word " Creation^'). That such an act 

 as this is implied in Genesis has been the opinion of almost* 

 all subsequent Jewish writers, both canonical and Rabbinical. 

 Returning now to the First Tablet, we see that the resem- 

 blances between it and Genesis are superficial, the differences 

 profound. As to verbal coincidences, could they be avoided 

 in two kindred languages when treating of the same subject ? 

 To identify Lakhmuand Lakhamu with the Ruacli or spirit of 

 Genesis seems precarious. As for chaos, is it not an un- 

 historical anachronism to read it into Genesis ? The Revised 

 Version says : — " And the earth was waste and void ; and 

 darkness was upon the face of the deep : and the spirit of 

 God moved upon the face of the waters. ^^ Now, this is 

 certainly not chaos, in the usual sense of the word — that of a 

 confused jumble of heterogeneous elements. But if chaos be 

 taken in the older Hesiodean sense of empty space, I will 

 admit that it corresponds with " waste and void." When we 

 proceed to the later tablets, we have details about the sun, 

 moon, and stars, plants and animals. But what cosmology 

 can avoid these particulars, as soon as it descends to details ? 

 On the whole, I agree with Francois Lenormant, that the 

 Chaldean account is acosmogonic epic (epopee cosmogonique). 

 Still, I am willing to admit a basis of primeval tradition pre- 

 served in the tablets, much distorted, mixed with mytho- 

 logical and cosmological accretions, and in any case obviously 

 later than the Biblical account. 



It is now time to recall to our minds the significant fact 

 that the Chaldeans had other legends about the Creation 

 besides this. Berosus, as reported by Alexander Polyhistor, 

 has quite a diff"erent story — one truly mythological. Accord- 

 ing to this writer, — whose date is about 250 B.C., and who may 

 be accepted as an authority on the opinions of his own 

 countrymen, — Oaunes, the fish-god, who rose up from the 

 Persian Gulf, taught the people as follows : — There was 

 originally a dark, watery chaos, over which a gigantic Sea- 

 woman, Markaja, or Homoroka, reigned. These gloomy 

 depths were peopled with hideous monsters, — creatures made 



* The one apparent exception in Wisdom xi. 17, tS aiiop<^ov vXrjc, proves 

 little : the author does not assert that the a^op^oc vXtj was uncreated. 

 It is raerelj'' an inference made by modern critics. 



