I18-(8S) CHALDEAN CREATION" ACCOUNT. 



JANUARY 29, 1883.— NINTH STATED MEETING. 



L. C. Cooley, Ph. D., Chairman, presiding ; seventeen 

 members, and many invited guests present. 



The following is an abstract of a paper read on 



THE RELATION OF THE CHALDEAN CRLATION -ACCOUNT TO 

 THAT IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS. 



BY C. B. WARRING, PH. D. 



This paper does not concern itself about any of the 

 Chaldean myths, save those that relate to the "Creation." 

 The works consulted are George Smith's Assyrian Gen- 

 esis ; same revised by Prof. Sayce ; Lenormant's Begin- 

 nings of History ; Rev. T. K. Cheyne in Encyclopaedia 

 Britannica, article, Cosmogony; Vigoroux, La Bible. Its 

 special object is to inquire as to the justness of the 

 claim frequently made, and perhaps as frequently ad- 

 mitted, that the '■ Mosaic''' account was taken from the 

 Chaldean. 



It is granted by all that there is no historical evidence 

 of such a thing. The probabilities are the other way. — 

 For although the Jews lived many years among the Baby- 

 lonians, they imbibed the greatest hatred and contempt 

 for their gods. From that day the Jews have been 

 noted for their hatred of every form of polytheism. It is 

 incredible, therefore, that they took the Babylonian ac- 

 count and placed it in the very front of their own sacred 

 writings. The advocates of this claim tacitly admit that 

 there is neither historical evidence, nor probability, in its 

 favor. The}' merely assume that the Hebrews got the 

 Chaldean story somehow, and adopted it, and they pro- 

 fess to find proof of this in the accounts themselves. It 

 is admitted that the Hebrew account is not a translation 

 of the Chaldean. There is left only the argument which 

 may be drawn from substantial agreement. Three Chal- 

 dean cosmogonies are known ; one is that on a series of 

 tablets ; the second was found on what is known as the 

 tablet of Cutha, and the third is the account given by 

 Berosus. 



The first is the most noted, and the most important, I 

 give it in full as translated by Prof. Sayce. Lenormant's 

 version is the same. Mr. George Smith's was made first, 

 but probably is not as correct. 



