324 T. G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S., ON VERSIONS 



hand, or to the Jahvist on the other, but extends to the whole 

 narrative as we find it in the existing text of Genesis. The Baby- 

 lonian Flood-story, therefore, which was written in the age of 

 Abraham, already represented the same complete narrative as that 

 which we now have in the book of Genesis. More important still, 

 the narrative in Genesis bears evident traces of having passed from 

 Babylon to Palestine. Thus the dove returned to the ark with a 

 leaf plucked off in her bill, which is stated to have been an olive 

 leaf ; and while the olive is the typical tree of Palestine, there are 

 no olive trees in Babylonia or Armenia. In the Babylonian account, 

 again, the ark is a house-boat; the navigation of the Euphrates 

 was carried on in such boats. But in Genesis, it is called a tcbdh, 

 which is an Egyptian word and signified the ark or boat in which the 

 Egyptians carried the images of their gods in procession. 



It is clear that if the literary analysts of Genesis are right, only 

 one of two alternatives is possible : — Either the complete account in 

 Genesis as we now have it must have been written in Babylonia in 

 the time of Abraham ; or the Elohist and Jahvist must themselves 

 have been Babylonian writers of a still earlier age. And the analysts 

 themselves will be the last to accept either alternative. 



At all events one thing is clear. The writer of Genesis has per- 

 sistently and deliberately altered the Babylonian narrative in one 

 particular. From beginning to end he has set himself to contradict 

 and deny the polytheism of Babylon, and the superstitions connected 

 with it. The Babylonian ascribed the Flood to one god, the inter- 

 cession for mankind to another, the scheme for the saving of man- 

 kind to a third. There are no separate gods in Genesis. The God 

 Who sends the Flood is the same as He Who saves the remnant. In 

 the Babylonian narrative, the door of the ark is closed by the hero 

 himself ; in Genesis it is God Who shuts him in. 



In one or two points the Babylonian narrative explains that which 

 was difficult in the narrative in Genesis. Thus there was something 

 which appeared to be wrong in the account of the sending out of the 

 birds : the dove is said to have been sent twice ; why should it have 

 been sent first of all before the raven, and why should it have 

 returned to the ark the first time that it was sent out 1 When we 

 turn to the Babylonian account, the explanation is clear : three birds 

 were sent, first a dove, secondly a swallow, thirdly a raven ; but the 

 swallow, which was " the bird of destiny," and thus connected with 



