The Divine Origin of Revelation

D. The Passion and Death of the Messias

The Messias will die a violent death: “And after sixty-two weeks the Christ shall be slain.”⁶⁴⁰640Dan. IX, 26: “Post hebdomadas sexaginta duas occidetur Christus.”

He will be scourged and spit upon: “I have given my body to the strikers, and my cheeks to them that plucked them: I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me, and spit upon me.”⁶⁴¹641Is. L, 6: “Corpus meum dedi percutientibus et genas meas vellentibus, faciem meam non averti ab increpantibus et conspuentibus in me.”

He will be executed like a common criminal: “He shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter and shall be as dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth.”⁶⁴²642Is. LIII, 7: “Sicut ovis ad occisionem ducetur et quasi agnus coram tondente se obmutescet et non aperiet os suum.”

“He hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked.”⁶⁴³643Is. LIII, 12: “Tradidit in mortem animam suam et cum sceleratis reputatus est.”

His hands and feet will be pierced with nails: “They have dug my hands and feet; they have numbered all my bones.”⁶⁴⁴644Ps. XXI, 17: “Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos, dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea.”

He will suffer vehement thirst: “My palate is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws.”⁶⁴⁵645Ps. XXI, 16: “Aruit tamquam testa virtus mea [Hebr.: palatus meus] et lingua mea adhaesit faucibus meis.”

He will be mocked and derided: “All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn: they have spoken with the lips and wagged with the head: He hoped in the Lord, let him deliver him, seeing he delighteth in him.”⁶⁴⁶646Ps. XXI, 8 sq.: “Omnes videntes me deriserunt me, locuti sunt labiis et moverunt caput: speravit in domino, eripiat eum, salvum faciat eum, quoniam vult eum.”

His garments will be divided: “They parted my garments amongst them; and upon my vesture they cast lots.”⁶⁴⁷647Ps. XXI, 19: “Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea et super vestem meam miserunt sortem.”

The passages quoted from Daniel and Isaias have already been shown to be Messianic. Psalm XXI also refers to the promised Messias, as is evident from verse 28, where the conversion of all nations to the true God is predicted as a result of the liberation effected by the suffering Messias, and also from the substantial agreement of Ps. XXI with Is. L, 6 and LIII, 7, 12.

II. The Fulfilment of the Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth

The Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth and in no one else.

A. The Mission and Activity of the Messias

a) The Mission of the Messias.—Jesus appeared on earth as a king, a prophet, a lawgiver, and a priest.

α) Jesus is a king,⁶⁴⁸648John XVIII, 37; XIX, 12; Matth. XXVII, 29, 37. whose spiritual realm⁶⁴⁹649John XVIII, 36. comprises all nations, extends to the very ends of the earth,⁶⁵⁰650Matth. XXVIII, 18 sq. and endures to the end of time,⁶⁵¹651Matth. XXVIII, 20. nay, reaches into eternity.⁶⁵²652Luke I, 32 sq. His kingdom is a kingdom of justice and peace, from which sin and iniquity are excluded;⁶⁵³653Luke XIX, 10; Matth. XXVI, 28. God and His justice are set up as the goal of life,⁶⁵⁴654Matth. VI, 33. and His perfection is presented as a pattern-exemplar for men to imitate.⁶⁵⁵655Matth. V, 48. Love of neighbor, including one’s enemies, is the mark of a true disciple of Jesus⁶⁵⁶656Matth. V, 43 sq.; John XIII, 34 sq. and furnishes the surest guarantee of enduring peace of the kind which He promised to His disciples.⁶⁵⁷657Matth. XI, 29; John XIV, 27.

β) Jesus is also a prophet,⁶⁵⁸658John I, 45; V, 45 sqq. a teacher,⁶⁵⁹659Matth. XXIII, 10; IV, 23; Mark VI, 2, 6; John III, 2. a lawgiver,⁶⁶⁰660Matth. V, 21 sqq. the founder of a new universal and eternal covenant.⁶⁶¹661Matth. XXVI, 28; 1 Cor. XI, 25 sq.

γ) He is furthermore a priest, who voluntarily lays down His life as a victim for the sins of all men.⁶⁶²662John X, 15, 17 sq.; I, 29; Matth. XXVI, 28. His bloody atonement is intimately bound up with an unbloody sacrifice.⁶⁶³663Luke XXII, 19; 1 Cor. XI, 24 sqq.; John VI, 52.

b) The Work of the Messias.—The public ministry of Jesus is (α) introduced by a forerunner.⁶⁶⁴664Matth. III; Mark I, 2-9; Luke III, 1-18; John I, 19-27; Matth. XI, 10. Jesus is (β) pleasing to God,⁶⁶⁵665Matth. III, 17. meek and humble of heart,⁶⁶⁶666Matth. XI, 29; XXI, 1 sqq.; XII, 17 sqq. and a friend of the poor.⁶⁶⁷667Luke IV, 18; XIX, 10. (γ) He works miracles⁶⁶⁸668Matth. XI, 5. and devotes Himself to teaching the multitudes, especially in Galilee.⁶⁶⁹669Matth. IV, 14 sqq.

B. The Divine Dignity and Human Descent of the Messias

Jesus is (a) consubstantial with the Father, i. e., of the same divine nature, and (b) a descendant of Abraham, a son of David, born of the virgin Mary.⁶⁷⁰670Matth. I, 1 sqq.; Luke I, 31 sq.; Rom. I, 3; Matth. IX, 27; XII, 23; XX, 29 sqq.; XXII, 42.

C. Time and Place of His Birth

a) The Time.—Jesus (α) was born soon after the tribe of Juda had lost its political independence. What little authority and influence it retained when He entered the world, vanished soon after. Juda was the most important and influential tribe from the beginning of the reign of David until the Babylonian Captivity, because it furnished the Jewish nation with kings. During the Captivity, the autonomy of the nation was not entirely destroyed, since the Jews retained their own judges.⁶⁷¹671Dan. XIII, 5, 41 sqq. After the Captivity, Zorobabel assumed the reins of government. Esdras, a priest of the tribe of Levi, instituted judges, who administered the law according to the Mosaic prescriptions.⁶⁷²6721 Esd. VII, 25 sq. Under the Machabees the tribe of Levi once more to a certain extent regained its prestige. The high priest Simon became the leader of the people by common consent.⁶⁷³6731 Mach. XIV, 41 sq. Under Herod and the Roman procurators the Jews still had their own courts, as the example of the adulteress,⁶⁷⁴674John VIII, 3 sqq. that of the man born blind,⁶⁷⁵675John IX. and the reply of Pilate⁶⁷⁶676John XVIII, 31. show. Only the right to inflict capital punishment seems to have been denied them.⁶⁷⁷677John XVIII, 31. The tribe of Juda lost its “sceptre” in the year 588 (586), when Sedekias, the last king of Juda, was led away captive. This was the temporal part of the promise made to David, which, because conditioned by the behavior of the kings, ceased with Sedekias. The spiritual part of the promise was absolute, and in this aspect the throne of David is everlasting.

β) Jesus began His public career seventy “weeks of years,” i. e., 490 calendar years after the promulgation of the decree which ordered the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It is impossible to calculate with mathematical accuracy the duration of the term set in Daniel’s prophecy, for the reason that we do not know the terminus a quo, nor the duration of the rule of the various Persian kings, nor the exact year of the birth of Jesus. For the terminus a quo four royal decrees: (1) the decree issued by Cyrus, in the first year of his rule (B.C. 535), giving permission to rebuild the Temple;⁶⁷⁸6781 Esd. I, 2-4; VI, 1-5; 2 Par. XXXVI, 22 sq. (2) the decree promulgated by Darius Hystaspes in the second year of his reign (519), which merely confirmed the decree of Cyrus;⁶⁷⁹6791 Esd. IV, 24; VI, 1 sqq. (3) the decree issued by Artaxerxes Longimanus in the seventh year of his reign (458),⁶⁸⁰6801 Esd. VII, 1 sqq.; 13 sqq. and (4) the decree issued by the same king in the twentieth year of his rule.⁶⁸¹6812 Esd. I, 2 sqq.; II, 1 sqq. Those who reckon the Danielic era from the date of the last-mentioned decree, place it in the year 454 B.C. and attempt to show that the rule of Artaxerxes began ten years earlier than has been commonly supposed, that is to say, B.C. 474. It would lead us too far afield to investigate the chronology of the Persian kings, and we simply take the commonly assumed dates as the basis of our calculation.

According to the Christian or Dionysian computation of time, the birth of Christ took place in 754 u. c. (i. e., after the founding of Rome), but it is now commonly held that this date is somewhat too late. Since Herod the Great died in 750 u. c., and Christ, according to the Gospel of St. Matthew,⁶⁸²682Matth. II, 1, 22. was born during the reign of this cruel tyrant, the date of His birth must be pushed back at least four years. Chronologists, for reasons which it is not necessary to rehearse here, generally place it towards the end of the year 747 u. c. (B.C. 6).

Assuming this figure to be correct, and taking the decree of Cyrus (535 B.C.) as the terminus a quo of our calculation, the end of the sixty-ninth week “of years,” or the 483rd year, in which the Messias was to begin his public career⁶⁸³683“Usque ad Christum ducem.” according to the prophecy of Daniel, would be 52 B.C. But it is not likely that this decree was meant by the prophesying angel, as it only gives permission to rebuild the Temple, but not the city of Jerusalem.

Since the second decree, promulgated by Darius, is merely a repetition of the first, issued by Cyrus, it can be ignored for our present purpose.

If we reckon from the third of the decrees mentioned, namely, that of Artaxerxes, issued in the seventh year of his rule (B.C. 458), the end of the sixty-ninth “week” falls into the year 25 A.D., and the middle of the seventieth week three and one-half years later, in the year 28–29 A.D. Adding to this figure the six years’ difference in the reckoning of the Christian era, as explained above, we obtain 31 A.D. as the beginning of Christ’s public career, and 34 A.D. as the year of His death. These figures closely approximate the Lucan account of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. In favor of the third decree we may also mention the fact that Esdras not only received permission to reinstate the worship of Yahweh in the Temple, but was expressly commanded to “appoint judges and magistrates,”⁶⁸⁴6841 Esd. VII, 25 sq. which he could hardly have done without regulating other public affairs and unless he had received permission to rebuild the city.

If we take the fourth decree, issued in the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes (454 B.C.) as our point of departure, we get the year 29 A.D. of the Dionysian era as the end of the sixty-ninth “week” and 32–33 A. D. as the middle of the seventieth “week,” which would be in perfect agreement with the Gospel of St. Luke. One argument in favor of this reckoning is that the decree of Artaxerxes clearly mentions the restoration of the city and its walls and gates.⁶⁸⁵6852 Esd. II, 3, 5, 8 sq.; 13, 17. But since the Dionysian era is not quite correct and the reign of Artaxerxes, contrary to the traditional view, has to be lengthened by ten years in order that the decree in question can be made to fall within his reign, and since the second decree of Artaxerxes, like that of Darius, was merely a repetition of a previous one, issued in the seventh year of his reign, we are forced to conclude that the fourth decree cannot be the one referred to by the angel, but that our reckoning of the “weeks” must begin with the first decree of Artaxerxes in the seventh year of his reign. But even if the second decree of Artaxerxes were taken as a basis, the calculation would bring us somewhere near the year 30, which is sufficient to show that the Danielic prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.⁶⁸⁶686 See Supplementary Note 6, p. 336.

The death of Jesus expunged sin and satisfied divine justice. The bloody sacrifice of the Divine Mediator, unbloodily repeated in the Mass, takes the place of the Old Testament sacrifices, which, as a consequence, lose their juridical signification and importance towards the middle of the seventieth “week.” The shedding of Christ’s sacrificial blood inaugurates the New Covenant, which is intended to embrace the whole of humanity. Forty years later the divine punishment came upon the Jewish nation for its refusal to recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messias. A Roman army under Titus (populus cum duce venturo) destroyed the City and the Temple. Thus the Danielic prophecy was fulfilled to the letter.

γ) That Jesus lived before the destruction of the second Temple needs no proof in view of the fact that He repeatedly visited this Temple during His public career, preached to the people in its hallowed precincts, and was deeply interested in protecting it from profanation.

b) The Birth Place of the Messias.—Jesus of Nazareth was born at Bethlehem in the tribe of Juda, as St. Matthew and St. Luke testify.⁶⁸⁷687Matth. II, 1; Luke II, 4 sqq., 15 sq.

D. Passion and Death of the Messias

Jesus died a violent death.⁶⁸⁸688Matth. XXVII, 50; Mark XV, 37; John XIX, 30, 34. He was scourged, spit upon, and handed over like a criminal to His executioners.⁶⁸⁹689Mark XV, 15; John XIX, 1; Matth. XXVI, 67; John XVIII, 30. His hands and feet were pierced with nails;⁶⁹⁰690John XX, 25 sqq. He suffered intense thirst;⁶⁹¹691John XIX, 28. He was mocked and derided in His suffering,⁶⁹²692Matth. XXVII, 39 sqq. and His garments were divided by lot among His executioners.⁶⁹³693Matth. XXVII, 35; John XIX, 23 sqq.

III. The Messianic Predictions of the Prophets Were Genuine Prophecies

The Messianic pronouncements of the prophets, which, as we have seen, were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, contain numerous details that depended entirely upon the free will of God and the co-operation of human agents. The certain knowledge and definite prediction of these details centuries before their realization was possible only through a divine revelation. Therefore, the predictions in question must be regarded as genuine prophecies and, furthermore, they must be absolutely true. Now since, among other things, they mention the divine mission and dignity of the Messias, their fulfilment was a supernatural confirmation of that mission and of the dignity of Jesus of Nazareth, and, consequently, the teaching of Jesus—in other words, the Christian religion—is clearly of divine origin.

For further reading, see page 349.

§ III. Old and New Testament Parallels from the History of Religions

Introductory Remarks

Both Judaism and Christianity are, as we have seen, based on supernatural, divine revelation. The Rationalist critics, of course, do not admit this conclusion. Eager to explain all religious phenomena by purely natural means, they point to certain kindred doctrines, rites, and customs to be met with in other religions, and to certain analogous phenomena in the lives of their respective founders, and conclude from these so-called “parallels” that the Jewish and Christian religions are purely natural phenomena, more or less on a level with other, non-revealed religions.

These parallels are taken from the history of comparative religion. To judge them correctly, we must bear in mind the following considerations:

1. A revealed religion need not be distinguished in every respect from purely natural religions. Much that is good and true in human nature is found outside of revelation, and the grace of God “enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.”⁶⁹⁴694John I, 9. Therefore, the possibility of a certain agreement between the supernatural and purely natural religions in doctrines, precepts, and customs cannot be denied a priori.

2. The actually existing similarities between revealed religion and the natural religions of mankind may be traced partly to borrowing, partly to positive divine ordinances, and partly to independent natural development.

a) Borrowing is excluded in everything that pertains to the intrinsic essence of the religions of the Old and the New Testament, for the simple reason that, as a matter of fact, these religions have been supernaturally revealed. The supernatural truths contained in them, and the miracles and prophecies accompanying their manifestations, as well as everything pertaining to their respective founders, being divinely revealed, cannot have been borrowed from other religions. The case is different with historical accounts, external ceremonies and usages, philosophical ideas, phrases, and notions; these can be transferred from a purely natural to a supernaturally revealed religion without derogating from the latter’s prerogatives, and thus placed in the service of divine truth. However, no such borrowing is to be admitted unless it can be proved by conclusive historical evidence.

b) Actually existing parallels may be the result of a positive divine ordinance. Where this can be historically demonstrated, it forms the only acceptable explanation of the agreement.

c) Where neither the fact of borrowing nor any divine ordinance can be proved, there remains but one possible explanation, namely, independent natural development. Since human nature is identical in all individuals of the species and its faculties develop more or less in the same way, the religious needs of man are everywhere the same, and, consequently, produce pretty much the same forms of religious activity and the same religious opinions in most widely different nations and individuals. And as the supernatural does not suppress and destroy, but rather elevates and perfects nature, the products of natural religious development may easily have been, by divine direction, incorporated with revealed religion and thus subordinated to a higher purpose.

We shall now proceed to consider certain phenomena from the history of comparative religion which have more or less definite counterparts in the Bible, and try to understand their relation to their Biblical parallels in the light of the principles laid down in the preceding paragraphs.

1. Old Testament Parallels from the History of Religions

These parallels are principally six, namely: (1) The Babylonian account of the Creation; (2) Paradise and the Fall of man; (3) the Deluge; (4) Monotheism, (5) the laws of ancient Babylonia, and (6) the Babylonian and Persian doctrine of the angels.⁶⁹⁵695Cfr. G. Teichmüller, Religionsphilosophie, Breslau, 1886; F. Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel, Leipsic, 1921; P. Jensen, Das Gilgameschepos in der Weltliteratur, Strasbourg, 1906; A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament, im Lichte des alten Orients, 2nd ed., Leipsic, 1906. (The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, tr. by C. L. Beaumont, ed. by C. H. W. Johns, 2 vols., New York and London, 1911).

1. The Babylonian Account of the Creation

The most familiar and important of the Babylonian creation stories is the epic known from its opening words as Enuma elish. It begins with the marriage of Apshu (the male) and Tiamat (the female principle), personifications of sweet and salt water. From this union spring the various higher and lower deities. In course of time Tiamat and the lower deities rebel against the primeval powers. Tiamat spawns an army of gruesome monsters and assigns the leadership in battle to her son Kingu. The higher deities hold a war council and prepare for the fray. Marduk, the son of Ea, is commissioned to open the battle. He goes to meet the mad goddess Tiamat, catches her in a net, and after piercing her with an arrow, splits the carcass into two parts “like a shell-fish.” One half he erects into the dome of the sky with mansions for Anu, Enlil, and Ea. He affixes the signs of the zodiac upon the firmament, opens the gates of the sun, causes the moon to shine at night, and regulates her phases. Of the Babylonian view of the origin of the animal and vegetable kingdoms we know very little, since the respective tablets have mostly perished.⁶⁹⁶696Cfr. H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testamente, Tübingen, 1909, pp. 5 sqq.; W. L. Wardle, Israel and Babylon, London and New York, 1925, pp. 140-145; E. A. Wallis Budge, Babylonian Life and History, London and New York, s.a., pp. 77-97.

If we compare the Babylonian story of the creation with that given in Genesis, we find a certain similarity between the two. In both accounts the water is the terminus a quo; in both the sky divides the upper from the lower waters; both describe the origin of men, plants, and animals. The word Tiamat, which in the Babylonian account designates the primeval ocean, recurs in form and content in tehom (the deep) of the First Book of Moses.

In some parts of the Bible, just as in the Babylonian story, the creative transformation of the primitive chaos is represented as a victory over two sea-monsters, called, respectively, Rahab and Leviathan. Thus we read in the Book of Job: “By his power the seas are suddenly gathered together, and his wisdom has struck Rahab.”⁶⁹⁷697Job XXVI, 12; cfr. M. Jastrow, Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions in E. H. Sneath, Religion and the Future Life, p. 121. And in the Psalms: “Thou rulest the powers of the sea: and appeasest the motion of the waves thereof. Thou hast crushed Rahab as one that is slain: with the arm of thy strength thou hast scattered thy enemies.”⁶⁹⁸698Ps. LXXXIX, 10 sq. (Hebrew text); cfr. Is. LI, 9; Job IX, 13. “But Elohim is my king before ages: he hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth. Thou didst split the sea by thy strength: thou didst crush the heads of the dragons in the waters, thou hast broken the heads of Leviathan.”⁶⁹⁹699Ps. LXXIV, 12 sqq.; cfr. Is. XXVII, 1.

Do these slim resemblances prove, as Rationalist critics pretend, that the Biblical account of the Creation was copied from the Babylonian legend?

Undoubtedly there exists some sort of connection, and also a certain dependence, between the two accounts. But this dependence is limited to the words by which different thoughts are expressed. Words like Tehom (= Tiamat), Tohu wa Bohu,⁷⁰⁰700Gen. I, 2. may have been derived from the mythological conceptions which the author of Genesis found current among his pagan contemporaries. The form of the narrative may be borrowed from Babylonian sources, but the doctrine is new. In Genesis we no longer have a personification of the pristine ocean, but that ocean itself.

As regards the Biblical account of the Creation itself, it in no way objectively depends upon the Babylonian epic. The two stories differ essentially from each other. The battle between Marduk and Tiamat, which is the main topic of the Babylonian legend, is not even mentioned in the Bible, which describes the creation of the world as taking place in a definite order and in the course of a fixed period of time (six days); these important details are missing in the Babylonian myth. In the Bible the creation refers only to the world, whereas in the Babylonian epic cosmogony and theogony are intimately united. The Biblical account is purely Monotheistic, whereas the Babylonian legend is inspired by Polytheistic ideas. The Bible says that heaven and earth were created out of nothing, whereas the Babylonian story presupposes a protyle (materia prima), i. e., water, as pre-existing from all eternity. The Bible describes a true creation out of nothing, whereas the Babylonian myth deals merely with the shaping of the world out of pre-existing matter. In view of these differences Dr. Jeremias justly says: “The prevailing assumption of a literary dependence of the Biblical records of creation upon Babylonian texts is very frail, and, in view of the universality of the idea of the beginning and development of the worlds, need not be considered at all, or at any rate (as in the case of the Flood) only in a very secondary degree.”⁷⁰¹701The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, Vol. I, pp. 196 sqq. And Dr. Wardle: “The evidence seems to warrant the conclusion that enuma elish was known to the authors of the early chapters of Genesis, but that their position is not so much one of dependence upon as of revulsion from it. … Whatever points of agreement may be found between enuma elish and the creation story of Gen. I are … almost insignificant when contrasted with the points of difference, and are to be found in the form rather than in the spirit. It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that the likeness between them is comparable with such a likeness as might be found between Caliban, studying theology on his island, and Augustine.”⁷⁰²702B. Landsdell Wardle, Israel and Babylon, pp. 166 sq. And Dr. Wallis Budge: “The account of the Creation given in Genesis and the Story of the Flood are not derived from any Babylonian version of them known to us. There are many points of resemblance between the cuneiform and the Hebrew versions, and these often illustrate each other, but the fundamental conceptions are essentially different. The Babylonian god was a development from devils and horrible monsters of foul form, but the God of the Hebrews was a Being who existed in and from the beginning, Almighty and Alone, and the devils of chaos and evil were from the beginning His servants.”⁷⁰³703E. A. Wallis Budge, Babylonian Life and History, pp. IX sq. On the origin of the Creation as told in the Seven Tablets and the various forms of it current in Assyria and Babylonia the student should consult the little work, Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight between Bêl and the Dragon, London, 1921, published by the Trustees of the British Museum. The editors agree with Dr. Budge in his opinion that there is no evidence at all that the two accounts of the creation which are given in the early chapters of Genesis are derived from the Seven Tablets. (Cfr. Budge, l. c., p. 85).

Such fragments of truth as are found in the Babylonian epic in spite of the dense mythological over-growth that distorts it, are probably traceable to primitive revelation and the pristine traditions of the human race, from which the Bible, too, has drawn.

2. Paradise and the Fall

Reminiscences of the Biblical story of Paradise and the Fall of our First Parents occur in the mythologies of nearly all nations, most definitely in that of the Babylonians.⁷⁰⁴704The attempts to find the original of the Biblical story in the literature of Babylonia date from the time of George Smith, who over half a century ago informed the London Daily Telegraph that he had discovered a cuneiform tablet containing the story of man’s original innocence, of his temptation and Fall. Unfortunately criticism soon proved that he had read into his document what it did not really contain. The most elaborate attempt in this direction (aside from F. Delitzsch’s Babel und Bibel, cfr. infra, 292) was made by S. Langdon in his book, The Sumerian Epic of Paradise, the Flood, and the Fall of Man. Dr. Wardle, after summing up Langdon’s argument, says: “The points of comparison with the Garden of Eden story which Langdon finds [in the text published by him, described as a hymn of praise and presumably antedating the Hebrew version of the Fall by ‘at least a thousand years’] are chiefly the idyllic state which his version portrays at the beginning, and the eating of a forbidden fruit in a garden. A reader of the translation as Langdon himself gives it cannot help feeling that most of the parallelism which the author finds with the Old Testament has to be read into the text.” (Wardle, Israel and Babylon, p. 183).

The tree of life has a parallel in the Adapa legend. Adapa the Wise, son of Ea, who serves as a priest in Eridu, the place where his father is worshipped, revengefully breaks the wings of the south wind, which had dashed his boat to pieces. For this crime Anu, the god of heaven, summons Adapa into his presence. Ea calls Adapa’s attention to Anu’s purpose and warns him neither to eat nor to drink the food and water offered him by Anu. Guided by Anu’s messengers, Adapa ascends to heaven. When Anu tells his doorkeepers to offer Adapa food and drink, the latter, mindful of his father’s warning, declines and, as a consequence, forfeits the gift of immortality which Anu was ready to bestow upon him.⁷⁰⁵705Gressmann, Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testamente, pp. 34 sqq.; Wallis Budge, Babylonian Life and History, pp. 142 sq.

The History of Gilgamesh contains a parallel to the happy life of our First Parents in Paradise. Gilgamesh, a great and wise king,⁷⁰⁶706Gilgamesh (or Gilgamish), according to an ancient list, was the fifth king of a Sumerian dynasty that ruled at Erech, and reigned 126 years. (See C. J. Gadd, Early Dynasties of Sumer and Akkad, London, 1921, p. 36.) The so-called History of Gilgamesh, or Gilgamesh epic, was written upon a series of twelve tablets, which were preserved in the library of Nabû at Nineveh. (Wallis Budge, Babylonian Life and History, p. 89). part god and part man, eager to obtain eternal life, decides to look up his ancestor, Uta-Napishtim, the Babylonian Noe, who enjoys everlasting felicity somewhere in the far distant West. He arrives at the isle of the blessed, where Uta-Napishtim lives, but fails to obtain eternal life because “the gods had decreed the fate of every man, and that death was the lot of all men.” Uta-Napishtim then tells him the story of the Flood.⁷⁰⁷707Cfr. Wallis Budge, Babylonian Life and History, pp. 91-95. However, through the good offices of his ancestor, he obtains a certain plant which grows at the bottom of the sea and has the power of renewing youth. Unfortunately this plant is discovered and eaten by a serpent while Gilgamesh bathes in a pool of water, and thus in the end he loses the precious gift of immortality.⁷⁰⁸708Gressmann, op. cit., pp. 46 sqq.; Wallis Budge, op. cit., pp. 96 sq.; Wardle, Israel and Babylon, pp. 99 sq., 185 sq.; J. G. Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, Vol. I, pp. 49–51.

To the same group of pagan parallels belongs the sacred tree which we find depicted on Babylonian seal cylinders and Assyrian palace reliefs. The tree is loaded with fruit and usually surrounded by winged genii in a standing or kneeling posture.⁷⁰⁹709Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, Vol. I, pp. 207 sqq. The most remarkable picture of this kind is found on a Babylonian seal cylinder which Dr. Delitzsch describes as follows: “On the right is the man, to be recognized by the horns, the symbol of strength; on the left the woman; both reaching out their hands to the fruit. And behind the woman is a serpent.”⁷¹⁰710Babel and Bible, Engl. tr., p. 56; see reproduction of this cylinder in Jeremias, op. cit., I, 220. The line behind the sitting figure is obviously a serpent, though its position does not correspond with the place it would hold in a drawing of the Fall. The view put forward by Oppert, Halévy, and others, that the line is only an ornamentation, is declared “not tenable” by Dr. Jeremias (l.c.). No text explaining the picture has so far been discovered.

a) The Adapa myth has a few traits that remind one of the Biblical narrative. Some critics hold that the Babylonians regarded Adapa, who was directly created by Ea, as the first human being. Others deny this assumption because the ancient poem says that he was created as a wise man “among men.” Still others derive the name Adam from Adapa, which is, however, a purely arbitrary conjecture, not generally accepted by linguists. There is no reason that would justify us in identifying Adapa with Adam.⁷¹¹711Sayce (Archæology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions, p. 91) asserts that the names Adapa and Adam are philological equivalents, so that Adapa might actually be read Adam. But though the sign for pa, the last syllable of Adapa’s name, sometimes has the value of mu, Langdon has conclusively disproved Sayce’s contention by producing examples where the name Adapa is written Adapad. Wardle (Israel and Babylon, p. 190 sq.) says: “The attempt to make, as Stucken does, a relation between the garment given to Adapa by the gods and the clothing furnished to Adam and Eve by God, may be dismissed as unworthy of serious consideration. And in any case Adapa was not the first man: the Babylonian document tells us that Ea created Adapa ‘among men’ (ina ameluti).”

A certain agreement between the Babylonian and the Biblical accounts is found in the story of the proffered or forbidden gift. Ea tells Adapa: “They will offer you food and drink that will cause your death;” but in matter of fact Anu offers him food and drink that insures eternal life. In Gen. II, 17 God forbids Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree of life: “But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat; for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.” The serpent on the contrary assures Eve: “No, you shall not die the death,” but “in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”⁷¹²712Gen. III, 4 sq.

These resemblances, however, are offset by important differences. The question: How did death and suffering originate? is answered by the Bible very definitely as follows: Death and suffering are the effects of the sin committed by our First Parents in Paradise. According to the Adapa myth, the ultimate cause of sin and suffering is an error or envy on the part of the god Ea. Moreover, the Biblical account of the Fall is purely Monotheistic in tone and tendency, whereas the Babylonian myth rests upon Polytheistic assumptions.

In the Adapa myth, finally, the woman and the seducer of the Biblical account are absent, and the gift of immortality is lost, not through the eating of the proffered fruit, but through man’s refusal to partake of it.

In view of these numerous and radical divergencies the two stories must be regarded as essentially different and the Biblical account cannot possibly have been derived from the Adapa myth.⁷¹³713“Examination of the alleged parallels shows that actually the only idea common to the myth of Adapa and the story of Paradise is the conception of a food that confers immortality. This conception is much too wide-spread for us to deduce from it that there is any direct dependence of the Biblical story on the myth.” (Wardle, Israel and Babylon, p. 191).

b) The Gilgamesh epic coincides with the Adapa myth in its fundamental lesson, namely, that even the wisest and most powerful of men cannot attain immortality, because this privilege is exclusively reserved to the gods. This thought is diametrically opposed to the Biblical doctrine that God originally promised man to endow him with everlasting life.

The few resemblances that exist between the Gilgamesh epic and the Bible are offset by great divergences. Both accounts describe a place of unending life and beatitude, and both assert that a serpent frustrated man’s eternal happiness. But, according to the Babylonian account, this place is a far-off island in the western sea, whereas the Bible describes the Paradise of delight as situated on the continent. The Babylonian island of the blessed is the abode of those who have completed their earthly career, whereas the Paradise of the Bible marks the beginning of man’s life on earth. In Paradise our First Parents are denied the fruit of the tree of life and lose immortality as a result of a sin committed at the instigation of the serpent, whereas Gilgamesh fails to attain immortality through an accident, a serpent having stolen the wonderful plant from him.⁷¹⁴714The idea that the partaking of a certain food will confer upon a mortal the gift of immortality clearly forms a point of contact with the Old Testament. But the parallelism is carried to undue limits by some writers. Dr. Jirku, for example (Altorientalischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament, p. 25), says that Ea deliberately deceived Adapa, so that Adapa might not obtain immortality, and compares Gen. III, 22, where Yahweh is fearful lest man, having become “as one of us” in knowledge, should eat of the fruit of the tree of life and live for ever. A. Jeremias, noting the suggestion of the envy of God contained in the serpent’s words (Gen. III, 5), finds (The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East, I, p. 184) a very close parallel with the myth of Adapa. Jastrow (Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, p. 551) writes: “God, while as anxious as Ea to keep man from eating of the tree of life, cautions Adam against the act, whereas Ea practices a deception in order to prevent man from eating.” Wardle (Israel and Babylon, p. 190), with all due respect to these eminent authorities, declares that “the whole tenor of the legend is against the idea that Ea deliberately deceived his favorite, Adapa, for whom he had done so much. The interpretation of Dhorme and Rogers, that the substitution of life-giving for death-dealing food was due to a change of mind by Anu, quite unanticipated by Ea, is much more plausible. If so, not the envy of Ea, but sheer ‘irony,’ was the cause of Adapa’s misfortune.”

As can be easily seen from these indications, the two accounts differ from each other in so many essential particulars that the Gilgamesh epic cannot possibly be regarded as the source of the Biblical narrative.

c) The story of the tree of life is found in one form or another in all the religions of civilized man. The “tree of knowledge of good and evil” has latterly been paralleled with the “tree of truth” found in the Sumerian Gudea inscriptions.⁷¹⁵715P. Dhorme, “L’Arbre de Vérité et l’Arbre de Vie” in La Revue Biblique, Sér. IV, 1907, pp. 271 sqq. Gudea was “patesi” (ruler) of the city of Lagashi; he was noted as an architect and great merchant. The baked clay cylinders (now in the Louvre) on which he recorded his deeds, afford us little or no historical information, but as they are connected compositions, complete in themselves, they are of great value for the study of the Sumerian language. (Cfr. Wallis Budge, Babylonian Life and History, pp. 28 sq.) The memory of these two trees is probably based on a very ancient tradition, which may also have served the author of Genesis as a source. But there is no reason whatever to suppose that the Sumerian-Babylonic myth influenced the Biblical account in any way.

d) The cylinder described by Dr. Friedrich Delitzsch in his much-quoted lecture on Babel und Bibel (1902), appears to offer a very striking parallel to the Biblical story of the Fall. However, his hypothesis was so generally rejected by experts that the author was compelled in the fifth edition of his book to add a question mark to the legend, “Description of the Fall,” which he had affixed to the picture. Delitzsch’s hypothesis is unacceptable for the following reasons:

α) It cannot be determined for certain whether the persons sitting to the right and left of the tree on the picture represent a man and a woman, or two men, or two women. The garb, the posture of the arms and body, and the outlines of the latter up to the head, are alike in both cases. The horn-like ornament of the one figure is no more a sure mark of masculinity than the head-band of the other is a certain indication of femininity. Other clay cylinders represent men without the horns or with the supposedly feminine head-band.

β) Both figures stretch out their hands towards the tree. This need not necessarily signify that they desire, or are about to pluck, the fruit of the tree, but, as both seem to be engaged in conversation, may be intended as a mere gesture. But even if the outstretched hands were meant to indicate that the two figures were reaching out for the fruit, the simultaneous picking of the fruit by both is contrary to the Biblical account, according to which Eve alone took fruit from the tree, ate, and then gave some of it to Adam. Nor can the picture refer to the seduction of Eve, as told in Genesis, because both figures are equally engaged, and the one believed to be the woman turns its back to the serpent. Nor can it be an illustration of the seduction of the man by the woman, since if this were the case, the latter would have to be depicted as handing the fruit to the former.

γ) Both figures are fully clothed, and hence the Babylonian illustration lacks a characteristic trait of the Biblical narrative, which expressly declares that our First Parents were not aware that they were naked until they had lost their primitive innocence.

δ) Some scholars doubt whether the tortuous line on the left side of the picture was really intended to represent a serpent: it may be merely an ornamental filling up of the design. But even if it were meant to be a serpent, this would not prove that the serpent was conceived as the seducer, since it is depicted also on other pictures where it evidently does not play this rôle, and its position behind the back of the woman on this picture offers no reason for assuming that the sense is different here.⁷¹⁶716Dr. Wardle thinks that Delitzsch is right in viewing the tortuous line as a serpent, but says: “When we reflect that, in the first place, the horned figure is indubitably a god, secondly, that there is absolutely no warrant for stating that the other figure is a woman—it much more probably also represents a divinity—and thirdly, that both figures are seated and clothed, looking at the tree, with the serpent behind the figure said to represent the woman, what likeness to the Biblical story is left?” (Israel and Babylon, p. 187).

ε) The interpretation of the picture as an illustration of the Fall has no support in Babylonian mythology, which contains no pictorial or cuneiform references to the sin of our First Parents. Therefore this cylinder, over which so much printer’s ink has been spilled, seems to have no immediate relation to the Biblical account of the Fall, but is probably nothing more than a somewhat divergent illustration of a frequently recurring motif in Babylonian and Assyrian art, namely, the watch kept over the tree of life.