BABYLON AND THE BIBLE

Evening Star, Issue 11896, 26 May 1903, Page 7

BABYLON AND THE BIBLE

The discovery in the cuneiform literature of Assyria and Babylonia of a remarkable series of accounts parallel to those of the Old Testament has occasioned a sharp controversy as to the relation of these two groups of religious,traditions. This controversy, while chiefly carried on in Germany, has practically become an international discussion. Professor Zockler, of the University of Qreifswakl, in the ‘Beweis des Glaubens’ (No. 7), gives an interesting account of the present status of the controversy. He says in substance : “ The discussion is not absolutely new, but it has reached an acute stage through the famous lecture of Delitzsch, of Berlin, entitled ‘ Babel und Bihel,’ in which the attempt is made to show that the oldest religious ideas of Israel, such as the stories concerning thj creation, the fall of man, the deluge, the angels, and the like, having parallels in the literature of Babylonia, have been taken from this source, and that accordingly the Biblical records are only secondary accounts. Even- such an important matter as the name of Jehovah, we are told, can be traced to Babylonian sources, the name ‘ Jahve-Iln,’ or ‘ Jehovah is God,’ being found as early as 2200 u.c. or some 500 years before tne days when God in Exodus is said to have revealed this name to Moses for the people of Israel. Tliis tendency in modern criticism to deprive the Old Testament of its originality and to regard its oldest writings as chiefly reproductions of matter taken from the Tigris-Euphrates Valley has become so marked that it has received the distinctive .name of ‘ Babylonism. ’ It seems to be proving very popular, os Delitzsch’s lecture, by special command, was repeated in the presence of the Emperor, has been published in tens of thousands of copies, and, what so rarely happens with a scientific production, has been issued in an edition de luxe." Naturally this challenge of Delitesch has called forth replies in great ; abundance. Prominent among these is Koenig’s ‘Bibel und Babel,' who by inverting the title aims to show that, without denying the existence of these parallel passages, they have a significance in the Scriptures of which the Babylonians know nothing. He says: “That which is common to the Hebrews and to the Babylonians in the oldest religious traditions can be explained in various ways without making the former dependent

j on the latter. They .may both be the rem- • Hants of an older civilisation common to them both; or they may both be the de- , Velopments of the natural religious instincts j of the’ two peoples without a common his- | torical origin. So great, however, is the | difference between the two forms of these j traditions that the best and highest thoughts of the Old Testament form, especially their' religious interpretation and significance for the whole plan of salvation as revealed in the Scriptures, is purely original, and in no part can be traced to Babylonian literature, with which the agreement is in externals rather, than in substance.” ■ Koenig closes his discussion with this remark on the real relation between the two peoples: “Babylon indeed became the source whence emanated many or most of the elements of culture and civilisation that spread over Western Asia; but the religion, this final factor in the fife of the nations, is the exclusive possession of the classical literature of the Bible. . Babylon may be called the bead and brain of Western Asia, but Israel the heart of history.” Professor Oettli, of Greifswald, in the ‘ Thnol, Literaturbericht ’ (p. 172), takes practically the same position, urging his readers to be very cautious in accepting the radical conclusions of the Assynologists. Professor Kettle, of Leipsic, in the ‘Theol. Literatur Zeitung,’ charges Delitzsch with superficiality in drawing conclufrom insufficient premises, especially denying that he has found the name Je-

hovah in old Babylonian inscriptions, citing as authorities against this claim. the Assyriologists Hommel, Hilprecht, and Ranke. Professor Hommel, in an address delivered at the great Eisenach religious conference (published in substance in the •‘Chronik/ of Leipsic), declares that Delitzsch’s interpretation of the inscriptions is incorrect, and that the substance of the Old Testament records Is hot touched by his claims. One of the best and latest reviews of the subject is a very long article, by Koberle, of the University of Erlangen, in the Leipsic * Kirehedzeitung ’ (No. 27). He analyses nine leading Old Testament subjects, notably the creation, the fall, the deluge the origin of sin, the world beyond, angelology, and demonology, and emphasises the fact that in each of these cases, notwithstanding a certain external agreement between the Babylonian and the Hebrew traditions, the latter not only give to these a different higher and religious interpretation, but actually antagonise the interpretation given in the Babylonian tablets. His leading conclusion is that in substance there is not so much agreement as divergence between the two. He concludes : “In this very thing lies .the significance of the Old Testament records. The Bible is not only independent of Babel, but it goes beyond Babel and it antagonises Babel.”—Translations made for the ‘Literary Digest.’