14 th e help they give us In answering the question, How far do these n arratives in Genesis embody for us th e oldest tra ditions of our race? There are two rea sons which lead us to look w ith some confidence to Babylonia for the answer to th is question. Fo r one thing, in early Babylonia we are already far back into the times to which many of these trad ition s relate; fo r another, the Bible itself points to Babylonia as the original city of those traditions. Eden was in Babylonia, as shown by its rivers, the E uphrates and Tigris. It was in Babylonia th e A rk was bu ilt; and on a mountain in th e neighborhood of Baby lonia the A rk rested. It was from the plain of Shinar, in Babylonia, th a t the new distribution of the race took place. To Babylonia, therefore, if anywhere, we are entitled to look for ligh t on these ancient traditions, and do we no t find it? I read sometimes w ith astonish ment of the statem en t th a t Babylonian discovery has done little or nothing for the confirmation of these old p arts of Genesis-—has ra th e r proved th a t they belong to th e region of the mythical. Take only one or two examples. I leave over meanwhile th e Babylonian story of th e creation and th e flood, and take th a t old ten th chapter of Genesis, the “Table of Nations.” Professor Kautzsch, of Halle, a critic of note, says of th a t old table, “The so-called Table of Nations remains, according to all re sults of monumental exploration, an ethnographic original document of the first ran k which nothing can replace.” In this ten th chapter of Genesis, verses 8-10, we have certain statem ents about th e origin of Babylonian civilization. We learn (1 ) th a t Babylonia is th e old est of civilizations; (2) th a t Assyrian civilization was derived from Babylonia; and (3) strangest of all, th a t the founders of Babylonian civilization were not Semites, but Ham ites— descendants of Cush. Each of these statements- was
' THE K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S in contradiction to old classical notions and to w hat was currently believed till recently about those ancient people. Yet it will not be disputed th a t exploration has justified th e Bible on each of these points. Assyria, undoubtedly, was younger th a n Babylonia; it derived its civilization, arts, religion, institutions, all th a t it had, from Babylonia. Strangest of all, the originators of Babylonian civilization, th e Accadians, or Sumerians, were a people not of Semi- mitic, but apparently of T u ran ian or what the Bible would call Ham itic stock. Take another instance;, in verse 22 Elam appears as th e son of Shem, b u t here was a difficulty. The E lam ites of his tory were not a Semitic, bu t an Aryan people, and th eir language was Aryan. Even Professor Hommel, in defending the ancient Hebrew tra d itio n ,,though t he had to adm it an erro r here. But was there? A F rench expedition went out to excavate Susa, th e capital of Elam, and below th e ru in s of the his torical E lam discovered bricks and o th er remains of an older civilization, w ith Babylonian inscriptions showing the people to be of Semitic stock; so E lam was, a fte r all, th e son of Shem. In the story of the Tower of Babel in chapter I I , again is it not in teresting to find th e Bible deriving all th e stream s of mankind from th e P lain of Shinar, and to find archaeology bringing, cor roborative proof th a t probably all the g reater stream s of civilization do take th e ir origin from th is region? F o r th a t is th e view to which th e opinions of scholars now tend.
Glance now a t th e stories of Creation, of Paradise, and of th e Deluge. The story of P aradise and the F all we may dismiss in th is connection, fo r except in the case of the picture on an ancient seal which does b ear some relation to th e story of th e tem ptation in Eden, th ere has yet been no proper parallel to th e Bible sto ry of th e fall. On the KEEP THE SILVER DOLLAR SMILING
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker