says to his mother, Nammu, the primeval sea: “O my mother, the creature whose name thou hast uttered, it exists, Bind upon it the . . . of the gods; Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss, The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay, Thou, do thou bring the limbs into existence; Ninmah (the earth-mother goddess) will work above thee; . . . (goddess of birth) will stand by thee at thy fashioning; O my mother, decree thou it (the new-born’s) fate, Ninmah will bind it upon the . . . of the gods, . . . as man . . S. N. Kramer, who has done much in recent years toward recovering for our use some of the most ancient records in the world, makes the fol lowing significant observation con cerning the attempt of the ancient Sumerians to explain the origin of the universe and the existence of gods and men: “It cannot be suffi ciently stressed that the Sumerians’ cosmogonic concepts, early as they are, are by no means primitive. They reflect the mature thought and reason of the thinking Sumerian as he contemplated the forces of nature and the character of his own exist ence. When these concepts are ana lyzed; when the theological cloak and polytheistic trappings are re moved, the Sumerian creation con cepts indicate a keenly observing mentality as well as an ability to draw and form pertinent conclusions from the data observed.”* Now, the question is often asked: "How shall we explain the similar ities and the differences between Genesis and the other ancient cos mogonies?” As for the similarities, four answers have been suggested: (1) The Genesis account is drawn from the ancient legends; (2) Gene sis is the source of the traditions; (3) Their likeness is attributable to like ways of thinking—similar tra ditions having arisen spontaneously in different parts of the earth be cause of “the natural tendencies of the human mind in its evolution from the savage state” ; (4) "Their likeness is due to a common inherit ance, each handing on from age to age records concerning the early his tory of the race.” Without discuss ing the first two, it is sufficient here to observe that neither of the the ories of mutual dependence have proven at all satisfactory. Regard ing the third theory, it is unthink able that accounts possessing so much in common could have origi nated independently of one another. PAGE EIGHTEEN
The more probable explanation is found in the idea of cognateness, which is based on the unbroken his torical connection of the Hebrew people with Mesopotamian life and tradition from earliest times. As the eminent scholar, Dr. Orr, once said: “On this view, the Biblical stories are not late and purified ver sions, of the Babylonian, but repre sent an independent related version, going back to a common origin with the Babylonian, but preserving their monotheistic character in the line of revelation, while the others had long sunk under the corrupting in fluences of polytheism. Or, if puri fication is to he spoken of, it is puri fication on the basis of an older and less debased tradition. Such a
Babylonian Creation Tablet
ings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools, and changed the glory of the incorrupt ible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” As we consider the tragically de generate creation accounts of ancient nations, let us thank God once again for our Bible and for the way it manifests in its Creation story, as it does elsewhere again and again, the dignity and accuracy of its rec ord, and for a sobriety which can be accounted for on no other basis than that of divine inspiration. 1. See article in February issue of The King’s Business. 2. See Yahuda, “The Accuracy of the Bible,” New York, 19S5. 3. For a translation of the Babylo nian account, see Barton, “Arch aeology and The Bible,” Phila delphia, 1937, p. 279 ff. If. Ibid, p. 279. 5. Ibid, p. 289. 6. Ibid, p. 290. 7. Kramer,",Sumerian Mythology,” Philadelphia, 19H, p. 70. 8. Ibid, p. 73. 9. Orr, “The Problem of the Old Testament,” New York, 1926, p. W8. Next month, Dr. Bauman s article will deal with ancient accounts of a Primitive Paradise and the Fall of Man. TH E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
Paul R. Bauman, D.D.
view harmonizes with the Bible’s own postulate that the light of a true knowledge of God has never been wholly extinguished among men, and that from the first there has been a line of pious worshipers, a seed of blessing and promise upon the earth.” Certainly, the most logical conclu sion one can make, as he compares the garbled traditions of ancient peoples with the precious Word of God, is that such accounts as those of the Sumerians and Babylonians exhibit all the marks of degeneracy that are associated with centuries of oral tradition and spiritual apostasy. The Bible has suggested in the first chapter of Romans the reason for such degeneracy: "Because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reason-
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker