Divinity Library

•P3ia

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

ISRAEL AND BABYLON

THE INFLUENCE OF BABYLON ON
THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL
[A REPLY TO DELITZSCH]

HERMAN GUNKEL, D. D.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY IK THK XJNIVERSITT
OF BERLIN

ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY
E. S. B.

PHILADELPHIA
JOHN JOS. McVEY
1904
Yale Divinity Library
New Haven, Conn.

Copyright, 1904
JOHN J. McVEY.

PREFACE

For presenting to the English-speaking public this
translation an explanation is scarcely necessary. Since
the days of Ferdinand Christian Baur no theological
controversy has so agitated Germany as has this present
question as to the relation between the Old Testament
and the traditions of Babylon. Opened on January
13th, 1902, by the now famous lecture before the Em
peror, the struggle has raged and is raging yet with a
fury of almost unparalled violence. The literature on
the subject has become so voluminous as to form almost
a library in itself. Prof. Delitzsch cites some twenty
titles in the appendix to the second edition of his first
lecture but these are but a modicum of the whole.
In one regard especially the present situation may be
paralleled with the Baur controversy. Nearly every
person who could contrive to print or to have printed
his views on the subject has done so and, in consequence,
by far the greater part of the pamphlets and articles
-that have appeared display a lack of proper informa
tion — not to say, learning. That a reply should be in
some measure as well informed as the attack is a prin
ciple that has been disregarded in too many instances,
and such a disregard merely assists in weakening the
cause defended.
None the less, many scientists and theologians of note
have appeared on both sides, such names as Budde,
(3)

4 PREFACE
Jensen, Konig, Jereinias, Hommel and Kittel are a
sufficient evidence of that fact. But even much of their
contribution to the discussion has been irrelevant, and
much energy has been wasted fruitlessly in attempting
to overthrow Delitzsch on his own ground. As an
Assyriologist his work can scarcely be questioned. The
proper question is : Do his results in Assyriological
study form a sufficient basis for his conclusions in
theology ? Not that this has been overlooked by any
means — cf. Budde, especially — but the need was felt
for a thorough scientist who should be at once a master
of the Babylonian legends and a theologian of the first
rank. For this reason the work of Prof. Gunkel appears
most opportunely. Probably no one is better qualified
to speak with authority on the matters involved. In his
work " Schopfung und Chaos "(1895) he displayed
a most perfect acquaintance with the theology and
legends of Babylonia and his critical handling of the
material was such as to mark an epoch in the study of
this subject. In 1900 he published the first edition
(2nd in 1902) of his commentary on Genesis (in the
Nowack series), which, beyond all question, is now the
authoritative work on this book. His mastery of Baby
lonian mythology and its influence on the religion of the
Old Testament needs no further demonstration than that
afforded by this work.
In making the present translation two points have
been borne in mind. In the first place it has been made
to conform to the original as closely as possible.
Hence what is to our eyes an unusually lavish use of

PREFACE 5
italics and exclamation points. The long paragraphs
have been interfered with but little, but occasionally it
has been necessary to split some sentence into two or
three. In the second place, remembering that the re
sults of the higher criticism are not very familiar to most
persons in this country, many notes have been inserted
(in square brackets) to explain references known usually
to the expert alone.
The name " Yahwe "( Jehovah) has been represented
usually by J", following a common custom in England.
All quotations from Delitzsch have been made to cor
respond to the English translation of Mr. Johns as
closely as possible, even when Gunkel differs in slight
details from the original. Biblical quotations are given
in the form of the Authorized Version.
For the sake of those wishing to pursue the matter
further it may be added that the Code of Hammurabi
has been translated by Mr. Johns under the title "The
Oldest Code of Laws in the World' ' and forms a very in
expensive volume. The El-Armarna Tablets have been
published in English (besides other more elaborate
editions) by Lieut. -Col. Conder in a popular form. A
sufficient guide to the literature on the Babel and Bible
controversy will be found in the Expository Times for the
last two years — more at length as regards special mono
graphs in the other theological reviews.
A word or two may not be out of place respecting Mr.
Johns' introduction to his translation of Babel und Bibel.
In the Expository Times for October of the present year
he says (p. 44) : "When I wrote the introduction, I

PREFACE

tried to avoid giving any indication of my own views on
the points raised by Prof. Delitzsch." If Mr. Johns'
own views are hostile to Prof. Delitzsch, he assuredly
has met with unqualified success, for a more apprecia
tive introduction it rarely has been my lot to read. It
is the duty of the- student who claims to be neutral not
merely to content himself with expatiating on the ex
cellencies of the work before him but to use at least
some endeavor to point out possible weaknesses. This
Mr. Johns has made not the least attempt to do and the
most casual reading of his introduction will dispose of
the plea "purely objective." Every virtue of Babel
und Bible has been indicated, et voild tout.
On p. xxvi, we read : "If these lectures are to be an
swered the Professor must be met on his own ground."
That is perfectly true if an answer to the purely scien
tific problem of the reading and knowledge of tablets is
meant. But the controversy was not aroused by read
ing tablets. The question is : Do the results of As-
Byriological science destroy the possibility of a unique
revelation in tbe Old Testament? That is what the
controversy is about and there Prof. Delitzsch is on
anything but his own ground. If a total disregard of
the principles used in studying the history of religion,
if a complete ignorance of anything but the broadest
outlines of Old Testament criticism, coupled with a
blunder in quoting the New Testament that a German
school-boy should be ashamed to make, prove anything,
they certainly prove that in theology, Prof. Delitzsch is
most emphatically not on his own ground. He has
placed himself in a domain where he is not at home,

PREFACE /
with the results to be expected. LaPlace was a most
wondrous mathematician, but his career as a politician
is memorable. Prof. Delitzsch is perhaps the foremost
of Assyriologists. Let us hope he will not try to be
anything else. The Translator.

ISRAEL AND BABYLON

For something over a year the German public has
been set in commotion over the theme "Babel and
Bible. ' ' How are we to explain the sensation that the
lectures of Delitzsch have called forth ? This is a ques
tion that certainly demands consideration. For, in the
first place, that first lecture, from which the agitation
of the public took its start, offers nothing, as far as re
gards its scientific material, but what was known gener
ally to all Assyriologists and to all students of Old
Testament theology as well — a fact that is granted on
all sides. In other words, the lecture was, and evi
dently claimed to be, only a fuller and more perspic
uous review of the present results. In order to explain
the sensation which so suddenly arose, it is necessary
to remember the conditions under which our public
writers exist. The daily press lives in its own manner
from day to day on "events." A development that
goes on slowly and quietly escapes notice easily, but
if a sudden and fortuitous occurrence brings matters
to the surface, then the events become all at once
"events" and remain so until something else more
' ' eventful ' ' suppresses them. So it has happened that
our newspapers had taken small notice of the quiet but
greatly growing science of Assyriology, in much the
(9)

10 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
same way as they — to their disgrace be it said— have
studied to ignore scientific theology in general (albeit
that there are a few noteworthy exceptions, particularly
of late). Whatever can be read in the daily papers on
such things (and especially on Old Testament subjects)
is usually of the smallest scientific value. And this is
not excused by the fact that many educated persons,
including those of the highest circles — aye, even many
University teachers (as is evident from time to time) —
men with whom we teach from day to day and from
room to room — that even such as these know nothing
of the existence of an earnest scientific theology; have
no conceptions of the method of our work, and are
ignorant of the results of that work despite all our
endeavors to popularize them. And with this universal
ignorance of the science of religion, dilettanteism is
in full bloom as it is scarce elsewhere. Many hold
opinions on religion without being able to join in a con
versation on the least technical topic. What we expe
rience anew each day in this regard is "pitiful, most
pitiful." So we can observe how even investigators,
who in their own domain are quite sober and temperate,
suddenly lose their balance when they come to discuss
religious subjects. And now the Babylonian investi
gators on Biblical subjects have suddenly become
"events," as if a light-bearer from above had deluged
them all at once with a stream of radiance. All the
world devoured this lecture, which the highest person
of our state caused to be delivered before him twice.
But the less the public had understood of these things
before, the greater was its astonishment now to see an

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 11
entire sunken world rise here to the light of day. Un
fortunately, Delitzsch had neglected to state in the text
of his lecture and in wholly unequivocal terms that the
material gathered by him is in all essentials (and
especially in so far as it is assured) a common posses
sion of a whole generation of research. A part of the
public — and perchance no small part — has consequently
misunderstood him entirely, and regards his lecture as a
most remarkable scientific achievement. Likewise,
ecclesiastical circles have been agitated violently. Delitzsch
had avowed the results of the modern Old Testament
study; he had, for instance, designated as a scientifically
irrefragable and enduring fact the assertion that the-
Pentateuch is composed of literary sources very differ
ent in kind. He had asserted a primitive Babylonian
origin for some of the most familiar portions of the
traditions of Israel — in especial for the narratives of
creation, the deluge, and even of Paradise — and accord
ingly declared himself of the opinion that these stories
are to be regarded as myths and legends, but not as
objective descriptions of real events. The Sabbath,
likewise, is of Babylonian origin, and for monotheism
itself an analogy is to be found there.
Now with all these assertions Delitzsch did not say
much more than is generally admitted among investi
gators or is, at least, under discussion. But, in spite of
that, his words affected many in the fold like a thun
derbolt. Many things may come into consideration to
explain so unexpected a result. But the principal
cause is, after all, the lamentable estrangement of the
evangelical Church from evangelical science. The

12 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
origin of this estrangement and the source of blame for
it need not be discussed here,— let be granted only the
fact itself; it is unfortunately indisputable. How
few among the educated persons of the community, yes
even among the older clergymen — and not only among
the older clergymen — have a clear conception of what is
actually happening in the scientific theology of the
present ! It is this that makes it possible for these
' ' Bible-Babylonian ' ' researches, when once they have
become known, to surprise the Church and find it al
most weaponless. In this case the Church should have
employed a conservative and rigorous theology, which
could indicate what part of Delitzsch' s assertions is cor
rect and what is perhaps exaggeration, but even if many
cautious words were spoken, none the less the voices of
the excited partisans rose much higher. The one side
called out : The Bible is disposed of, once and for all,
— Assyriology has proved that all its fundamentals are
Babylonian ! And the other fought with the energy of
despair to admit only a tittle of Israel's religion as
adopted from foreign sources. And between these two
extremes a bewildering multitude of opinions, reflecting
back in a myriad of forms the whole chaos of our
strenuous age. Even modern Judaism arose in a fright
at losing the aureole of the chosen people, if Israel's tra
ditions were of Babylonian origin. Personal amenities
(that mayhap had been better avoided) were added.
There rained thick on more or less prominent sides ar
ticles in newspapers and journals, lectures illustrated
and lectures unillustrated, brochures of every descrip
tion, while explanations or other articles in the dailies

ISRAEL AND BABYLON IS
goaded up the discussions anew whenever slackening.
An unutterable mental confusion was the result.
And this confusion has been still further increased by
the recently delivered second lecture of Delitzsch. To
be sure, as far as regards matter, this lecture also brought
nothing especial to the expert, but now the Assyriologist,
irritated by his ecclesiastical opponents, took up his
position in the domain of theology and summarily
placed in question the revelation of the Old Testament
and the religion of Israel itself.
But on the very day when this lecture was issued
the public was astonished by another great sensation, —
a letter of the Emperor's destroyed the wide-spread error
that Delitzsch' s principal assertions were accompanied
in all their bearings by the very highest approval. So
the attention of the widest circles was drawn again to
this discussion and the flood of publications began once
more. And now a third lecture is to be expected, of
which we read here and there mysterious hints.
So the author of these lines likewise has felt it his
duty not to refuse the many appeals that have come to
him, and on his part to assist in helping to quiet the.
growing confusion. Many considerations might cer
tainly have decided him rather to silence than to speech,
for scientific investigation seeks quiet and abhors sensa- ¦
tion, and hard as it may be to the investigator that
no one notices his painstaking work, yet it is dangerous
when the tumult of the day rages about him and may
drown out what is best in him, — the pure and just in
tention which is needful to him before all. Let us say
then, once and for all, in all honesty and truth : "With

14 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
favor to none and with malice to none!" The author
may assume that many readers will be astonished or
amazed by some or other of his words, although he plans
in general not to go beyond what he can assume to be
the general conviction of his colleagues. But he also
begs the readers, if they are of a different opinion in
many things, at least to believe that he seeks the truth
with all his might, and that in expressing it to a
greater circle he has no wish but to serve our beloved
Evangelical Church.
In the first place, a few words on Babylonian civiliza
tion in general. The decipherment of the cuneiform
inscriptions is one of the most brilliant achievements of
the human intellect. Since that time our view of the
ancient and the most ancient Orient have altered com
pletely. While the investigators of earlier generations
were bound to the scanty information of the Old Testa
ment and of the Greeks regarding the Orient, we now
know it from native sources, and these sources begin,
at the latest, about 3000 B. C. ! The history of our
race has been extended two whole millennia before our
eyes! What a mighty scientific event! And how many-
colored an historical picture it is that unrolls itself be
fore our eyes, fragmentary though it may be for the
present! People appear, flourish and pass away!
Tremendous, world-embracing conqueror-states arise
and struggle for the supremacy. But the middle-point
-of the Orient is Babylonia — there since inconceivable
ages past, an amazingly high civilization reigned, which
by 3000 is found already in full bloom. This culture
¦comes from a non-Semitic people, whom we term

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 15
Sumerians, and is then taken up and carried on by
Semitic immigrants. And from Babylonia this culture
was carried forth through the entire Orient as far as
Egypt. Babel takes in the Orient the position of Rome
thousands of years later in the Occident. This Babylo
nian culture we see operating in the world up to Graeco-
Roman times, in fact, its last traces we have in our very
midst. A few particulars here must suffice to make clear
the immeasurable importance of the Babylonian civil
ization. Recently the scientific world has been surprised
by the discovery of the law-book of the Babylonian king
Hammurabi, dated about 2250; this law-book shows
us complicated social relations and a code embodying
refined and developed distinctions, which, in part, were
far more civilized than those of Israel in the so-called
Mosaic code. For instance, in Babylon the law of
blood-revenge has disappeared, while it still rules in
ancient Israel. Or, to name just one other point that
shows the height of the Babylonian culture, the Ham
murabi code contains regulations for physicians' fees!
And this law was codified about 2250; it comes from a
time a thousand years before there was any people of
Israel at all. It is as far removed from Moses as we
are from Charlemagne!
In order to illustrate the wide extent of the Babylo
nian influence, let us name another discovery which a
few years ago threw a sudden light on these things — the
discovery of Tell-Armarna in Egypt. In that place the
archives of Amenophis IV were excavated, and in them
was revealed the correspondence of the Pharaohs with
the kings in Babylonia, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus

16 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
and with the Egyptian vassals in Canaan. From this
international correspondence, which was carried on in
the Babylonian language, it was seen that Babylonian
was then the international diplomatic language of all
hither Asia. The petty kings of Canaan themselves,
who then lived under Egyptian suzerainty, wrote to
the Egyptian lord not on Egyptian material, i. e.,
papyrus, nor in the Egyptian language, but on Babylo
nian material, i. e., on stone tablets, and in the
Babylonian language! Let us consider what the pre
dominance of a foreign language in diplomatic com
munications must mean for the entire civilization.
Syria and Canaan must then have been subject to the
influence of Babylonian culture, in much the same
way, perhaps, as in the eighteenth century the whole
refined world — and the diplomats as well — spoke
French! This correspondence, however, which displays
an extension of the Babylonian civilization as far as
Canaan, dates from the time 1500-1400. Canaan was,
as concerns its culture, a Babylonian province, before
Israel had forced its way into the country.
Another picture: In later times, when Persians,
Greeks and Romans mingled, when religions became
interwoven and new composite concepts arose, in those
times also the Babylonian element is still visible, we
hear then once more, and continually, of seven high
est Genii or gods — these are the seven Babylonian
planet-gods — these are the same forms (to assume this
here in advance) which in the Hebrew-Christian tradi
tion remain as the seven highest angels — the seven
archangels. In the varied speculations which streamed

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 17
in from the Orient during the first two Christian centu
ries, and even gained a foothold in some few Chris
tian circles — speculations which we choose to term
"Gnostic" — in these, there still reecho traces of the
(in part) primitive Babylonian mythology. Yes,
even among us there are a few things that recall
the Babylonian wisdom, although of course but
weakly. The Babylonians became the teachers of our
whole cultured world, especially in astronomy and in
all branches dependent on it — in mathematics and
metrics. We likewise still divide the zodiac into twelve
signs and the circle into 360 degrees. And modern
Christians still call the seven days of the. week after the
seven planet-gods of the Babylonians: Sunday [Samas],
Monday [Sin], Tuesday [French, Mardi, Ninib or
Kaivanu], Wednesday [French, Mercredi, Nabu],
Thursday [Marduk], Friday [Istar], Saturday [Gunkel
writes this in English, Nergal]. [Note: Kaivanu and
Nergal were later interchanged.] These names are
obtained by the modern world through the Graeco-
Roman civilization, but the latter obtained them from
the Orient — originally from Babylonia.
It is conceivable that modern investigators should be
intoxicated, so to say, by contemplating such a tremen
dous history. And every day may bring new dis
coveries, for we certainly are not yet at the end of these
researches. There are still whole libraries of stone
tablets under the earth awaiting the happy discoverer,
and even of those already found only a part have been
read and given their due value. So we understand
how Assyriology reaches out on all sides in an ecstacy

18 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
of youthful and ardent possession of power, how it
investigates according to Babylonian standpoints the
Grecian and the Roman civilization, and the religion of
Israel also. That the older sciences resist such Baby-
Ionizing attempts is conceivable enough ; Greek scholars,
for example, will not soon be able to convince them
selves to admit as imported from the Orient much that,
until now, they have regarded as natively Hellenic. But
in spite of all opposition, we may safely assume that
such investigations will come in the future, as far as they
have not come already, and will bear fruit for science.
On the other hand also it is to be borne in mind that trees
do not grow up to the heavens. The result will as
suredly not be that the whole world is Babylonian at
the bottom. As considerable as the Babylonian influence
may be, perhaps more considerable still than we can
suspect at present, yet even at the present time it may
be said with all safety that the great nations of antiquity,
who have come later than the Babylonians, on whose
foundation our spiritual culture is built, — especially
Israel, Hellas, and Rome — that these, in spite of occa
sional and perchance deep-reaching Babylonian influ
ence, have preserved their own especial characteristics.
And so we come to our proper theme: What influence
has the Babylonian world had on Israel, especially on the
Israelitic religion ?
But with this we enter a domain where Old Testa
ment theology, which until now could give only refer
ences, has a full right to enter the discussion with a voice
of weight. It is necessary to state this explicitly. For
some Assyriologists — we say it with regret — have as-

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 19
sumed towards the older science of the Old Testament
a tone of their own, as if the only legitimate way to the
understanding of Israel from now on lay through Assyri
ology, and as if in Old Testament research Assyriology
could dispense with the aid of the theologian. Even
Delitzsch, in spite of the words of high appreciation,
which he at first expressed for our science,1 in the later
stages of the debate, when he was certainly much irri
tated by uncomprehending antagonists — and this should
not be overlooked — has not kept himself entirely free
from this tone.8 But now the fact really is that As
syriology embraces already an almost immeasurable do
main, and that, on the other hand, Old Testament inves
tigation lays claim on the whole powers of an ordinary
mortal, so that only to a genius for whom there are no
such restrictions would it be possible really to unite both
fields. We Old Testament theologians are accordingly
admonished to learn from the Assyriologist when he
teaches matters Babylonian, even when he explains the
usages of the Hebrew language from the Babylonian.
But on the other hand we have the right to insist that
the Assyriologist likewise keep within the boundaries of
his own science. The Assyriologist, who in any way
compares Israelitic matters with Babylonion and seeks
to draw a conclusion from the comparison, places him
self in a realm where he, ordinarily, is no expert
in the full sense of the word. And he should bear
that in mind. Even " Hebraic philology" gives no reaj
inner understanding of the religion of Israel. So both
subjects are in a friendly relation, befitted for working
together. We wish with all our heart that both sciences

20 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
may reach each other the hand afresh for the common
task, where each honors the other and strives to learn
from the other. May the Assyriologist, who wishes to
speak on Old Testament matters, call the theologian into
consultation if he does not feel himself absolutely firm
in this subject ! So Delitzsch, whom we prize highly
as Assyriologist and Hebraic philologist, would have
done well, perhaps, if he had used the advice of some
expert and cautious specialist in the Old Testament be
fore he offered his opinion on Old Testament religion to
the general public. Perhaps the specialist would have
pointed out to him in time where some linguistic over
sight had escaped him,8 or where he had quite omitted
to consult the original text.' He would not have al
lowed hazardous opinions concerning the interpretations
of many Biblical passages to escape him [Delitzsch],6
or otherwise would have pointed out incorrect or dubious
assertions of all kinds,6 he would have taken pains to
explain our understanding of the Old Testament by the
history of religion,' he would have tried to show him
[Delitzsch] that he far undervalued the Old Testament
religion, and he would have warned him against enter
ing into questions of systematic theology. If Delitzsch
had followed all this advice, the first lecture would
have taken a different form in many things, and the
second would not have been delivered at all, to the profit
both of the subject and assuredly of Delitzsch!
Let us for the moment now leave religion out of the
question, and let us ask whether we may assume an
influence of Babylon on the culture qf Israel f To this
question we may with all certainty answer yes. The

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 21
influence is evident and must in fact have been very
great. In Israel there were, before all, Babylonian
systems of measure, weight and money. Babylonian
is the striking preference of the civilization of Israel —
even of the literature — for particular numbers, e. g.,
seven and twelve, a preference which in Babylonia is
explained from the fact that particular numbers are
characteristic of particular planet-gods. And the very
tendency of Israel to group literary productions accord
ing to these numbers has been proved for Babylon: the
great Babylonian creation-epic was written on seven
tables, and the national epic of Gilgames on twelve.
New surprises are brought by the code of Hammurabi,
the Babylonian individual also followed the precept:
' ' Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. ' ' 8 Like the Israelite,
he performed the ceremony of adoption by pronouncing
the words : "Thou art my son," ' and he denied his
subjection to another by saying: "Thou art not my
father nor my lord. ' ' 10 When Laban and Jacob go to
law with each other, the legal basis of their compact is
Babylonian law; in case of the death of a sheep by wild
beasts, the damage is borne by the owner;11 and he who
accuses another of theft has the right to institute a search
of the other's house before witnesses." Just so in case
of barrenness, the Babylonian married woman, like the
ancient Hebrew woman, can give her husband a
maid that she may so raise up children.13 The story of
the slave Hagar, who so became a mother and exalted
herself over her mistress,1' is a striking example of Baby
lonian law.18 But enough of details ! We see suffi
ciently from these few that Israel has not remained free
from Babylonian influence.

22 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
Likewise the epochs in which Babylonia has especi
ally affected Israel can be given; in chief is the period
of the height of the Assyrian kingdom, about 660, when
the Babylonian gods, as gods of the Assyrian realm,
were esteemed in the whole circle of nearer Asia the
mightiest divinities. That is the time when even
Egyptian cities bore officially Babylonian names and
when the Babylonian gods were revered by the state
of Judah ; their emblems and altars stood then in
the temple of J" on Zion. And the Judaeans again
came under Babylonian influence when Nebuchadnezzar
deported all "the officers and the mighty of the land"
to Babylonia and so brought them into the immediate
sphere of Babylon. Post-exilic Judaism is completely
subjugated by the influence of this civilization in all
domains of the external life. In the centuries following
the exile the people had actually forgotten its native
tongue and adopted the Aramaic language, which was
then ruling in the whole culture of the Semites. It has
become finally in this way a completely different nation,
which to the old Israelite people is bound by only a
slender thread.
But much weightier than deductions from these later
epochs is a fact which we know from the Tell Armarna
letters, namely that Canaan already was permeated
most thoroughly by Babylonian influence before the
entrance of Israel. Accordingly when Israel entered
CajiaaLriand_grew up into the old Canaanite civilization
it came by that meansTndirectly under the rule of Baby
lonian civilization." Therefore ltTTfTno surprise" to us if
the oldest stories, such as those just mentioned of Jacob

ISRAEL AND BABYLON A>
and Laban, of Hagar and Sarah, presuppose Babylonian
legal conditions.
And this influence never ceased entirely, for Israel's
territory lay on the great commercial roads, which led
from Babylonia to Egypt. On such great roads the mer
chants travelled with their wares, the conquerors with
their armies, but there travelled likewise ideas, myths,
legends and religions. And that the Babylonian religion
so travelled to Canaan is no assumption but something
which we can confirm by examples: the mountain Sinai
probably is named after the Babylonian moon-god Sin,
and Mount Nebo, where Moses died, is named after the
Babylonian Nebo (i. e. Mercury. )
On the other hand it certainly would be very per
verse to represent that Israel was nothing else than
a Babylonian province. Egypt with its primevally
old civilization, which rivalled the Babylonian, lay
surely much too near for it not to have had an effect
likewise; Egyptian policy indeed at various times had
reckoned Canaan and Syria as part of its own domain.
We need recall only the r6le which Egypt and Egyptian
life played in the story of Joseph to recognize how much
ancient Israel had busied itself with Egypt. But that
the Hebrew, together with the allied Phoenicians and
Aramaeans, had something of their own in thelr'^cTvTti-
zation is evidenced mosFclearly by the fact that they
possessed their own writing; they wrote in neither
Egyptian/ norn^bylonian. And it is well known that
tendencies towards affinity reveal themselves in all civili
zation fiost clearly in the writing. Accordingly we
must guard ourselves here, too, from exaggeration.

.24 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
Let us now ask whether the religion of Israel also
displays Babylonian traces ? That the historian has the
right, yes, even the duty — to open this question, can,
after the above, surely suffer no doubt. But may the
ology as such, may we as Christians, who believe in
the revelation of God in the religion of Israel, may we
take part in such undertakings? Does not faith in
God's revelation fall away if we find Babylonian ele
ments in this religion ? Orthodox opponents of Delitzsch
have answered these questions affirmatively and have
striven with all energy against the assumption of
Babylonian elements in the Bible. But the extremists
on the other side are of the same opinion also, and for
just that reason are rejoicing over the downfall of the
Bible and religion. What then is our position to be as
opposed to this ? A faith — we must say — that is worthy
of the name must be brave and bold. What kind of a
faith would that be which is afraid of facts, which ab
hors scientific investigation! If we really believe in
God, Who reveals Himself in history, then we are not
to dictate to the Highest what the events are to be in
which we find Him, but we have only to kiss humbly
His footprints and to revere His dealings in history.
If we have to alter our views of God's ways in history,
because the facts teach us, well, we simply have to
do so !
If then we should find real Babylonian elements in
the history of Israel, yes, even if they were absolutely
important and weighty matters, yet our faith should
nevertheless rejoice that the world is opening itself to us
and that we see God's rule where we formerly had not bus-

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 25
pected it. Judaism, in which matters religious and na
tional always are closely connected, may be anxious lest
a pearl be stolen from its crown ; but what are the national
claims of Judaism to us ? We acknowledge cheerfully
and honestly God's revelation wherever a human soul
feels itself near its God, even though that be in the
most arid and strange forms. Far be it from us to
limit God's revelation to Israel! "The seed is sown
on the whole wide land!" How much more nobly
than the modern conservatives have thought the Fathers
of the Christian Church, who in the great and noble
heroes of Greek philosophy have seen bearers of the
seed of the divine Word, seed sown everywhere. Let
us Christians not likewise commit the impertinence
of Judaism, which thinks to honor its God by despis
ing and abusing all other religions. To use a picture
from the Bible, the Israelite-Christian religion is the
first-born among its brothers. We truly have no need
to defend our own brothers jealously — we ought to be
great-minded enough to recognize — and even among
those old Babylonians — what there is to recognize.
The height and majesty of the religion of Israel will
not thereby be lessened, but thus for the first time be
placed properly in the light.
But in any case, let it be as it may, we are resolved
to hear the facts, not to resist them inwardly, but to
submit to them willingly. And therein lies our honor
as investigators.
In the first lecture Delitzsch has named a series of
points in which the Babylonian religion has influenced
supposedly that of Israel; these are in the first place

26 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
Biblical stories — of the deluge, of the creation, and of
Paradise. These are said to have come by Baby
lonian transmission. How does the case stand ?
The story of the deluge is quite indubitably of Baby
lonian origin.'5 Almost all modern investigators —
Assyriologists and Old Testament scholars — agree in
this, and if isolated, all too anxious theologians struggle
against this indisputable conclusion, they may well
consider whether they do not do the cause of faith they
defend more harm than good. Alas for theology and
alas for our church as well, if it takes up the profession
of closing its eyes to obvious facts!
The facts of the case are as follows: The Babylonians,
too, have a story of the deluge whose whole design
coincides in a remarkale manner with both the Biblical
accounts — both, for there are in Genesis two stories of
the deluge [J and P] which have been worked together
by a third hand. The weightiness of the subject re
quires that we pause here a little longer. The Baby
lonian story, which has come down to us in a wonder
fully poetic form, tells how once the gods decided to
destroy the town Surippak (situated probably at the
mouth of the Euphrates). But Ea, the god of wis
dom, wished to save his favorite Ut-Napistim, who in
wisdom was of equal birth with his patron god. But
inasmuch as Ea did not dare disclose the counsel of the
great gods to a man, he adopted a stratagem: he ap
peared to the man in the night, while he was sleeping
by the wall of his reed-house, and commanded the
house, the wall, to build a ship! But the man, wise as his
god, understood the puzzle. He built the ship. The con-

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 27
struction is described minutely. The ship is divided into
different sections; within are stored all manner of silver
and gold, seeds of every kind, his family and his rela
tives, cattle and even artisans. The last feature should
be noted, which shows us that a civilized people is tell
ing this story ; according to another Babylonian recen
sion, the hero of the tale had actually buried writings
in order to save them until the flood passed. In the
following it is told, in poetic, strongly mythical features,
how the deluge comes. At the appointed time Ut-
Napistim himself goes into the ship. A black cloud
mounts up; that is the thundercloud of the god Hadad.
Nebo and Marduk stride in advance, the Anunnaki
raise their torches aloft. The waters rise and break
loose on the men. The gods themselves are terrified by
the fearful flood; they flee on high to Amis, heaven, and
cower down there like dogs. Istar, the divine mother
of men, cries loudly, and all the gods weep. Finally
the flood ceases. Ut-Napistim opens the window ; he
looks out and laments over the destruction of the world.
The ship has settled firmly on a northern mountain.
To learn whether the land is dry he sends out birds
three times. First a dove, which, however, finds no
resting place and hence returns. Then a swallow.
Finally a raven. The raven sees the water receding and
does not come back.
That shows Ut-Napistim that the earth is now dry; he
leaves the ship and first of all offers a sacrifice. But
the gods smell the savor and swarm like flies about
the sacrificer. Even Bel, the chief instigator of the
flood, draws near. Istar reproves him for doing so. Bel

28 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
grows angry as he sees the men who have survived the
deluge. Ea admits in some part that he has occasioned
the rescue, and represents to Bel with vigorous irony
his folly in producing the flood. Finally Bel recon
siders and displays his favor to the rescued one by
raising him among the gods. [A comparison of the
story in full as given here (or in any other work) with
the portions used by Delitzsch (tr. pp. 42 seq.), is in
teresting. It is scarcely courteous to accuse a scientist
of garbling, but an unfortunate impression of that nature
is liable to arise in the minds of the reader. Delitzsch's
" and so on" (p. 45) certainly covers a great deal.]
This Babylonian story has been described here thus
fully in order that the reader may recognize for himself its
remarkable similarity to the Biblical account, but at the
same time its equally great divergence. In the first
place, the points of contact: the similarity in the course
of the event is obvious at once — in spite of all divergences
in detail the substance of the story is the same as a
whole. Particularly striking is the coincidence of both
stories in the sending forth of the birds. How the
heart of the first discoverer of the Babylonian narrative
must have beaten when he came to this passage. Also the
contact is remarkable in that at the close a sacrifice is
offered and that the gods smell the sacrifice. Other points
occur as well, such as that in the second Hebraic source
[P] as in the Greek-Babylonian tradition Ararat (i.e.,
Armenia) is named as the landing-place of the ark, and
that the hero of the deluge in both cases is the tenth
of his line, Noah the tenth of the patriarchs, Ut-Napis
tim the tenth of the kings. Accordingly a relation must

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 29
exist between the two narratives. If we now consider
the inconceivable age of Babylonian civilization and of
this deluge narrative as well, if we remember that floods
are very natural precisely in Babylonia, which lies close
to the sea and is a flat plain watered by great streams,
we cannot doubt that the Israelite story came from
the Babylonian. [Perhaps not entirely conclusive, but
the statement is altogether probable] The Babylonian
narrative of the great flood has gone through the world
of hither Asia. We now have, in fact, the oldest repre
sentation of Noah's ark from an excavation of ancient
Etruria ! A well-known attempt at evading this con
clusion should never have been made, — that, due to
over-anxious temperaments and still appearing occasion
ally, in which it is assumed that the Hebraic account is
not dependent on the Babylonian but that both are
versions of the same events. For to every student of
legend it is quite indubitable that the narratives, which
coincide so in minor traits, must be related as narratives.
We say "to the student of legends." For this con
clusion also is unavoidable, thaL&^Hebrewjtradition^ if
we derive it thus from the Babylonian, is not an historical
narrative in the strict sense, but is poetic, popular, i.e.,
g, legend. ™ And, indeed, it is not only Assyriology that
teaches us this, but the fact is evinced by entirely other
characteristics, and should have been long obvious to
every one who lays claim to education and good taste t
The deluge account is a legend, is poetry, even as there
are many kinds of poetry and many kinds of legends,
too, in the Old Testament. That is not the judgment
of irreligion and unbelief, but a judgment which is en-

30 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
tirely compatible with piety and true devotion, for
legends are the most precious treasure which an ancient
people possesses, and they are particularly fitted to ex
press the thoughts of religion. What a melancholy
spectacle it is, if the anxious piety of certain circles, in
6ad combination with a pitiful lack of culture, is afraid
of the poetry of the Old Testament, the noblest poetry
in the world ! But churches and schools henceforth
should not leave to unbelievers the task of explaining
to our people the legendary portions of the Old Testa
ment. There is a pressing need that at least in the
upper classes of the higher schools, as soon as the possi
bility of historical intelligence has become manifest in
the scholars, it should be shown by some prominent
examples that poetic narratives are contained in the
Old Testament and to this purpose the deluge story
might serve as a particularly clear instance.
We therefore, agree absolutely with Delitzsch, when
he assumes the dependence of the Biblical account of
the flood upon the Babylonian; indeed, we regard it as
no small merit of Delitzsch that he has been courageous
enough to announce in the presence of that illustrious
assembly this result of research and, at the same time,
to acknowledge without reserve his adherence to the
modern criticism of the Pentateuch." And the merit,
which Delitzsch has so obtained for himself by popu
larizing investigation we shall not forget, even if we can
not agree with him in many other matters. For we cer
tainly dissent from him even in the question as to how
this dependence is to be regarded. Delitzsch seems here
as in other cases to incline to the opinion that the Bibli-

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 31
cal authors had the Babylonian legend lying before them
in writing, and that it was translated and revised by
them with full deliberation.18 This opinion has too ex
ternal a relation to the subject and for the student of the
history of legends does not come into consideration ;
much more probable to him is the assumption that the
story came to Israel by oral tradition. And that this
more natural assumption meets the case here equally
well is proved by the various deviations of the legend
ary material in the Biblical and the Babylonian accounts.
Thus, for example, the names "ark" and "flood"
["tebha" and "mabbul"], which, it is safe to say,
were not invented by the Hebrew writers, are different
from the Babylonian.19 But much weightier than such an
error is an omission which Delitzsch has disregarded.
He has contented himself with establishing the depend
ence of the Biblical matter on the Babylonian, without
including an investigation as to whether the Biblical
account as opposed to the original has not also a certain
se(/-dependence. And just on account of this omission,
the impression might be created that the Biblical ac
count, because dependent on the Babylonian, is worth
less ! In fact Delitzsch himself has spoken of "the
purer and more original form "M of the Babylonian tra
ditions. An ominous one-sidedness is this, inherent in
Delitzsch' s lectures, and on account of this he bears the
chief blame in the reigning confusion ! For where in all
the world is it permitted merely to trace the origin of
a subject without immediately adding, if it be at all
..possible, an investigation as to the manner in which
the subject has been transformed ? Our great German

32 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
poets have adopted repeatedly old material for their
greater creations: Goethe's " Faust," for example, rests
as everyone knows on an older German legend. But
who thinks that Goethe's poetry becomes of less worth
if we have pointed out to us the book of folk-lore as the
source of "Faust"? On the contrary, his power is
seen for the first time when we observe what he has
made of the uncouth material. And so it is with the
Biblical and Babylonian stories of the deluge. The
difference between the two is almost immeasureable;
they are different worlds which are expressed in them.
In the Babylonian story, a wild, grotesque polytheism :
the gods outscheme and combat one another, they
quake before the flood and cower like dogs in the
heaven, and they come like flies to the sacrifice. But
the Biblical story speaks of the One God, Whose just
retribution sends the flood, and Who graciously pro
tects the just man after He has tried him. Therefore
in the Biblical narrative there is lacking also a trait
which is contained in the Babylonian, and which is
perchance pleasing to modern sentimentalism, namely
the sympathy of the hero for the drowned men.
But what an exaggeration when Delitzsch asserts"
that the Babylonian legend, on account of this one
feature, ' ' appeals to us with far greater force than the
Biblical narrative !" And our sympathy with this
feature will be, moreover, markedly diminished when
we add that it in no way occurred to the hero of the
flood to warn his fellow-citizens, but rather — barbar
ously enough — instead of warning them, he announced
to them a rich blessing and that on the advice of his godt

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 33
[ 1 ! ] But the narrative of the Bible, which founds the
deluge on the sins of mankind, is entirely too earnest to
know pity for justly punished sinners. Accordingly the
Israelite tradition had by no means simply adopted the
Babylonian, but on the contrary it transformed the story
with the utmost completeness; a true marvel of the
world's history, it has changed dross into gold. Should
not we then as Christians rejoice, that in these primitive
Babylonian recensions we have found a line to measure
how much nearer the God in Whom we believe was to
ancient Israel than to the Babylonians ? Truly, he who
has a sense for religion and its history cannot overlook
this potent difference between the two stories.
The state of the case for the creation narrative is sim
ilar, except that here the proof for the dependence of
the Israelite tradition upon the Babylonian is much
harder to produce. The creation narrative of the Baby
lonians tells how the world was originally a great sea,
which the Babylonians, in the fashion of their myth
ology, represent as a powerful female primaeval being,
Tiamat. From the union of Tiamat, with the pri
maeval father, Apru, all the gods sprang. Now the
myth tells how a strife arose between the younger and
the older gods, until finally Marduk, the town-god of
Babylon, overcame Tiamat, cut her into two parts, and
made heaven and earth from them. So the earth
is formed from the primeval sea. — Whoever com
pares this primitive Babylonian myth with the first
chapter of Genesis, will at first grasp scarcely anything
but the infinite gulf between the two: on the one
hand the heathen divinities, inflamed in a wild struggle

34 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
against one another; on the other the One Who speaks
and it comes to pass. None the less, there are certain
traces which make it probable to us that the Baby
lonian account lies behind the Biblical, even if both
must have been severed by a very long space of
time. The Hebraic account has several remnants
which show us that it once must have been mythical;
here also the world was originally water, and the ex
pression teh6m, which is used here, is ultimately the
same as the Babylonian tiamat. And in the Hebraic
account, also, the world is created so that the original
primeval waters are divided into two parts, heaven and
earth. Accordingly, in spite of all deviation in the re
ligious ideas, a related material! Now here, too, the de
pendence of the Hebraic on the Babylonian is probable,
for the manner in which the world arises here cor
responds entirely to the Babylonian climate, in which
in the winter, water holds sway everywhere, until the
god of the spring sun appears, who parts the water and
creates heaven and earth. But that the story of the
strife of the light-god against the waters of the primeval
age and against the wild monsters was known in Canaan
likewise, is shown by certain references by prophets,
poets, apocalyptists, where this struggle has been trans
ferred to J"." Such references are valuable in this
connection, because they represent the links between
the grotesque Babylonian myth and the late Hebraic
account of Genesis 1. Accordingly, we can assume
also a dependence of Genesis 1 on the Babylonian
account, as far as regards the matter, but the original
far outweigh the adopted portions. Therefore, this

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 35
assumption as well serves only to show the peculiar
height of the religion of Israel.
But again this consideration teaches that the story of
creation, not otherwise than that of the deluge is a poem;
that also is an acknowledgment against which no one
to whom our church is dear should strive; it would not
be too much to desire and the beginning of a highly
necessary reformation, if in the book of Biblical history
the first section should be headed: The Poem of Crea
tion. May students consider this suggestion. There is
still time. Perhaps the hour is coming when it will
be said too late !
Likewise the tradition of the patriarchs up to the
deluge is, as may be assumed with great probability, of
Babylonian origin, the Hebraic names in part can be
regarded as direct translations of the Babylonian kings.
[Enos = man = amelu; Cainan = smith = work-
master = ummanu; Enoch corresponds to En-me-dur-
an-ki in his attributes; Methusalah = man of Selah =
man of Sin = amel-sin (but Methusalah may mean
"man of the javelin"). These names are the 3d,
4th, 7th and 8th in both lists, and the tenth in both is
the hero of the flood, although his names in the two
lists have no etymological connection.] This explana
tion is significant, because in this manner a light falls
on the great ages ascribed to the patriarchs, which have
given rise to such discussions; the Babylonian tradition
contains in this place still greater numbers, and these
are explained by an astronomical chronology of the
world. Of the primitive myths of the Bible, Delitzsch has

36 ISBAEL AND BABYLON
designated that of Paradise as Babylonian also, but
only on the ground of an old Babylonian picture [on a
cylinder-seal], whose meaning is entirely uncertain."
[Tr., p. 56, reproduces the drawing — also in many
other works.]
Following Eberhard Schrader, Delitzsch further com
pares the legend of the madness of Nebuchadnezzar, who
on account of his pride was driven from men and dwelt
with the beasts of the field, with a Grseco-Baby Ionian tra
dition, according to which the king, come to the height
of his power, predicted a foreign conqueror and wished
that he [the conqueror] might be hunted through the
desert, where the wild beasts and birds roam about. Both
traditions have a certain similarity, but this is certainly
much too weak to admit of a dependence of the Biblical
upon the Babylonian being safely asserted. [And
most dogmatically it is by Delitzsch.] Much closer is
the connection of the Jewish legend with the Baby
lonian of Eabani, who lived among the beasts like a
beast; his hair covered his whole body, and spread out
like wheat stalks, and he ate grass with the gazelles.
And here, too, Delitzsch follows the superficial concep
tion that the writer revised the foreign legend;" the
question could be at the utmost of a transformation in
oral tradition — I believe that all students of folk-lore
will agree with me in that. But Delitzsch actually
wishes that the Babylonian origin and " the purer and
more original form of this story" should be imparted
to the young as soon as they hear of the corresponding
Biblical story! But the startling expression that we
have been " burdened by tradition " by the representa-

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 37
tion of the madness of the "brutified" Nebuchad
nezzar, ought to have been avoided in any case; did
Delitzsch ever regard this story as anything but a
legend ?
Just so is everything that he marshals in so flowery
a way on the origin of faith in a life after death dubious
in the extreme. Much rather the ancient Babylonians
and Hebrews agreed in the belief, that the soul after
death enters into the dark under-world [She61] from
which there is no rescue for ordinary men. The belief
in the resurrection does not yet belong in general to the
Old Testament, but arose first in the post-canonical
times and in any case not under the influence of the old
Babylonian religion, [A positive statement regarding
resurrection of the body appears first in Second Macca
bees (711, etc.), but the date is very uncertain and the
book may be later than the Crucifixion. Resurrection
(of Israel) is foretold in Daniel 12* (ca. 165 B. C. ), and
traces of the doctrine go back to Exilic time, but it never
was held universally by Israel, cf. St. Matthew 2223, etc.]
It is correct that the belief in angels recalls Babylonian
opinions, particularly in the belief as it appears in post-
exilic Judaism ; we can prove that for the seven arch
angels and surmise it for the Cherubim and Seraphim.
But whether the belief in angels as a whole originated
from Babylonia is another question, which may well be
propounded provisionally, but which can scarcely be
answered. The derivation of the Hebrew Sabbath from the Baby
lonian has stirred up much dust. Here also we must
warn the laity against unnecessary excitement, for what

38 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
is the Sabbath to us ? The high and pure religion of
Christianity, as it has been renewed in the Reformation
of Luther, knows no holy days ! [It might be well to
add " ex jure divino."~\ Jesus boldly transgressed the
Sabbath law, and the Apostle says : "Let no man judge
you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or
of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." (Colos
sians 21S [A V.] The Christian Sunday is not a trans
ference of the Sabbath but something new and different.
According to the history of religion, however, the case is
this. The observance of such a holy day in the great his
torical religion is a remnant of an older time, when men
believed in gods, who according to their nature belonged to
certain days. From the Babylonian discoveries we have
not learned the history of the origin of the Sabbath; for
such institutions of a cult are generally much too old for
so young a people as Israel to give an historic tradi
tion of their origin. So it is not remarkable if even
the oldest Israel knew as little of the origin of the
Sabbath as of circumcision, abstaining from blood, and
many other ceremonies." But if there, nevertheless,
exist in Israel explanation of such customs, as for the
Sabbath the well-known explanation that the Sabbath
is holy because God hallowed it by resting after the
creation, so those explanations are supplied afterwards,
and, while they may be as spiritual and deep as they
may, they do not come into consideration for the ex
planation of the ceremonies themselves. Accordingly
if we find among the Babylonians any parallel for the
Sabbath, we shall simply rejoice over the enrichment of
our knowledge. And such a parallel we certainly may

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 39
assume, even with some certain provisional reserve, " and
suppose that the Hebraic Sabbath originated from Baby
lonia, the classic land for the honor of the planets and
their characteristic days. But it is assuredly a great
excess again when Delitzsch says that we owe the bless
ings contained in the Sabbath (or Sunday) rest to that
ancient civilization." For such days take, on the other
hand, when they pass over into a different religion, an
entirely different character ! The ancient Babylonians
observed the Sabbath as a fast-day, on which certain
transactions should be avoided. The ancient Hebraic
Sabbath contains nothing of such ideas but was held as
a joyous holiday. And how can one actually say of
Sunday that its wealth of blessings came originally from
Babylon? We pass over all these minor matters, of which very
many more still might be named,28 and come to the main
question, whether and how far the Babylonians were
monotheists. Here we must, in the first place, state that
there have been different forms of monotheism in many
people and at various times, but in spite of that the
people of Israel is and remains the classic people of
monotheism; this monotheism which we know, or more
exactly, which was the precursor of ours, originates
from Judaism; and in Israel this monotheism originated
entirely independently [autochthon] , we know the his
tory of its origin in Israel very well. The religion qf
Babylon is, on the other hand, indubitably polytheistic, and
in fact it has a thoroughly crass, grotesque pantheon.
If then in Babylon something should be found that
¦ savors of monotheism, that is the exception. The great

40 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
historic effect which results from it is, in this point, not due to
Babylon, but to Israel. Now Delitzsch has referred to
several details; to begin with, to certain names com
pounded with, el = God, such as "God with me," " I
call on God," "God is great," etc., which especially
among Northsemitic immigrants were used at the time
of Hammurabi. Delitzsch assumes that these North-
semites were related to the Hebrews, and like these
were monotheists from the oldest time; his opinion is
accordingly in no way that the Israelite monotheism
originated in Babylonia. And in the meantime all these
combinations are without application, something De
litzsch could have learned from any student of the his
tory of religion ; for, e. g. , the polytheistic Greeks had
names like Theophilos = dear to God, Theopompos =
sent by God, Theodosios = gift of God, Theoxenos =
guest-friend of God, etc. The likewise polytheistic
Phoenicians, Aramaeans, and Arabs, have very many
names that are compounded with el = God: such as
'Aimel = eye of God, Channel = Grace of God, 'Aliel
= God is exalted, etc.*9 In passing it may be remarked
also that everything that Delitzsch observes regarding
the Babylonian name Jahu-ilu, = J" is God,30 is dub
ious in the extreme. The whole reading or meaning
is, by the judgment of many co-specialists of Delitzsch,
very questionable.31 But in the distinguished position
in which Delitzsch spoke — this we ought not to refrain
from saying — he should have been at special pains to
utter only assured facts. Now there is still out of the
Neo-Babylonian time a text in which different gods
are made equivalent to Marduk [in different aspects],

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 41
and this, with Delitzsch, is certainly to be regarded as
monotheistic." From this place it is shown that Baby-
Ionian priestly wisdom, at a certain point of history,
has recognized that the different deities are at the bot
tom manifestation-forms of the same Divine Essence, a
view which the Greek popular philosophy held also at
the time of Jesus. We are glad at such a spiritual height,
which towers aloft through all the confused folly of
polytheism up to the One. Certainly such an under
standing of the sages in Babylonia affected the religion
proper even as little in Babylonia as in Greece, which
religion has much rather remained in polytheism. So
with this monotheistic religion of Israel this monotheis
tic speculation is to be compared only from afar.
The reader will have noticed that thus far we have
spoken only of pure details. This has its good reason.
For at present the Babylonian religion is known to us
only fragmentarily, while the Israelite certainly lies be
fore us clearly in its essential features and its historic
epochs. So what we can give at the present, if we wish
to discuss the influence of Babylonia on the religion of
Israel, is then, at the most, that we define — and that
naturally with all reserve — those domains in which a
transfer of Babylonian, more or less religious matter to
Israel can have taken place. Those are, before all,
legends and myths; then institutions of civilization,
which perhaps in wide extent are of Babylonian origin;
then legal institutions, which indeed of old were con
nected always in some way with religion; so cosmology,
the conceptions of the nature and divisions of the
world; then popular beliefs as to heavenly, terrestial,

42 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
and subterrestial beings of all sorts, of angels and
demons; then computations of the duration and epochs
of the world, prophetic and apocalyptic picturings.
The most valuable pieces are perhaps religious songs,
which have wandered through the lands in company
with certain things pertaining to culture; we have
Babylonian psalms, which, even if vastly inferior re
ligiously to the Hebraic, are none the less related to
them in form. But the most of this material, at least
in Israel, is connected but loosely with the proper re
ligion, or else, as we have seen in the narratives of the
Deluge and Creation, and as easily can be shown in the
religious songs, has been made Israelitic in the strong
est fashion. If we look on the essential and determina
tive facts, we must acknowledge that Israel's religion in
the classical period is independent from that of Babylon.
Likewise a parallel between the two religions can not be
drawn as yet. Delitzsch has tried it but has remained
among details. And in the process — we appeal in this
matter to the judgment of all students — he has con
ducted himself in an entirely ex parte manner; he exalts
the Babylonian, and debases Israel as far as possible.
So it is a great injustice when Delitzsch asserts that
" the same naive representations of the godhead" are
found in Israel and Babylonian [p. 175]: as in Babylon
the gods eat and drink and even betake themselves to rest,
so J" goes forth in the cool of the evening to walk in
Paradise, and takes pleasure in the sweet scent of Noah's
sacrifice. But now there can be no doubt in the un
prejudiced judge that the idea the Babylonian had of
God was by far more naive that the Israelitic ; one need

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 43
think only of the manner in which the gods appear in
the story of the deluge, where they cower like dogs in
heaven. Even in the Old Testament there are occasion
ally marked anthropomorphisms, but these are in no
way as crass as is customory in Babylon ; that J" eats
and drinks never was said by historic Israel. Such
downright anthropomorphisms are in the Old Testament
archaisms, which have remained in the primeval legends
of the Deluge and of Paradise, but which have been sur
mounted by the advancing religion. This conduct of
Delitzsch may have been excusable on account of his
being angered by the ignorant warmth of certain theo
logical opponents. But we wish to be not partisan, but
as objective and as just as possible. We have by no
means the purpose to gloss over the obvious weaknesses
of Israel, which occasionally come to expression in the
Old Testament, and we have in no way the need of find
ing everything noble and fair in Israel. The Jewish
monotheism, for example, this we frankly admit, is
frequently sullied by a hate, and often a blood-red hate
of the heathen, a fact that we may understand histori
cally from the miserable condition of the continually op
pressed Jews, but one which we in no case wish to
adopt into our religion ; a bigot may defend the prayer
"pour out Thy wrath upon the heathen" but not so
we. On the other hand we certainly do not wish to
combat what the Babylonians have achieved, least of all
in religion. The hymns of the Babylonians to their great
gods, which often rise to a high pitch, and their pene-
tential psalms, in which not seldom a strong feeling of
sin resounds, meet a receptive ear in us ; we rejoice over

44 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
-the ancient, admirable civilization of this people, from
-whom Israel could have learned much. But if the
Babylonian and the Biblical religions are to be com
pared, what neutral can doubt with which side he is to
range himself ? There the crass polytheism, here in the
classical time monotheism ; the Babylonian religion re
plete with witchcraft, which lies deep under the feet of
the great prophets of Israel ; there the cult of images,
here strict iconoclasm in the Jewish worship93 ; there
the connection of the gods with nature, but here the
religious thought raises itself in the classic period to the
belief in One God, Who stands above the world ; there
the religious prostitution, which once overran Israel as
well, but here is abhorred through the holy fury of the
prophets! The fairest possession of Israel, however, is
the theme of her prophets, that God desires no offering or
•ceremonies, but piety of the heart and justice of deeds ;
this most inner connection of religion with morality is be
fore all the reason through which Israel's religion mounts
exalted above all other religion of the ancient Orient !
This is Israel's power over man and it remains so, even
if Judaism has become again untrue to this mighty idea.
And where has the Babylonian world forms like the
great religious figures of the prophets, the indignant
Amos, the majestic Isaiah, the deep and tender Jere
miah, to say absolutely nothing of Moses and Elijah.
The prophets of Israel in the exile felt themselves high
exalted above the religion of Babylon, which they had
before their eyes, despite the pomp and parade with
which it was clothed, despite that these gods were the
:gods of the world-kingdom, despite that Judah was

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 45
thrown in the dust. They certainly have not judged it
justly, even as is wont to happen in the strife of religion,
but fundamentally they were right. Bel boweth down,
Nebo stoopeth, but through the milleniums resounds the
joyous shout of the Singer of Israel ; " Who, 0 Yahwe,
is like Thee among the gods "? The gods of the Baby
lonians passed away when their time came ; to the God
of little Judea the hearts of the heathen turned when,
the time was fulfilled. This most mighty historical
event, under whose influence the whole world-history
afterwards is developed, must have had a most mighty
cause; and what is this cause, what else can it be than
the decisive pre-eminence of this religion over the other T
And now at the close of the question : may we
continue to speak of the revelation of God in IsraelT
Delitzsch has denied it. In this regard it is surely seen
most clearly that a special knowledge of theology proper-
is lacking in him ; his position therefore, lacks clearness
and firmness ; we will try to make his attitude clear,
in the hope of dealing correctly with at least the vital
point. The conception of revelation, which he postu
lates, is the supernatural, old -ecclesiastical theory, which
men still are accustomed to associate popularly with
this word. According to this, revelation stands in
mental [begrifflich] contrast to everything human ; the-
theory that the Old Testament religion is " revelation "
consequently excludes in this sense all human co-opera
tion and historical development. Delitzsch is at pains
to combat this theory that the Old Testament religion
in such a sense rests upon revelation, and he does it by
pointing to all kinds of contradictions and difficulties-

46 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
in the Old Testament. For instance, he shows that the
God, Who despises all external sacrifice, according to
testimony of the prophets, could not possibly have pre
scribed the ceremonial law of the later Jewish work
known as the ' ' Priests' Code. " Or he points to the
numerous heathen parallels which there are for Old Tes
tament laws, — Sabbath, new-moons, shewbread, circum
cision are the property not only of Israel but of other
people as well. Or he shows that there are also purely
secular works in the Old Testament, such as the Song of
Songs, a collection of Hebraic love-songs, which can
scarcely have anything at all to do with religion. We
may adopt this reasoning of Delitzsch most properly, even
if we must make exception in some particulars. We hail
Delitzsch as a colleague in the battle against the delusion
of assuming that the Old Testament is verbally inspired,
as though its religion were in some way fallen from
heaven, and had grown without human aid and without
history. Only, most assuredly, we hail him without
burdening ourselves in any way with this, largely su
perficial and even uncivil, argument. For this col
league comes somewhat late. The theologian who knows
the history of his science knows that such polemics
against supernaturalism have existed for two centuries,
and often have been uttered with much greater material
than the scanty store that Delitzsch has hastily raked
together. And these century-old polemics bore their
fruits years ago. The opponents whom Delitzsch com
bats exist no more — at least not in academic circles ; and
the doors he breaks apart with such beautiful zeal have
stood open for years. Theology has on all sides dropped

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 47
that orthodox belief in inspiration, and dropped it long
ago. Likewise the belief that the ancient Israelite re
ligion has arisen not historically but purely super-his-
torically, swper-naturally, is defended by hardly a single
evangelical German theologian. That is not unknown
even to Delitzsch. There are remnants of the old view
yet at work, sometimes in circles that know not much of
scientific theology; and frequently, even among theolo
gians, the principal difference between the old super
natural theory and the modern based on the history of
religion is not recognized with full clearness. People
often satisfy themselves with half compromises. So we
may leave Delitzsch unmolested in this opinion, only let
him choose his terms more gently, as is befitting when
-one deals with such holy things, and let him not in
dulge in the opinion that he has "opened up" an im
portant theological question.3'
But now Delitzsch thinks he has overthrown revelation
entirely by proving " revelation " in this sense to be im
possible. "Revelation" to him is nothing but the
supernatural ; he does know that another concept of
revelation has existed among theologians for a long time;
but he can regard this as only an " attenuation " of the
old ecclesiastical belief.35
What is the case regarding this modern conception of
revelation ? We say in advance that in discussing such
a subject we shall leave the ground of historical science
and speak on the question of how historical matter is to
be judged from the standpoint of religion, oi faith. Now
the scientific theology of to-day believes it possesses a
deeper understanding of revelation, according to which

48 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
the divine and the human do not exist together in mere
external relations, but are bound together internally. The
history of revelation proceeds therefore, among men, ac
cording to the same psychological laws as govern other
human events. But in the depth of this development
the eye of faith sees God, Who speaks to the soul, and
Who reveals Himself to him who seeks Him with a
whole heart. We recognize God's revelation in the
great persons of religion, who receive the holy secret in
their inmost hearts and announce it with tongues of
flame; we see God's revelation in the great changes and
wonderful providences of history. The faith of children
thinks, of old and now, that God wrote the tables of the
law with his own hand and passed them to Moses; the
faith of the mature knows that God writes His com
mandments with His finger in the hearts of His servants.
Now have we the right to see such a revelation in Is
rael's religion ? Surely ! For what sort of a religion is
it? A true miracle of God's among the religions of the an
cient Orient I What streams flow here of all-overcoming
enthusiasm for the majestic God, of deep reverence be
fore His holy sway, and of intrepid trust in His faith
fulness ! He who looks upon this religion with believ-
ing eyes will confess with us: To this people God hath
disclosed Himself ! Here God was more closely and
clearly known than anywhere else in the ancient Orient,
until the time of Jesus Christ, our Lord ! This is the
religion on which we depend, from which we have ever
to learn, on whose foundation our whole civilization is
built ; we are Israelites in religion even as we are
Greeks in art and Romans in law. Then if the Israelites

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 49
are far beneath the Babylonians in many matters of
civilization, none the less are they far above them in re
ligion ; Israel is and remains the people of revelation. Now
is that really an ' ' attenuation ' ' of the concept of reve
lation, as Delitzsch thinks ? No, we believe that that
is a spiritualization and deepening of it !
But psychologically Delitzsch may be understood aa
follows : In the circles from which he comes and in
which he was formerly educated in theology, he ac
quired only a rather crass — or to say it in plain but
vigorous language — a rather mythological concept of reve
lation. And now that he sees the untenability of such
opinions, he turns against this conception with the zeal
of wrath, without having really surmounted it in his
heart and without having attained a satisfactory atti
tude towards both science and religion. Such a result
is common in such cases. [Prof. Gunkel's reference
seems to be to the late Franz Delitzsch, the father of the
lecturer (Friederich Delitzsch.) He was one of the
foremost scholars of the last generation in both Hebraic
philology and Old Testament theology and is univer
sally known as a commentator. His attitude was con
servative but not uncompromisingly so, cf. p. 217 of
' ' Babel and Bible. ' ' The present translator feels bound
to say that if Prof. Gunkel could have avoided this
apparent insinuation, it would probably add to the good
temper of all parties concerned. However, the reference
was needed to emphasize his argument here.] So
during his year's truce [he was in Babylon] he allowed
himself to be driven by his theological opponents into
a much more dogmatic position than the one he assumed

50 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
originally; for in his first lecture he uttered the words
that we have yet to free the religion of the prophets,
psalmists, and Jesus, from "those purely human con
ceptions"36 which still cling to it; at that time he
seems to have believed still that the religion of the
prophets, as a religion, was not "purely human."
Even now he distinguishes in the Book of Jonah the
"human form" from the proper content; the content,
accordingly, if we understand Delitzsch rightly, is not
"human."3' It is quite inconceivable [does Gunkel
mean conceivable f] that Delitzsch does not wish to cause
harm to our faith in God and true religiousness by his
denial of revelation38; but is our faith in God imagina
ble without the belief that this God reveals himself to
man in history? Or does Delitzsch acknowledge in
Jesus an absolutely supernatural revelation? We may
perhaps assume so from the manner in which he speaks
of Jesus, in any case it will be a great inconsistency if
he admits an exception into his philosophy of the uni
verse. For that and not details is the real question. In
¦one place Delitzsch holds that the modern theological
conception — that all Divine revelation is through human
intermediaries and hence is a gradual development — is
Iris own as well.39 So he is finally in complete agree
ment with us ? But even on the same page '° he re
vokes this view. And in another place he speaks of the
revelation of God that we, each one of us, carry in our
own consciences,'1 which is, accordingly, even if very
rationalistically expressed, a non-supernatural revela
tion, -which he combats elsewhere. A very labyrinth of
contradictions ! On what theological height Delitzsch

ISRAEL AND BABYLON 51
stands is evinced by such utterances of his as : "Is there
then a belief besides the Biblical belief f" — one does not
believe his eyes when he reads it. Or actually: "Man
kind has certainly not deserved a personal Divine reve
lation on account of his trifling with the Ten Command
ments'"3 — what an impossible idea ! For what have
we, in any sense, " deserved " of God?
Accordingly, if we understand Delitzsch aright, he is
a rationalist of the old school, who has freed himself
from early supernaturalism and in exasperation fights
this as his proper foe, although some bits of the shell of
supernaturalism cling to him even now, but who has not
yet arrived at the understanding that history is the proper
field of revelation. We can not refrain from asserting
that such an unhistorical rationalism is nearly the
most arid conception of religion that has ever ex
isted, and that previous to this we had indulged in the
deception that such a theological position was demol
ished and would not reappear.
What will the future of the whole " Babel and Bible"
movement be ? We may prophesy with great safety.
To the sensation there will succeed in not too far a time,
indifference ; a new ' ' eventful ' ' event will overthrow
" Babel and Bible." Even Delitzsch' s lectures, which
neither have added new material nor have been able to
say anything especially novel in theology, will soon be
forgotten by the public ; and future histories of science
will hardly mention them. But what survives as a
consequence of the whole disturbance is, we may hope,
an enduring interest of the educated in Babylonian and
Biblical investigations. For this we must thank De-

52 ISRAEL AND BABYLON
litzsch in spite of all the contradictions we have been
compelled to give; only, hereafter, let interested per
sons make use of sober and scientifically unassailable
publications. But at the same time there remains,
we must fear, a mistrust in wide circles of the Church
which has, alas, so long ignored theological science and
its assured results. May the evangelical Church draw
a lesson from the events of to-day, and become conscious
of its task, to present to the community the faith in such
a form that no historic criticism mav assail it.

NOTES

[All references to the first lecture apply to the second edition,
from which the English translation has been made. ]
>I,p. 4 [p. 4].
' Only with mixed feelings can the utterance of Delitzsch in II, p.
14 [pp. 167-168] be read, according to which he expects from the
Babylonian monuments — "which our Expedition will set to work
to excavate" — a more notable and rapid advance in the linguistic
elucidation of the Old Testament than has been possible for two thou
sand years. No one will be blamed for thinking highly of his own
domain of investigation; and even if he over-prizes its value, such
human weakness will readily be pardoned. But, at the same time,
one must not ask too much patience of his neighbor. Let not
him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it
off. 'Delitzsch speaks in I, pp. 38, 39 of dem Scheol [masculine, an
error lost in the English of p. 57] ; the word is feminine.
'Delitzsch cites in II, p. 26 [p. 188], Id liqtdl, "Thou shalt not
kill;" as a matter of fact both places (Exodus xx. 13, Deuteronomy
v. 17) read 16 tirsah, "Thou shalt do no murder." [Not so in A.
V. , but cf. R. V.] " We scholars would count it a grave reproach
to anyone of ourselves to render falsely or inaccurately, even in a
single letter, the inscription of any one" (II, p. 21) [p. 180].
5It is totally wrong, if Delitzsch, in the well-known passage, Gen
esis i. 27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them," considers
as possible a polytheistic coloring, distinguishing gods and goddesses.
(I p 64) [p. 106]. This was certainly not the thought of the
(63)

54 NOTES
rigidly monotheistic writer of Genesis i. \_cf. any Old Testament in
troduction for the essential characteristics of P]; and, just as little,
there is no ground whatever to regard this polytheistic coloring as
the original thought in the material. Much rather it means simply:
(1) Man is created in the image of God, (2) when the men were
created they were male and female.
How Delitzsch can find in the passage Job xxiv. 18 the later Jew
ish concept of the two-fold recompense in the lower world is incom
prehensible to me. (I, p. 39) [p. 59].
From Isaiah lxvi. 24 ("their worm shall not die, neither shall
their fire be quenched") Delitzsch deduces that cremation, in the
Old Testament, is thought of as standing entirely on the same level
with inhumation; and the deduction is coupled with a wearying re
ference to modern times, for he concludes from this passage that
there is not the slightest opposition to cremation from the Biblical
side (I, p. 69) [p. 120]. But this conception of the passage is
wrong; for it is very well known to us that the ordinary, honorable
form in ancient Israel was burial, while the burning of the body was
regarded as a horrifying shame. [Cf. Leviticus xx. 4, xxi. 9,
Joshua vii. 25, and see, e. g. , the article on Burial in Hasting's Dic
tionary of the Bible.'] Isaiah lxvi. 24 contains, however, no reference
to the ordinary disposition of the body, but is speaking of the hor
rible fate of the apostates, who, met by the judgment of God, lie dead
on the fields, decaying or disposed of by burning. [Cf. , c. g., Duhm's
Isaiah, in loc]
Likewise the translation of Habbakuk iii. 4, "horns at his side'
(II, p. 31) [p. 196, "horns coming out of his hand," A. V.], is
over-strong; the parallelism with n6gah, "brightness," and the con
text ("and there was the hiding of his power"), shows rather that
the word is to be translated by "rays.'' [So R. V., cf. margin.
The translation "rays" is practically indubitable.] Accordingly
there is an entire collapse of Delitzsch's opinion that Israel, as well
as the Babylonians, had conceived of their God as horned.
5 The assertion that the Song of Jonah is a mosaic of Psalm-pas
sages (II, p. 16) [p. 171] is, in my opinion, as wrong as that consid
ering Psalm xiv. as a mere "love-song" (II, p. 19) [p. 176]. At
least Delitzsch should have expressed these views with some limita
tions.

NOTES 55
The remark that "we" to-day are still seeking for Mount Sinai
in the range of the Sinai peninsula (II, p. 22) [p. 181] is not true
with any such generality; in fact, many modern writers believe that
it could not have been situated there. Here, likewise, Delitzsch
proves himself not to have mastered the facts sufficiently. [The
best known supporter of the (by no means impossible) theory re
ferred to, is Prof. Sayce. He places Sinai in the land of Midian, at
the head of the Gulf of Akabah. This theory is favored by, c. g. ,
Prof. Gray in his very recent commentary on "Numbers" in the
International Critical series. ]
Delitzsch's polemic against the modern textual criticism of the
Old Testament (II, p. 14) [p. 166] is without point. Of course, the
rich Assyrian lexicon is of the utmost importance for the Hebraic,
which often is deficient, and it is likewise possible to explain many
passages, which have been given up by our science or which we could
hope to reach only by textual emendations, by means of reference to
the Babylonian. But by such means the assured consciousness of
these generations of scholars is in no way annulled, namely, that
many passages of the Old Testament are corrupt beyond recovery.
The etymological explanation of 3" (" Yahwe"), as "the Ex
isting, the Enduring one," is as dubious as that of "El" (God) as
"Goal." Delitzsch should not have made such declarations with
out great reserve. For " Yahwe " he has done so (I, p. 47) [p. 69],
but has neglected it for "El" (I, p. 45) [p. 71].
7 In many places it is evident that Delitzsch possesses no proper
historical understanding of the Old Testament; which would be no-
reproach for an Assyriologist who sticks to his own subject.
This is seen most strongly when Delitzsch names the God, Who-
appears to Moses amid thunder and earthquake:
" The All-enfolding,
The All-upholding."
[Goethe's Faust, Part I, SceneXVI, Taylor's translation] (II, p.21)
[p. 179]. Delitzsch treats as the same the conception of God of
Moses and that of — Faust 1
A remarkable error against exegesis, as taught by the history of
religion, is likewise the translation of Genesis xii. 8, by which
Abram is supposed to have " preached" in the name of 3" (II, p.

56 NOTES
29) [p. 193]. Preached! Preached to whom ? In all good sooth
not to the Canaanites? I The word in question means in that place,
as all moderns will agree, not " to preach " but "to call on," as in
ancient worship.
If Moses, in his anger, shivered the tables written by the hand of
God, then, so Delitzsch thinks, he will have to bear "a reproach
ascending in one unanimous shriek [sic] from all peoples of earth "
(H, p. 21) [p. 179]. How much higher is the standpoint of the
old folk-legend, which represents the anger of the hero of Israel at
Israel's sin as so great that he threw the Divine tables to the ground
in blinding wrath. What would Michael Angelo have said if he had
known of this remark of Delitzsch' si
In Delitzsch's opinion, some words in the Book of Job border on
blasphemy (II, p. 19) [p. 176], and so exclude the Old Testament
from being a book of revelation. How much greater and freer were
the creators of the Canon, when they included Job in the Holy
Writ, in spite of the apparent blasphemies 1 For what sort of blas
phemies are they? The mightiest outpouring of a holy man, who
fears to lose his God, the Stay of his life, who fights for God and
justice with tears of desperation in his eyes!
The fifth, sixth and seventh Commandments [the numeration
used (see infra) is not clear] he supposes in II, p. 28 [p. 191] to owe
their origin to the instinct of self-preservation. Really, now, only to
that instinct? The national laws of Israel were "with a view to en
hancing their sacred character and inviolability, referred to Yahwe
himself, as the supreme Lawgiver" (II, p. 23) [p. 184]. Delitzsch
here, quite in the manner of the older rationalism, understands an
origin as of deliberate purpose, when il is really undeliberate, naive,
almost involuntary. The hoary codes, of this every ancient people
is convinced, were not created by the living generation nor by their
ancestors nor by men at all; they are far too wise and wonderful for
such a source; they have been given by the Godhead Itself. This
assertion has an entirely different origin when it is made not of laws
which are a national inheritance, as was the case in Israel, but of a
recently formed code. The latter is true of Hammurabi.
It is unhistorical, likewise, when Delitzsch thinks that the idea
of original revelation is discredited by a single verse of the Old

NOTES 57
Testament (II, pp. 3, 37) [pp. 151, 207. The reference is to Deu
teronomy iv. 19], But is the Old Testament a system in which there
can be no contradiction, or does it not rather contain a varied pleni
tude of records of a great process in the history of religion, in which
there actually have been all sorts of different positions? In this case
if a single verse is to exclude an original revelation, why should not
another contain this idea ?
Delitzsch charges the collection of pamphlets embodied in the
book of Daniel with " mistakes and omissions" (II, p. 16) [p. 170];
but the legends of the book are popular traditions, which we have no
right to measure by the standard of strict history. [For a summary
ofthe reasons for assigning Daniel to the time of the Maccabees the
reader may be referred to Driver's Introduction lo the Literature of
the Old Testament or to any similar work. This date is generally
conceded.] As an example of the frivolity with which men have handled the
Ten Commandments, Delitzsch instances again the division of the
Commandments that is customary in the Lutheran Church [and the
Roman Catholic. Commandments I and II are united while X is
divided] (II. p. 20) [p. 178]. As regards ihefact, Delitzsch is un
questionably right; but who will instance such a trifle to prove that
mankind has not deserved a further Divine revelation! Why not
allow a modern church to arrange the ancient material in her own
way for practical purposes ?
That different races may have a different understanding of the
sacred history — which is obvious to the historic comprehension — is
something Delitzsch cannot bring himself to see; in early exposition
such as Hebrews i. 8 ff. he sees only aberrations (II, p. 19) [p. 177].
He even finds fault that the expression " the worm that dieth not "
stands in Jesus' description of Hell fire, where it is "not quite in
place" (I, p. 69) [p. 120]; thus Delitzsch parades our or his mod
ern conception as obvious, and demands even of the age of the New
Testament that it follow this explanation! Moreover, does not Del
itzsch use a critical edition of the New Testament f Had he looked
into a modern critical edition, he would have noticed that St. Mark
ix. 44, 46, which he quotes with v. 48, are at present regarded as
•purious, and that since only the last clause of v. 43 (with possibly

58 NOTES
that of v. 45) but not that of v. 47 ff. speak of Hell /ire, his whole ob
servation fails. [For this question cf. A. V. with R. V. in loc. The
justice of the point made is unquestionable, as the shorter reading
of R. V. has overwhelming authority.] But what would Delitzsch
say of a theologian who would deal so uncritically with Assyriolog-
ical matters ? And why does Delitzsch talk of the New Testament in
which he is evidently not at home f
Very unhistorical is the manner, too, in which he explains the
meaning of El, "God," which according to him is to mean "Goal."
The Godhead is the Goal, that is, It is the Being to whom as to a
goal the eyes of men looking heavenwards are turned, after whom
the human heart yearns away from the mutability and imperfection
of earthly life (I, p. 45 f. ) [p. 69 f.]I What a crass modernization!
As if it were obvious to '' man" that he seeks the Godhead in
heaven , and that he yearns away after it from the mutability of this
world! It is unhistorical also when Delitzsch asserts that Genesis i. does
not contain the idea that God is the Almighty Creator of heaven
and earth, because it leaves the question unanswered: "Whence did
chaos originate ?" (I, p. 65) [p. 109]. But the idea of " creation "
has its history ; therefore we can properly say that this idea in Gen
esis i. for the chaos itself was not thought out up to the ultimate con
clusion; but we cannot doubt that the priestly author of this section
would have wished to express this idea. But we dare not seek such
finer distinctions in Delitzsch.
According to Deuteronomy iv. 19 — which, incidentally, is well
known to the Old Testament scholars as a matter of course, although
Delitzsch calls it "forgotten" (II, p. 3) [p. 151]— God has divided
the host of heaven — i. e., the stars — to the people. Delitzsch mis
understood the passage completely if he thinks that God Himself
has abandoned all the heathens to godlessness (II, p. 36 f.) [p. 207
f. ] ; the meaning is rather that the stars are really divine beings,
even if subordinate to 3". [¦' A means by which God preserves
the heathen from complete extinction of the consciousness of God."
— Steuernagel.] Furthermore, it shows a total lack of method when
Delitzsch combines this verse with Deuteronomy vii. 2, according to
which 3" commands Israel to exterminate the nations of Canaan.

NOTES 59
and when he calls it a "terrible [furchtbar]" thought, that 3"
should so mercilessly punish the nations, whom He Himself has
abandoned to godlessness— and because He has so abandoned them.
In this manner Delitzsch combines passages which have no inner
connection; he handles Deuteronomy as though it were admittedly
the work of a single author; this is a method that we should not
tolerate in scientists among us. But that both passages have no inner
connection is clear — Deuteronomy vii. 2 in no sense presupposes that
the idol-worship of the Canaanites is from 3". Moreover, the point
here is not that 3" wishes to destroy the people of Canaan L ' on
account of their godlessness," but rather lest they seduce Israel to
idolatry. [Note. — The criticism of Deuteronomy is probably the
most difficult problem in the study of the Hexateuch and the agree
ment of scholars is anything but unanimous on the subject. A ma
jority hold that the original work consists of chapters v. -xxvi.,
xxviii. and that the other chapters are somewhat later, but, when
so eminent a scholar as Prof. Driver defends the first four chapters
as an original part of the work, this view cannot be regarded as as
sured. Prof. Gunkel, however, takes it for granted and the justice
of his argument here may be left to the reader.
The most ingenious analysis of Deuteronomy is that of Dr.
Steuernagel, who, however, seems to have proved a little too much.
According to his view, vii. 2 is a part of the original work, composed
in the seventh century and published in 623 (the generally accepted
date of the book, by Driver as well), while iv. 19 was added prob
ably during the Captivity. All that can be said with any certainty,
however, is that if there is a distinction, then iv. 19 is later than
vii. 2, but not much later. ]
Other examples follow [in Delitzsch, i. e.]
'Hammurabi \\ 196 ff.; Exodus xxi. 24 f.
9 \\ 170 f. ; Psalm ii. 7. 10 l\ 192, 282; Hosea i, ii.
11 \\ 244, 246; Genesis xxxi. 39. " I 9.
13 \ 144; Genesis xvi. " Genesis xvi. ls 1 146.
16 A more complete discussion of the Bf.bylonian-Israelite relations
in the legend will be found in the Christliche Welt, 1903, No. 6,
cols. 121-134. [Written by Prof. Gunkel and referred to by Del-

60 NOTES
itzsch on p. 88. The reader should notice that the " D. " printed
before the name there is not an "initial," but the abbreviation for
"Doctor of Theology," as distinguished from "Dr." (of Phil
osophy).] "I. p. 32 [p. 46].
1%I, p. 31 [p. 45]; other instances in the following.
"Still, as H[einrich] Zimmern [professor of Assyriology and
Semitics at Leipsic] suggests to me, a connection between the Baby
lonian abubu and the Hebraic mabbul is conceivable. [The word
for ark (tebha) is possibly of Egyptian origin.]
20 1, p. 29 [p. 42, but here the translation (made from the second
edition) reads simply "original form"]; in the second edition De
litzsch has altered this expression, but again without adding a single
word on the peculiar value of the Israelite tradition.
"II, p. 33 [p. 200].
" The principal passages are Psalms civ. 5 ff. , xlvi. 3 f. ; Isaiah
xvii. 12-14, li. 9 f. ; Psalms lxxxix. 10 ff; Job xxvi. 12, ix. 13;
Psalms lxxiv. 12 ff. ; Isaiah xxvii. 1; Daniel vii.; Revelations
xii , xiii., xvii. A more complete discussion of these passages in
my work "Schopfung und Chaos," pp. 29-114.
" Delitzsch' s remark on the distinction of sources in the Paradise
story (I, p. 67) [p. 114] is surprising; there may be traced in the
Biblical narrative in Gen., chap. ii. seq., another and older form
which recognized but one tree in the middle of the garden — the
Tree of Life. But this supposition that an older recension of the
story knew of only a single tree has been expressed already and long
ago (by Budde [professor at Strassburg and a conservative scholar
of the highest reputation]), and is known almost universally.
But critics assume, usually, that this single tree was the tree of
Knowledge. [The theory referred to is this: The story of Paradise
and the Fall belongs entirely to J. But J itself is not a simple nar
rative but contains here a narrative Je which has been combined by
a redactor with small selections from an earlier and cruder source
J'. In their separate forms, J' spoke of both trees, while J'
knew but one, that of Knowledge. Accordingly the narrative to

NOTES 61
which Delitzsch refers is the "one-tree-narrative" of J0,— the fact
that Ji is older than J" is not the point, merely that J" is older than
the combined narrative. It may be added that while the theory in
this form has been developed entirely by Prof. Gunkel (Prof. Budde's
analysis (1883) was somewhat different), yet the grounds on which
it rests are acknowledged by practically all critics. For details, see
Gunkel's Genesis. Prof. Delitzsch's ignorance of the whole theory
appears to be absolute.] Do Delitzsch's words here rest only on an
interchange? Or does he really think that he has succeeded in say
ing something? In the latter case he should have expounded and
sustained his opinion more fully; the arguments that he uses have
been employed for other purposes up to the present.
" II, p. 15 [p. 168].
"Delitzsch (I, p. 28) [p. 40], who does not seem to occupy him
self with investigations in the history of religion, finds it " signifi
cant" that Israelite tradition itself no longer affords any certain
information respecting the origin of the Sabbath; the student of that
science finds it simply self-evident,
16 Cf. Zimmern, Keilintchnften und das Alte Testament?, pp. 592 ff.
"I, p. 29 [p. 41].
"The material, which Delitzsch arrays in the comparison of the
two religions, is of very different natures; partly it contains portions
in which Israel is dependent on Babylon; partly, cases where a cer
tain similarity is observed without dependence being necessary on
that account; often the similarities are so general that they are found
everywhere in antiquity, as, e. g., that the Godhead reveals Itself
in a dream or through an intermediary. Such latter cases would
not have been mentioned at all in this connection by an investigator
trained in the history of religion.
" Cf. Chamberlain, Dilettantixmus, p. 44 ff.; Ed. Meyer in Ros-
cher's Lexikon der romischen und griechischen Mythologie, Art. El.
50 1, p. 46 ff. [p. 71].
81 Zimmern, Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament*, p. 468. On
the etymology of 3" and EI. cf. above, note 6. Moreover, in
itself there certainly can be nothing to protest against the occurrence

62 NOTES
of the name 3" in pre-Israelite times; for Moses has certainly not
invented the name [some interesting questions are raised here, par
ticularly in studying the religion of the Midianites], we might rather
assume even without evidence that the name had some sort of a pre
vious history. Why should it not occur somewhere in the Babylo
nian pantheon as well ? But the question is not as to the sound
"Yahwe," but as to what sort of a divine figure men conceived
under this name.
81 Zimmern, Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament*, p. 609.
" Delitzsch (II, p. 30 ff. ) [p. 195], in order to make the idolatry
of the Babylonians conceivable, refers to the fact that even the
prophets of Israel have represented 3" anthropomorphically. Quite
right, the idea of the "immateriality" of God is striven for
but not yet attained. But what a great advance it is nevertheless,
that the prophetic religion repels every image with lofty scorn !
And in that regard we are children of the prophets and not of the
Babylonians. But how in this connection can Delitzsch actually
point to the pictures of God the Father in Christian art? For every
child among us knows what the Babylonians did not know, that such
pictures are not really true pictures of the Godhead, but are mere
works of the fancy.
"n, p. 41 [p. 213]. "II, p. 44 [p. 219].
56 1, p. 44 [p. 67]. " II, p. 16 [p. 170].
u II, p. 39 [p. 211]. "II, p. 44 [p. 219].
" II, p. 44 [p. 219]. « H, p. 20 [p. 178].
"I, p. 59[?] "II, p. 20 [p. 178].

NOTES 63
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE
The American translation of the whole of Babel und Bibel has
just been issued by The Open Court Publishing Company of Chicago,
the first lecture having been published about a year ago. As far as
the rendition is concerned there is little to choose between the work
of Profs. McC'ormack and Carruth and that of Mr. Johns, but the
English edition justifies its higher price by better execution and
decidedly clearer plates, although the American edition contains a
larger number of the latter. Pp. 120-144 of the American transla
tion are devoted to a series of extracts from various replies to Prof.
Delitzsch, and will be found helpful by the reader who is ignorant
of German.
An instance of the irrelevance mentioned on p. 4 of the preface
to the present pamphlet will be found in Dr. Cams' remarks on p.
143 of the translation. His sentence "Let no Athanasius with his
limited knowledge bind the conscience of a Delitzsch," might serve
as a sublime model for the insertion of an utterly pointless allusion.
For what conceivable connection there can be between the Arian
controversy and the present dispute is, to say the least, not obvious.
It would be most interesting to learn how Prof. Delitzsch's investi
gations have rendered "the Nicene formulation of the Christian
creed" "untenable." And what a consolation it is to learn that
"divine science" promises to render our knowledge "unlimited!"
— E. S. B.