6KILLER
July 12th, 2007, 02:43 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Sargon_of_Akkad.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Sargon_of_Akkad.jpg)
SARGON THE MAGNIFICENT
(http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#XXI.%20Cain%20the%20Sun%20God)
by Mrs. Sydney Bristowe
Author of "THE OLDEST LETTERS IN THE WORLD"
Next Page: SARGON THE MAGNIFICENT - SECTION II (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon002.htm)
INTRODUCTION Return (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#introa)
About thirty years ago in a series of lectures a certain German professor, himself a higher critic, announced his belief in the Divine inspiration of the first chapters of Genesis; his regret at the attacks being made upon their authenticity by other professors; and his conviction that if a certain discovery could be made it would largely help to counteract those attacks. He apparently did not expect that such a discovery would be made; but I hope to show that when the cuneiform inscriptions found in Babylonia and now available for anyone's inspection are studied from a new point of view, that discovery is ours.
In support of this new point of view, extracts from works leading Assyriologists are quoted in the following pages, and their translations of the inscriptions are given. It can scarcely be thought presumptuous on my part if I suggest a new application of those inscriptions considering that the deductions already drawn from them are indeterminate and unconvincing. While taking advantage of them I make bold to suggest that their decipherers, like others before them, may sometimes have "failed to see the woods for the trees."
That the writers, from whose works I quote, hold different views from my own naturally makes any of their evidence that supports my views the more convincing because it is involuntary. Since the history which they have deduced from Babylonian inscriptions is admittedly conjectural, and rests upon a certain hypothesis described by one of them as almost incredible, it is well that some other hypothesis should be tested, and I claim that my new version of Babylonian history rests upon a much more reasonable one.
That a new interpretation should be welcome is suggested by Professor Sayce's words:
"Both in Egypt and Babylonia, therefore, we are thrown back upon the monumental texts which the excavator has recovered from the soil, and the decipherer has pieced together with infinite labour and patience.... The conclusions we form must to a large extent be theoretical and provisional, liable to be revised and modified with the acquisition of fresh material or a more skilful combination of what is already known." (The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonian, p.3)
And also by Professor T. Eric Peet, who writes:
"Archaeology can in no sense be termed an exact science, that is to say, its conclusions rarely follow with mathematical certainty from its premises, and indeed but too frequently they do not rise above the level of mere nebulous possibilities or probabilities. This state of things is partly to be accounted for by the very nature of its subject matter, but also, in the opinion of the writer, by the fact that archaeologists have hitherto made no attempt to come to any kind of agreement as to the conditions which must be satisfied by a train of archaeological reasoning in order that it may acquire cogency. We are doubtless all to blame in this, and in our defense it can only be urged that the constant accumulation of fresh material has tended to distract our attention from a really critical use of the evidence already available." (Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1922 No.8.)
Neither fresh material nor a skilful combination is offered in this little work, but a new combination of the facts already known about ancient Babylonia taken in conjunction with the Bible Records which I claim to be the Master key to the problem of the ancient civilization of that country.
I have been asked to say that the Council of the B. I. W. F. does not associate itself with my views about the pre-Adamites and the Deluge.
I. GREAT FLOODS HAVE FLOWN Return (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#I.%20Great%20Floods%20Have%20Flown)
" Great floods have flown from simple sources, and great seas have dried when miracles have by the greatest been denied."
It has been said that nothing worth proving can be proved, and certainly this applies to the theory put forward in this little book; but I hope to interest the reader in my attempt to show that the stories told in the first chapters of Genesis harmonize with the researches of modern archaeologists, and provide a key to some otherwise unsolved problems.
It has not been easy to marshal the mass of evidence collected here, and a certain amount of reiteration of arguments and facts has been unavoidable; but I dare to think that after a careful and open-minded consideration of these pages some at least of my readers will be convinced that that mysterious personage, the great Babylonian monarch Sargon of Akkad, was none other than the first murderer in history - Cain. By showing that Cain and Sargon were one and the same and thus linking up the sacred and profane histories of the ancient world, I hope to refute the modern teaching that the Bible story of the Garden of Eden is mythical.
Up to the present the Babylonian inscriptions and drawings have interested comparatively few people, but those who accept my theory that Sargon of Akkad - who plays so large a part in them - was Cain, will agree that they should be of universal interest; for, granting this, there emerges from the tangled mass of evidence provided by those inscriptions and drawings a vast and sinister figure whose influence upon mankind far eclipses that of any other character in secular history. I shall endeavor to show that to his superhuman knowledge
PG 4
must be attributed the pre-historic civilizations now known to have existed in different parts of the globe, as well as the savage barbarism which accompanied them; and that to him must also be attributed the institution of idolatry - that poisoned chalice "the Golden Cup" of Babylon, which "made all the earth drunken" in olden times and whose dregs have still power to work mischief among men.
Although modern scholars seem to ignore the possibility that Cain may have influenced the history of the ancient world, three notable writers at the beginning of the Christian era (St. Jude, Josephus and Philo) suggested that Cain's influence was evil and enduring; while a modern poet reminds us that somewhere in the world, Cain's descendants must have worked out their tragic destiny.
Lord Byron makes Lucifer say to Cain:
"First born of the first man
Thy present state of sin - and thou art evil -
Of sorrow - and thou sufferest - are both Eden
In all its innocence compared to what
Thou shortly mays't be; and that state again
In its redoubled wretchedness, a Paradise
To what thy sons' sons' sons, accumulating
In generations like to dust (which they
In fact but add to), shall endure and do. -
Now let us back to earth !"
And back to earth we too must come. To make poetry about Cain is one thing - to install him suddenly in secular history, or to try to do so, is another. This book is inevitably controversial and my task has been no light one in writing it, for I try as it were to build upon a site already occupied and to clear the site while building. When I add that the building to be cleared away is, in plain language, certain views set forth by well-known writers, my difficulties will, I am sure, be fully appreciated. The courage required for such a formidable undertaking comes from those discoveries, but also from the Book of Genesis. This conviction, which I regard as my
PG 5
strength, will undoubtedly be looked upon by some people as a weakness; for it is now the fashion to decry the first chapters of Genesis, to ignore the possibility of their Divine Inspiration, to treat their historical information as fabulous, and to consider it unintelligent to believe in anything of a miraculous nature.
It is taught, sometimes even by the clergy, that the Old Testament stories owe their origin to the pagan traditions of Babylonia, but my object is to show that the beliefs and institutions of ancient Babylonia, and of other lands as well, confirm the historical truth of the Bible instead of discrediting it. I maintain that unless we accept its stories as true history we are, although "ever learning... never able to come to a knowledge of the truth."
The men who ignore these stories are, however, accepted as authorities, they carry weight and have the public ear; it may indeed seem bold to question their conclusions. These, however, fortunately for my purpose, do not always agree and are often indefinite and liable to be changed at any time to suit new theories brought forward. Sir James Frazer, for instance, has lately thrown doubt upon the prevailing opinion held by Assryiologists that the Babylonian myths upon which the Genesis stories are supposed to be modeled were evolved by the first inhabitants of that land, and has suggested instead that they may have originated in Africa, traveled thence into Babylonia and later on have found their way into the Hebrew literature.(**1) This conjecture he bases on the recent discovery that traditions reminiscent of that literature, such as those of a fall of man and a serpent tempter, exist among the tribes of the Tanganyika Territory in Africa. Considering, however, that the earliest rulers in Egyptian history are now believed to have gone into Africa from Asia (**2) it is surely, on the face of it, much more probable that those stories were taken by them into Africa, and there corrupted into the grotesque traditions found among the African tribes.
By comparing and contrasting the Biblical and Babylonian
(**1) Gifford Lecture, Edinburgh. November 21st, 1924.
(**2) Ancient Egyptians, p.150. Dr Elliot Smith. The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, p.22. Professor Sayce, etc.
PG 6
stories, and by bringing forward fresh evidence (or at least evidence which has so far passed unnoticed), I hope to show that the Bible stories do not owe their origin to Babylonian myths and legends, but that they are, on the contrary, true history.
PG 7
II. THE BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS Return (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#II.%20The%20Babylonian%20Inscriptions)
Before looking for Cain in the Babylonian inscriptions a short account of those inscriptions, of their arrival in England and America, and of the effect they produced there, must be given.
On the site of the palace of King Assur-bani-pal, where once had stood the city of Sennacherib King of Assyria, thousands of brick tablets have been found, upon some of which, inscribed in cuneiform characters, are mythological versions of the stories told in the Book of Genesis about the Creation of the World, the Garden of Eden and the Deluge. The date of the tablets is thought to be about 700 B.C. and they are believed to be copies of much older writings which Assur-bani-pal had caused to be collected from all parts of his kingdom and stored in his library. Many of these fragments were brought to England towards the end of the last century, and the late Mr. George Smith of the British Museum was the first to transliterate and make known to the public these "Genesis stories."
Although these Babylonian stories are replete with the names of gods and goddesses, they are in some ways so like those in the first chapters of Genesis that they were joyfully received at first as new evidence of the truth of the Bible records. Professor Kittel of Leipzig writes:
"When, therefore, George Smith was fortunate enough to discover in the year 1887 cuneiform inscriptions containing the account of the Flood, the expressions of delight beyond the Channel and Atlantic knew no bounds. Sermons from the pulpit and whole columns from the Daily Press were filled with accounts of the discovery... every doubt of the
PG 8
skeptic and every sneer of the mocker, it was thought, in regard to the Bible would be utterly and inevitably confounded."
In 1903 he wrote:
"A very different picture presents itself before our eyes today. A period of sobriety and in many cases of depression has followed that of jubilation and enthusiasm. In the family of oriental studies Assyriology is the latest born. It need not be a matter of wonder, therefore, if in individual instances representatives of the new knowledge should not have always been able to shake off the child like love of sensation. Formerly men were attracted to the study of the monuments with the hope of finding arguments on behalf of the Bible: now, the contemporaries of Nietzsche and Haeckel find there is a much greater prospect of attention being directed to the new learning if it should succeed in adducing evidence against both the Bible and Christianity." (Babylonian and Oriental Excavations, pp 12- 13)
This is surely a grave accusation, although so dispassionate in tone. Professor Kittel was one of the first and keenest German higher critics: his work, The History of the Hebrews, was even considered too destructive by our own higher critic Professor Kelly Cheyne. The fact that Professor Kittel retained his faith in the Divine revelation of the Old Testament stories after analyzing and comparing the Biblical and Babylonian versions, should carry weight with the most skeptical. An examination of the Babylonian story of the Creation of the World shows the justice of his opinion that the Assyriologists, who first suggested that the writer of Genesis borrowed his ideas from Babylonia, did not really believe that proposition, but only wished to advertise their new branch of science Professor Kittel's summary of the Babylonian story is as follows:
"When on high the heavens were not named, and below the firmament was not yet designated...then
PG 9
were the gods formed...In the beginning the chaotic waters, called Tiamat, held sway. They were the enemies of order. As the gods wished to create from these an orderly world, Tiamat arose as a dragon against them. Ignominious terror seized the gods, until Marduk the god of the Spring-sun, undertook to battle with the monster and its companions. He conquered it, cut the dragon into two halves, and made out of one the heavens, and of the other in like manner the earth, upon which he then brought forth animals and men." (Babylonian and Oriental Excavations, p.39)
The effusion, of which this summary gives some idea, is equaled in absurdity by what is called the Sumerian story of the Creation of the World, also found in Babylonia, and considered to be the origin of the above version and that given in the Old Testament.
To appreciate the absurdity of the "Sumerian version" of the Creation, etc., Professor Leonard King's work, Legends of Babylon and Egypt, should be studied. The first lines are typical of all "Sumerian" writings:
"When Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga
Created the black headed (i.e. mankind), to produce
The animals, the four-legged creatures of the field,
They artfully called into existence."
(Legends of Babylonia and Assyria, p.56, L. King)
That the sublime account of the Creation given in Genesis was inspired by such utter nonsense is surely unthinkable. The perfect agreement of the Bible account with the discoveries of modern science should, one would think, convince anyone that the writer was divinely inspired. Since that perfect agreement is not always realized the subject is dealt with in Appendix A.
In answer to Professor Delitzsch's insinuation that the Biblical account of the Creation is only a re-arrangement of Babylonian myths, and that some Israelitish scribe's conception of God was inspired by the Babylonian deities, Professor Kittel writes:
PG 10
"It must, moreover, be always borne in mind that it is psychologically inconceivable that the lower forms of religion, which are glibly assumed to be the original - such as fetishism, totemism, animism, etc. - could have come into existence without the previous conception of a higher power behind them, that is, of God Himself. That a stick, or a stone, or an animal could be regarded as God cannot have been a primary, but only at most a secondary conception. It is certain that to primitive man a stone in the first instance was a stone, wood was wood, and animal, and he could with his own eyes see that these things had no inherent power of themselves to make alive, or kill, or produce growth. But when once he had obtained the conception "God," he might readily suffer it in course of time to degenerate, so that this power, while it is invisible became associated in his mind with visible things, such as trees, stones, or animals...In the words of late F. Max Muller0- words often quoted and frequently with contempt, but never yet refuted- "The human mind would never have conceived the notion of gods if it had not first of all conceived the notion of God." (p.52)
Professor Kittel's final conclusion is that the Bible and the Babylonian stories all come from the same source and have a common origin from which, proceeding in two streams and subjected to independent development, they issue respectively in a nature myth and a monotheistic religion with an ethical base. He describes as follows one way in which the attacks upon the Divine origin of the Bible might be successfully combated.
"There is one problem whose solution would well reward the cuneiform investigator, would surpass all previous discoveries and excuse all disillusions and false conclusions, and that would be the discovery that in the grey dawn of history there were actually men in existence who still possessed...the inheritance of an exalted knowledge of God, which had at some time or other been imparted to mankind. For
PG 11
that stones, or trees, or even dead men should have awakened in mankind the earliest presentiment of God, or should have attracted it to themselves, we cannot allow ourselves to be persuaded, no matter how frequently and how loudly this theory is maintained." (Excavations in Babylonia, etc., p.60)
Professor Kittel has hit upon the only way, as it seems to me, of refuting the attacks upon the authenticity of the Genesis stories. He saw clearly that what was wanted to support the Bible testimony in these incredulous days was involuntary evidence from ancient pagan monuments. Although he appears to have had little hope of that evidence being found, I claim that it has been discovered inadvertently and passed over almost without comment, because its full significance has not been recognized. The fact that men who possessed the knowledge of God existed in Babylonia in the "grey dawn of history" is proved by a few cuneiform tablets, whose existence I conclude was unknown to Professor Kittel. Their inscriptions strongly resemble the Hebrew literature and betray the knowledge of One God, although they were found among hundreds of other tablets of an entirely polytheistic character.
These few monotheistic inscriptions (which will be given later) are said by Assyriologists to be copies of much earlier ones, dating back to before 2000 B.C., and it is remarkable that the pagan priests who inscribed them finally (and in some cases left their mark upon them) in the seventh century B.C. allowed them to come down as evidence that the knowledge of God had once existed in their land, where at that time hundreds of false gods were worshipped. When Professor Kittel says "This is an investigation which cannot be pursued to a definite conclusion by historical means" I cannot agree with him; my object is to show that, on the contrary, historical means are at hand if a fresh interpretation is given to the Babylonian inscriptions; and the first question to be discussed is how did the knowledge of God arrive in Babylonia, and who took it there. We gather from the Bible that the exalted knowledge of God was handed down by the descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and the ancestor of Noah; and it seems probable
PG 12
that after the Deluge it was preserved by Noah's descendants in Northern Syria, and made known to Moses by his father-in-law Jethro the Midianite who, it seems, may have come from that part of the world. (**1)
On the other hand, there is ample evidence in the Babylonian inscriptions, if my new interpretation of them is accepted, to prove that the other stream of knowledge was taken into Babylonia by none other than Cain, that it there became obscured by the system of fables and myths now known as mythology, and that it was Cain who originated that system by establishing the first false gods. If this new interpretation is accepted we have substantial evidence that one of the earliest Biblical characters played a prominent part in the secular history of the ancient world, and we can reject the assertions that the first chapters of Genesis were derived from Babylonian myths. Like the pieces of a picture puzzle the evidence lies before us - waiting to be put together. Excavators and deciphers have provided the pieces of the puzzle, but it is for us to make the picture.
(**1)The Hittites, p.9. Dr Cowley suggests the possibility that the Midianites of the Bible were the Mitanni of Northern Syria mentioned in the Amarna Tablets. Higher Critics admit the probability that Jethro greatly influenced Moses. We read: The legislation on Mount Sinai (Hored) which apparently occupies a very important place in tradition... is really secondary... more prominence is evidently to be ascribed to the influence of the half Arabian Jethro or Hobab" (Ency. Brit. Ed.XI, "Moses") Jethro the Midianite is also called Hobab the Kenite, and we read: "Variant tradition would seem to show that the Kenites were only a branch of the Midianites." (Ency. Brit., Ed. XI "Kenites"
PG 13
III. A NECESSARY EXPLANATION Return (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#III.%20A%20Necessary%20Explanation)
Two of the most recent writers upon the Babylonian inscriptions unintentionally support Professor Kittel's opinion that the Genesis stories came down in "two streams," and also my theory that one stream came down through the descendants of Seth and the other through Cain in Babylonia. Before quoting their remarks, however, I must explain why they call the first possessors of the "very ancient knowledge" Semites; for if they were the family of Adam they should, of course, be called after him and not after Shem (or Sem), who lived much later.
The Cambridge History tells us that the problem of the term Semitic is acute, that it is
"More convenient than accurate and is derived from Shem, a son of Noah the hero of the Deluge." (Vol. I, p.184)
but it offers no solution of the problem. Surely it is the use made of the word which is puzzling, and not the word for itself, for nothing could be more self-evident than its meaning "related to Shem or his reputed descendants." (**1) Why, for instance, do Assryiologists describe Sargon of Akkad as Semitic, when, according to monumental evidence, he lived about 3800 B.C.; long before Shem's time? The ambiguous use of the word Semite can be traced to two German professors (**2) who, about the year 1790, proposed that thenceforth the word should mean oriental. Unfortunately, later scholars, following the German lead, use the word Semitic at one time (especially in connection with languages) as meaning oriental and at other times as meaning related in some way to Shem, and this
(**1) Imperial Dictionary.
(**2) Century Dictionary. Semitic.
PG 14
causes confusion. If, as I claim, Sargon was Cain, he should be called an Adamite rather than a Semite, and his subjects who are called Sumerians or Akkadians by Assryiologists (**1) on account of the geographical terms Sumer and Akkad found in the inscriptions were, of course, pre-Adamites.
Poets and painters have depicted Cain as going into exile accompanied by an Adamite wife and family, but the Bible leads us to infer that before the birth of Seth only Cain and Abel had been born to Adam and Eve. We are prepared, therefore, to find that Cain had settled among a non-Adamite race when he built a city and founded a family; and, as we shall see, modern discoveries go to prove this.
(**1) Professor Waddell says that the word Sumer was used in Babylonia "solely as a territorial, and never apparently as an ethnic title," and quotes Professor Sayce's opinion that it was the same word as Shinar (the Biblical name for Babylonia). Asiatic Review, April 1926.
PG 15
IV. PRE-ADAMITES Return (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#IV.%20Pre%20Adamites)
Here another digression becomes necessary. It is generally thought that the Bible teaches that Adam was the first human being, but in that case it would seriously contradict itself in the fourth chapter of Genesis, although that chapter contains (as one of the latest dissectors of the Bible shows) (**1) one unbroken narrative. In that chapter Cain says:
"My punishment is more than I can bear...
Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth... and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me." (Authorized Version.)
Since, according to the Bible, Cain and his parents were the only Adamites in existence at that time, he must be understood to refer to pre-Adamites - unknown people among whom he was being driven forth; and we are told that a mark was put upon him as a protection against those people. This shows that, although we may assume that Adam was the first man into whom God breathed a "living soul," he was not the first human being upon the earth.
As Cain is afterwards said to have built a city and called it after his eldest son, he must presumably have gained an ascendancy over those pre-Adamites, although he went alone amongst them. If, as Professor Sayce thinks probable, Babylonia was the country to which Cain journeyed (**2) and if, as the same authority suggests, the first inhabitants of that country were blacks (**3), it is easy to imagine Cain, a white man
(**1) Dr. Moffat.
(**2) See Pg. 27
(**3) "As, however, M. Dieulafoy's excavations on the site of Susa have brought to light enameled bricks of the Elamite period on which a black race of mankind is portrayed, it may mean that the primitive population of Chaldea was black skinned." (Hibbert Lectures. p.185. 1887)
SARGON THE MAGNIFICENT
(http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#XXI.%20Cain%20the%20Sun%20God)
by Mrs. Sydney Bristowe
Author of "THE OLDEST LETTERS IN THE WORLD"
Next Page: SARGON THE MAGNIFICENT - SECTION II (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon002.htm)
INTRODUCTION Return (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#introa)
About thirty years ago in a series of lectures a certain German professor, himself a higher critic, announced his belief in the Divine inspiration of the first chapters of Genesis; his regret at the attacks being made upon their authenticity by other professors; and his conviction that if a certain discovery could be made it would largely help to counteract those attacks. He apparently did not expect that such a discovery would be made; but I hope to show that when the cuneiform inscriptions found in Babylonia and now available for anyone's inspection are studied from a new point of view, that discovery is ours.
In support of this new point of view, extracts from works leading Assyriologists are quoted in the following pages, and their translations of the inscriptions are given. It can scarcely be thought presumptuous on my part if I suggest a new application of those inscriptions considering that the deductions already drawn from them are indeterminate and unconvincing. While taking advantage of them I make bold to suggest that their decipherers, like others before them, may sometimes have "failed to see the woods for the trees."
That the writers, from whose works I quote, hold different views from my own naturally makes any of their evidence that supports my views the more convincing because it is involuntary. Since the history which they have deduced from Babylonian inscriptions is admittedly conjectural, and rests upon a certain hypothesis described by one of them as almost incredible, it is well that some other hypothesis should be tested, and I claim that my new version of Babylonian history rests upon a much more reasonable one.
That a new interpretation should be welcome is suggested by Professor Sayce's words:
"Both in Egypt and Babylonia, therefore, we are thrown back upon the monumental texts which the excavator has recovered from the soil, and the decipherer has pieced together with infinite labour and patience.... The conclusions we form must to a large extent be theoretical and provisional, liable to be revised and modified with the acquisition of fresh material or a more skilful combination of what is already known." (The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonian, p.3)
And also by Professor T. Eric Peet, who writes:
"Archaeology can in no sense be termed an exact science, that is to say, its conclusions rarely follow with mathematical certainty from its premises, and indeed but too frequently they do not rise above the level of mere nebulous possibilities or probabilities. This state of things is partly to be accounted for by the very nature of its subject matter, but also, in the opinion of the writer, by the fact that archaeologists have hitherto made no attempt to come to any kind of agreement as to the conditions which must be satisfied by a train of archaeological reasoning in order that it may acquire cogency. We are doubtless all to blame in this, and in our defense it can only be urged that the constant accumulation of fresh material has tended to distract our attention from a really critical use of the evidence already available." (Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1922 No.8.)
Neither fresh material nor a skilful combination is offered in this little work, but a new combination of the facts already known about ancient Babylonia taken in conjunction with the Bible Records which I claim to be the Master key to the problem of the ancient civilization of that country.
I have been asked to say that the Council of the B. I. W. F. does not associate itself with my views about the pre-Adamites and the Deluge.
I. GREAT FLOODS HAVE FLOWN Return (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#I.%20Great%20Floods%20Have%20Flown)
" Great floods have flown from simple sources, and great seas have dried when miracles have by the greatest been denied."
It has been said that nothing worth proving can be proved, and certainly this applies to the theory put forward in this little book; but I hope to interest the reader in my attempt to show that the stories told in the first chapters of Genesis harmonize with the researches of modern archaeologists, and provide a key to some otherwise unsolved problems.
It has not been easy to marshal the mass of evidence collected here, and a certain amount of reiteration of arguments and facts has been unavoidable; but I dare to think that after a careful and open-minded consideration of these pages some at least of my readers will be convinced that that mysterious personage, the great Babylonian monarch Sargon of Akkad, was none other than the first murderer in history - Cain. By showing that Cain and Sargon were one and the same and thus linking up the sacred and profane histories of the ancient world, I hope to refute the modern teaching that the Bible story of the Garden of Eden is mythical.
Up to the present the Babylonian inscriptions and drawings have interested comparatively few people, but those who accept my theory that Sargon of Akkad - who plays so large a part in them - was Cain, will agree that they should be of universal interest; for, granting this, there emerges from the tangled mass of evidence provided by those inscriptions and drawings a vast and sinister figure whose influence upon mankind far eclipses that of any other character in secular history. I shall endeavor to show that to his superhuman knowledge
PG 4
must be attributed the pre-historic civilizations now known to have existed in different parts of the globe, as well as the savage barbarism which accompanied them; and that to him must also be attributed the institution of idolatry - that poisoned chalice "the Golden Cup" of Babylon, which "made all the earth drunken" in olden times and whose dregs have still power to work mischief among men.
Although modern scholars seem to ignore the possibility that Cain may have influenced the history of the ancient world, three notable writers at the beginning of the Christian era (St. Jude, Josephus and Philo) suggested that Cain's influence was evil and enduring; while a modern poet reminds us that somewhere in the world, Cain's descendants must have worked out their tragic destiny.
Lord Byron makes Lucifer say to Cain:
"First born of the first man
Thy present state of sin - and thou art evil -
Of sorrow - and thou sufferest - are both Eden
In all its innocence compared to what
Thou shortly mays't be; and that state again
In its redoubled wretchedness, a Paradise
To what thy sons' sons' sons, accumulating
In generations like to dust (which they
In fact but add to), shall endure and do. -
Now let us back to earth !"
And back to earth we too must come. To make poetry about Cain is one thing - to install him suddenly in secular history, or to try to do so, is another. This book is inevitably controversial and my task has been no light one in writing it, for I try as it were to build upon a site already occupied and to clear the site while building. When I add that the building to be cleared away is, in plain language, certain views set forth by well-known writers, my difficulties will, I am sure, be fully appreciated. The courage required for such a formidable undertaking comes from those discoveries, but also from the Book of Genesis. This conviction, which I regard as my
PG 5
strength, will undoubtedly be looked upon by some people as a weakness; for it is now the fashion to decry the first chapters of Genesis, to ignore the possibility of their Divine Inspiration, to treat their historical information as fabulous, and to consider it unintelligent to believe in anything of a miraculous nature.
It is taught, sometimes even by the clergy, that the Old Testament stories owe their origin to the pagan traditions of Babylonia, but my object is to show that the beliefs and institutions of ancient Babylonia, and of other lands as well, confirm the historical truth of the Bible instead of discrediting it. I maintain that unless we accept its stories as true history we are, although "ever learning... never able to come to a knowledge of the truth."
The men who ignore these stories are, however, accepted as authorities, they carry weight and have the public ear; it may indeed seem bold to question their conclusions. These, however, fortunately for my purpose, do not always agree and are often indefinite and liable to be changed at any time to suit new theories brought forward. Sir James Frazer, for instance, has lately thrown doubt upon the prevailing opinion held by Assryiologists that the Babylonian myths upon which the Genesis stories are supposed to be modeled were evolved by the first inhabitants of that land, and has suggested instead that they may have originated in Africa, traveled thence into Babylonia and later on have found their way into the Hebrew literature.(**1) This conjecture he bases on the recent discovery that traditions reminiscent of that literature, such as those of a fall of man and a serpent tempter, exist among the tribes of the Tanganyika Territory in Africa. Considering, however, that the earliest rulers in Egyptian history are now believed to have gone into Africa from Asia (**2) it is surely, on the face of it, much more probable that those stories were taken by them into Africa, and there corrupted into the grotesque traditions found among the African tribes.
By comparing and contrasting the Biblical and Babylonian
(**1) Gifford Lecture, Edinburgh. November 21st, 1924.
(**2) Ancient Egyptians, p.150. Dr Elliot Smith. The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, p.22. Professor Sayce, etc.
PG 6
stories, and by bringing forward fresh evidence (or at least evidence which has so far passed unnoticed), I hope to show that the Bible stories do not owe their origin to Babylonian myths and legends, but that they are, on the contrary, true history.
PG 7
II. THE BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS Return (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#II.%20The%20Babylonian%20Inscriptions)
Before looking for Cain in the Babylonian inscriptions a short account of those inscriptions, of their arrival in England and America, and of the effect they produced there, must be given.
On the site of the palace of King Assur-bani-pal, where once had stood the city of Sennacherib King of Assyria, thousands of brick tablets have been found, upon some of which, inscribed in cuneiform characters, are mythological versions of the stories told in the Book of Genesis about the Creation of the World, the Garden of Eden and the Deluge. The date of the tablets is thought to be about 700 B.C. and they are believed to be copies of much older writings which Assur-bani-pal had caused to be collected from all parts of his kingdom and stored in his library. Many of these fragments were brought to England towards the end of the last century, and the late Mr. George Smith of the British Museum was the first to transliterate and make known to the public these "Genesis stories."
Although these Babylonian stories are replete with the names of gods and goddesses, they are in some ways so like those in the first chapters of Genesis that they were joyfully received at first as new evidence of the truth of the Bible records. Professor Kittel of Leipzig writes:
"When, therefore, George Smith was fortunate enough to discover in the year 1887 cuneiform inscriptions containing the account of the Flood, the expressions of delight beyond the Channel and Atlantic knew no bounds. Sermons from the pulpit and whole columns from the Daily Press were filled with accounts of the discovery... every doubt of the
PG 8
skeptic and every sneer of the mocker, it was thought, in regard to the Bible would be utterly and inevitably confounded."
In 1903 he wrote:
"A very different picture presents itself before our eyes today. A period of sobriety and in many cases of depression has followed that of jubilation and enthusiasm. In the family of oriental studies Assyriology is the latest born. It need not be a matter of wonder, therefore, if in individual instances representatives of the new knowledge should not have always been able to shake off the child like love of sensation. Formerly men were attracted to the study of the monuments with the hope of finding arguments on behalf of the Bible: now, the contemporaries of Nietzsche and Haeckel find there is a much greater prospect of attention being directed to the new learning if it should succeed in adducing evidence against both the Bible and Christianity." (Babylonian and Oriental Excavations, pp 12- 13)
This is surely a grave accusation, although so dispassionate in tone. Professor Kittel was one of the first and keenest German higher critics: his work, The History of the Hebrews, was even considered too destructive by our own higher critic Professor Kelly Cheyne. The fact that Professor Kittel retained his faith in the Divine revelation of the Old Testament stories after analyzing and comparing the Biblical and Babylonian versions, should carry weight with the most skeptical. An examination of the Babylonian story of the Creation of the World shows the justice of his opinion that the Assyriologists, who first suggested that the writer of Genesis borrowed his ideas from Babylonia, did not really believe that proposition, but only wished to advertise their new branch of science Professor Kittel's summary of the Babylonian story is as follows:
"When on high the heavens were not named, and below the firmament was not yet designated...then
PG 9
were the gods formed...In the beginning the chaotic waters, called Tiamat, held sway. They were the enemies of order. As the gods wished to create from these an orderly world, Tiamat arose as a dragon against them. Ignominious terror seized the gods, until Marduk the god of the Spring-sun, undertook to battle with the monster and its companions. He conquered it, cut the dragon into two halves, and made out of one the heavens, and of the other in like manner the earth, upon which he then brought forth animals and men." (Babylonian and Oriental Excavations, p.39)
The effusion, of which this summary gives some idea, is equaled in absurdity by what is called the Sumerian story of the Creation of the World, also found in Babylonia, and considered to be the origin of the above version and that given in the Old Testament.
To appreciate the absurdity of the "Sumerian version" of the Creation, etc., Professor Leonard King's work, Legends of Babylon and Egypt, should be studied. The first lines are typical of all "Sumerian" writings:
"When Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga
Created the black headed (i.e. mankind), to produce
The animals, the four-legged creatures of the field,
They artfully called into existence."
(Legends of Babylonia and Assyria, p.56, L. King)
That the sublime account of the Creation given in Genesis was inspired by such utter nonsense is surely unthinkable. The perfect agreement of the Bible account with the discoveries of modern science should, one would think, convince anyone that the writer was divinely inspired. Since that perfect agreement is not always realized the subject is dealt with in Appendix A.
In answer to Professor Delitzsch's insinuation that the Biblical account of the Creation is only a re-arrangement of Babylonian myths, and that some Israelitish scribe's conception of God was inspired by the Babylonian deities, Professor Kittel writes:
PG 10
"It must, moreover, be always borne in mind that it is psychologically inconceivable that the lower forms of religion, which are glibly assumed to be the original - such as fetishism, totemism, animism, etc. - could have come into existence without the previous conception of a higher power behind them, that is, of God Himself. That a stick, or a stone, or an animal could be regarded as God cannot have been a primary, but only at most a secondary conception. It is certain that to primitive man a stone in the first instance was a stone, wood was wood, and animal, and he could with his own eyes see that these things had no inherent power of themselves to make alive, or kill, or produce growth. But when once he had obtained the conception "God," he might readily suffer it in course of time to degenerate, so that this power, while it is invisible became associated in his mind with visible things, such as trees, stones, or animals...In the words of late F. Max Muller0- words often quoted and frequently with contempt, but never yet refuted- "The human mind would never have conceived the notion of gods if it had not first of all conceived the notion of God." (p.52)
Professor Kittel's final conclusion is that the Bible and the Babylonian stories all come from the same source and have a common origin from which, proceeding in two streams and subjected to independent development, they issue respectively in a nature myth and a monotheistic religion with an ethical base. He describes as follows one way in which the attacks upon the Divine origin of the Bible might be successfully combated.
"There is one problem whose solution would well reward the cuneiform investigator, would surpass all previous discoveries and excuse all disillusions and false conclusions, and that would be the discovery that in the grey dawn of history there were actually men in existence who still possessed...the inheritance of an exalted knowledge of God, which had at some time or other been imparted to mankind. For
PG 11
that stones, or trees, or even dead men should have awakened in mankind the earliest presentiment of God, or should have attracted it to themselves, we cannot allow ourselves to be persuaded, no matter how frequently and how loudly this theory is maintained." (Excavations in Babylonia, etc., p.60)
Professor Kittel has hit upon the only way, as it seems to me, of refuting the attacks upon the authenticity of the Genesis stories. He saw clearly that what was wanted to support the Bible testimony in these incredulous days was involuntary evidence from ancient pagan monuments. Although he appears to have had little hope of that evidence being found, I claim that it has been discovered inadvertently and passed over almost without comment, because its full significance has not been recognized. The fact that men who possessed the knowledge of God existed in Babylonia in the "grey dawn of history" is proved by a few cuneiform tablets, whose existence I conclude was unknown to Professor Kittel. Their inscriptions strongly resemble the Hebrew literature and betray the knowledge of One God, although they were found among hundreds of other tablets of an entirely polytheistic character.
These few monotheistic inscriptions (which will be given later) are said by Assyriologists to be copies of much earlier ones, dating back to before 2000 B.C., and it is remarkable that the pagan priests who inscribed them finally (and in some cases left their mark upon them) in the seventh century B.C. allowed them to come down as evidence that the knowledge of God had once existed in their land, where at that time hundreds of false gods were worshipped. When Professor Kittel says "This is an investigation which cannot be pursued to a definite conclusion by historical means" I cannot agree with him; my object is to show that, on the contrary, historical means are at hand if a fresh interpretation is given to the Babylonian inscriptions; and the first question to be discussed is how did the knowledge of God arrive in Babylonia, and who took it there. We gather from the Bible that the exalted knowledge of God was handed down by the descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and the ancestor of Noah; and it seems probable
PG 12
that after the Deluge it was preserved by Noah's descendants in Northern Syria, and made known to Moses by his father-in-law Jethro the Midianite who, it seems, may have come from that part of the world. (**1)
On the other hand, there is ample evidence in the Babylonian inscriptions, if my new interpretation of them is accepted, to prove that the other stream of knowledge was taken into Babylonia by none other than Cain, that it there became obscured by the system of fables and myths now known as mythology, and that it was Cain who originated that system by establishing the first false gods. If this new interpretation is accepted we have substantial evidence that one of the earliest Biblical characters played a prominent part in the secular history of the ancient world, and we can reject the assertions that the first chapters of Genesis were derived from Babylonian myths. Like the pieces of a picture puzzle the evidence lies before us - waiting to be put together. Excavators and deciphers have provided the pieces of the puzzle, but it is for us to make the picture.
(**1)The Hittites, p.9. Dr Cowley suggests the possibility that the Midianites of the Bible were the Mitanni of Northern Syria mentioned in the Amarna Tablets. Higher Critics admit the probability that Jethro greatly influenced Moses. We read: The legislation on Mount Sinai (Hored) which apparently occupies a very important place in tradition... is really secondary... more prominence is evidently to be ascribed to the influence of the half Arabian Jethro or Hobab" (Ency. Brit. Ed.XI, "Moses") Jethro the Midianite is also called Hobab the Kenite, and we read: "Variant tradition would seem to show that the Kenites were only a branch of the Midianites." (Ency. Brit., Ed. XI "Kenites"
PG 13
III. A NECESSARY EXPLANATION Return (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#III.%20A%20Necessary%20Explanation)
Two of the most recent writers upon the Babylonian inscriptions unintentionally support Professor Kittel's opinion that the Genesis stories came down in "two streams," and also my theory that one stream came down through the descendants of Seth and the other through Cain in Babylonia. Before quoting their remarks, however, I must explain why they call the first possessors of the "very ancient knowledge" Semites; for if they were the family of Adam they should, of course, be called after him and not after Shem (or Sem), who lived much later.
The Cambridge History tells us that the problem of the term Semitic is acute, that it is
"More convenient than accurate and is derived from Shem, a son of Noah the hero of the Deluge." (Vol. I, p.184)
but it offers no solution of the problem. Surely it is the use made of the word which is puzzling, and not the word for itself, for nothing could be more self-evident than its meaning "related to Shem or his reputed descendants." (**1) Why, for instance, do Assryiologists describe Sargon of Akkad as Semitic, when, according to monumental evidence, he lived about 3800 B.C.; long before Shem's time? The ambiguous use of the word Semite can be traced to two German professors (**2) who, about the year 1790, proposed that thenceforth the word should mean oriental. Unfortunately, later scholars, following the German lead, use the word Semitic at one time (especially in connection with languages) as meaning oriental and at other times as meaning related in some way to Shem, and this
(**1) Imperial Dictionary.
(**2) Century Dictionary. Semitic.
PG 14
causes confusion. If, as I claim, Sargon was Cain, he should be called an Adamite rather than a Semite, and his subjects who are called Sumerians or Akkadians by Assryiologists (**1) on account of the geographical terms Sumer and Akkad found in the inscriptions were, of course, pre-Adamites.
Poets and painters have depicted Cain as going into exile accompanied by an Adamite wife and family, but the Bible leads us to infer that before the birth of Seth only Cain and Abel had been born to Adam and Eve. We are prepared, therefore, to find that Cain had settled among a non-Adamite race when he built a city and founded a family; and, as we shall see, modern discoveries go to prove this.
(**1) Professor Waddell says that the word Sumer was used in Babylonia "solely as a territorial, and never apparently as an ethnic title," and quotes Professor Sayce's opinion that it was the same word as Shinar (the Biblical name for Babylonia). Asiatic Review, April 1926.
PG 15
IV. PRE-ADAMITES Return (http://www.docrob.100megsfree5.com/sargon/sargon001.htm#IV.%20Pre%20Adamites)
Here another digression becomes necessary. It is generally thought that the Bible teaches that Adam was the first human being, but in that case it would seriously contradict itself in the fourth chapter of Genesis, although that chapter contains (as one of the latest dissectors of the Bible shows) (**1) one unbroken narrative. In that chapter Cain says:
"My punishment is more than I can bear...
Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth... and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me." (Authorized Version.)
Since, according to the Bible, Cain and his parents were the only Adamites in existence at that time, he must be understood to refer to pre-Adamites - unknown people among whom he was being driven forth; and we are told that a mark was put upon him as a protection against those people. This shows that, although we may assume that Adam was the first man into whom God breathed a "living soul," he was not the first human being upon the earth.
As Cain is afterwards said to have built a city and called it after his eldest son, he must presumably have gained an ascendancy over those pre-Adamites, although he went alone amongst them. If, as Professor Sayce thinks probable, Babylonia was the country to which Cain journeyed (**2) and if, as the same authority suggests, the first inhabitants of that country were blacks (**3), it is easy to imagine Cain, a white man
(**1) Dr. Moffat.
(**2) See Pg. 27
(**3) "As, however, M. Dieulafoy's excavations on the site of Susa have brought to light enameled bricks of the Elamite period on which a black race of mankind is portrayed, it may mean that the primitive population of Chaldea was black skinned." (Hibbert Lectures. p.185. 1887)