of the creation.[1] But this theory also is open to serious objection. It involves a meaning of תולדות which is contrary both to its etymology and the usage of P (see footnote). Whatever latitude of meaning be assigned to the word, it is the fact that in this formula it is always followed by gen. of the progenitor, never of the progeny: hence by analogy the phrase must describe that which is generated by the heavens and the earth, not the process by which they themselves are generated (so Lagarde, Or. ii. 38 ff., and Ho.). And even if that difficulty could be overcome (see Lagarde), generation is a most unsuitable description of the process of creation as conceived by P. In short, neither as superscription nor as subscription can the sentence be accounted for as an integral part of the Priestly Code. There seems no way out of the difficulty but to assume with Ho. that the formula in this place owes its origin to a mechanical imitation of the manner of P by a later hand. The insertion would be suggested by the observation that the formula divides the book of Gen. into definite sections; while the advantage of beginning a new section at this point would naturally occur to an editor who felt the need of sharply separating the two accounts of the creation, and regarded the second as in some way the continuation of the first. If that be so, he probably took ת׳ in the sense of 'history' and referred אֵלֶּה to what follows. The analogy of 51, Nu. 31 would suffice to justify the use of the formula before the ביום of 4b.—It has been thought that G has preserved the original form of the text: viz. זה ספר ת׳ וגו׳ (cf. 51); the redactor having, "before inserting a section from the other document, accidentally copied in the opening words of 51, which were afterwards adapted to their present position" (Ben.). That is improbable. It is more likely that G deliberately altered the text to correspond with 51. See Field, Hex., ad loc.; Nestle, MM, 4. Babylonian and other Cosmogonies.
1. The outlines of Bab. cosmogony have long been known from two
brief notices in Greek writers: (1) an extract from Berossus (3rd cent.
B.C.) made by Alexander Polyhistor, and preserved by Syncellus from
the lost Chronicle of Eusebius (lib. i.); and (2) a passage from the
Neo-Platonic writer Damascius (6th cent. A.D.). From these it was
apparent that the biblical account of creation is in its main conceptions
Babylonian. The interest of the fragments has been partly enhanced,
but partly superseded, since the discovery of the closely parallel 'Chaldæan
Genesis,' unearthed from the debris of Asshurbanipal's library at
Nineveh by George Smith in 1873. It is therefore unnecessary to
examine them in detail; but since the originals are not very accessible
to English readers, they are here reprinted in full (with emendations
after KAT3, 488 ff.):
(1) Berossus: Γενέσθαι φησὶ χρόνον ἐν ᾧ τὸ πᾶν σκότος καὶ ὕδωρ εἶναι, καὶ ἐν τούτοις ζῶα τερατώδη, καὶ ἰδιοφυεῖς [em. Richt., cod. εἰδιφυεῖς] τὰς ἰδέας ἔχοντα ζωογονεῖσθαι· ἀνθρώπους γὰρ διπτέρους γεννηθῆναι, ἐνίους δὲ
- ↑ On Dillmann's modification of this theory, see above on 11.
