HKB
It will be noticed that, in our investigations on the authority of the Pentateuch, we have followed, principally, Dr. Knappert's ideas as set forth in "The Religion of Israel."
This we have done because we could not go into an extended investigation, and because his words are very expressive, and just to the point. To those who may think that his ideas are not the same as those entertained by other Biblical scholars of the present day, we subjoin, in a note below, a list of works to which they are referred.[98:1]
We shall now, after giving a brief history of the Pentateuch, refer to the legends of which we have been treating, and endeavor to show from whence the Hebrews borrowed them. The first of these is "The Creation and Fall of Man."
Egypt, the country out of which the Israelites came, had no story of the Creation and Fall of Man, such as we have found among the Hebrews; they therefore could not have learned it from them. The Chaldeans, however, as we saw in our first chapter, had this legend, and it is from them that the Hebrews borrowed it.
The account which we have given of the Chaldean story of the Creation and Fall of Man, was taken, as we stated, from the writings of Berosus, the Chaldean historian, who lived in the time of Alexander the Great (356-325 B. C.), and as the Jews were acquainted with the story some centuries earlier than this, his works did not prove that these traditions were in Babylonia before the Jewish captivity, and could not afford testimony in favor of the statement that the Jews borrowed this legend from the Babylonians at that time. It was left for Mr. George Smith, of the British Museum, to establish, without a doubt, the fact that this legend was known to the Babylonians at least two thousand years before the time assigned for the birth of Jesus. The cuneiform inscriptions discovered by him, while on an expedition to Assyria, organized by the London "Daily Telegraph," was the means of doing this, and although by far the greatest number of these tablets belong to the age of Assurbanipal, who reigned over Assyria B. C. 670, it is "acknowledged on all hands that these tablets are not the originals, but are only copies from earlier texts." "The Assyrians acknowledge themselves that this literature was borrowed from Babylonian sources, and of course it is to Babylonia we have to look to ascertain the approximate dates of the original documents."[98:2] Mr. Smith then shows, from "fragments of the Cuneiform account of the Creation and Fall" which have been discovered, that, "in the period from B. C. 2000 to 1500, the Babylonians believed in a story similar to that in Genesis." It is probable, however, says Mr. Smith, that this legend existed as traditions in the country long before it was committed to writing, and some of these traditions exhibited great difference in details, showing that they had passed through many changes.[99:1]
Professor James Fergusson, in his celebrated work on "Tree and Serpent Worship," says:
"The two chapters which refer to this (i. e., the Garden, the Tree, and the Serpent), as indeed the whole of the first eight of Genesis, are now generally admitted by scholars to be made up of fragments of earlier books or earlier traditions, belonging, properly speaking, to Mesopotamia rather than to Jewish history, the exact meaning of which the writers of the Pentateuch seem hardly to have appreciated when they transcribed them in the form in which they are now found."[99:2]
John Fiske says:
"The story of the Serpent in Eden is an Aryan story in every particular. The notion of Satan as the author of evil appears only in the later books, composed after the Jews had come into close contact with Persian ideas."[99:3]
Prof. John W. Draper says: