Nebuchadrezzar of which we have reference in the third chapter of Daniel? There could have been no novelty in Nebuchadrezzar constructing a huge image of gold-there were several of them already in existence; the novelty appears to have been the directions given for the gathering of all officials of the State to its dedication, not in a temple, but on the open plain of Dura, and here it would seem that the three Jewish nobles were, for the first time, ordered to worship with others, and openly, among the mass before the image Nebuchadrezzar had set up.

The type of building in use as far back as Hammurapi's reign shows the climatic conditions in Babylon not to have been materially different to those now existing. Yet many mistakes are made in this matter. I would refer, for instance, to the explanation given to account for the records of the Babylonian Deluge as being merely a nature myth. Jastrow writes*: "Recognizing unreservedly the common origin of the Babylonian Biblical traditions of the Deluge-as a nature myth picturing the annual change, and based perhaps on a recollection of some particularly disastrous season," and Dr. Driver, quoting Professor Zimmern, "The very essence of the Biblical narrative presupposes a country liable, like Babylonia, to inundations; so that it cannot be doubted that the story was indigenous in Babylonia and transplanted in Palestine." The same "nature-myth" explanation is given in endeavouring to account for the Creation tablets, Dr. Driver, relying upon Professors Jastrow and Zimmern, writes : "During the long winter, the Babylonian plain, flooded by heavy rains, looked like a sea (Babylonian tiamtu, tiâmat). Then comes the spring, when the clouds and water vanish and dry land and vegetation appear. So, thought the Babylonian, must it have been in the first spring, at the first New Year, when, after a fight between Marduk and Tiâmat, the organized world came into being."†

Similar explanations to account both for the Biblical and Babylonian accounts of Creation and flood are made by many scholars. These so-called explanations are based upon the climatic conditions in which the scholars themselves lived, and not on those of Babylonia. Anyone with an intimate knowledge of Mesopotamia would not have made such blunders.

I take Dr. Driver's statement in detail. "During the long

* Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions, p. 364.

† Genesis, 12th edition, 1926, p. 28.

winter." Babylonia has not a long, but a very short winter and a very long summer. The official statistics, taken over a long period, show that the mean daily temperature at Babylon did not fall below that of January, 57.2, and the mean daily temperature of the months of March and November exceeded 75. "The Babylonian plain flooded by heavy rains." Official meteorological figures show that the rainfall at Babylon is 4.25 ins. per annum. It rains on only a few days in the year, the highest monthly rainfall (in March) of 1·09 ins. could not cause a flood.

66

This

Then comes the spring, when the clouds and water vanish and dry land and vegetation appears." It is in the Mesopotamian spring that clouds are most evident and the highest monthly rainfall already quoted falls. However, in spite of these blunders, parts of Mesopotamia do sometimes "look like a sea." is due, not to rainfall in Mesopotamia, but to the melting of snow in the mountains of Armenia, Kurdistan and Persia. To this day, the river floods feed the permanent swamps in the southern part of Iraq, notably those between Amara and Kurna. The Tigris is at its lowest in October and Novemberit is not until April that its great volume of water flows. So that every part of Driver's climatic description is inaccurate. It fails to support the nature-myth theory of origin.

The "barrack square scientific method of making soldiers act alike and with precision has advantages in military training, but should not be adopted by investigators. Higher critics seem to have drawn themselves up so as to form an undeviating line. To consult some of their works is to be impressed with the way they refer to another of their own school of thought and immediately" toe the line " already taken. This is seen in the instance just quoted. The reiteration of "complete agreement among scholars," unless this agreement is due to independent thought, is of no value. The aggressiveness with which we are asked to commence with "assured results" and to accept such assurances as "This latter hypothesis" [the general critical theory of late date and Babylonian borrowings] "with the reconstruction which it involves of our view of the development of Israel's religion after 750 B.C., may now be regarded as proved right up to the hilt for any thinking and unprejudiced man who is capable of estimating the character and value of evidence "* is unscientific.

* Dr. C. F. Burney, Journal of Theological Studies, April, 1908, p. 321.

We are indebted to archæologists for providing abundant material, illuminating contemporary conditions of life and belief among the nations surrounding Palestine. The limits of this paper do not permit any detailed examination of Babylon's influence on Israel, but Professor Sayce's statement, made in 1908, that "the more strictly archæological evidence of Babylonian influence upon Canaan is extraordinary scanty"* still holds good. The evidence of the Old Testament is that during these periods of contact, instead of the Babylonian religious beliefs permeating those of the Hebrews, vastly different events occurred. In the first period, Abram withdrew from Babylonian polytheism, migrating into Palestine. In the second, the effect was such that the constant tendency of the Hebrew people to lapse into idolatry was cured by their residence in Babylon. They had come into direct contact with Babylonian polytheism in all its degrading immorality and wickedness, so that on their return to Jerusalem they thereafter were unaffected as a nation by idolatry. This adherence to their faith is in accord with what their later history would lead us to expect. Greek or Roman domination failed to move them from their monotheistic faith.

It has been suggested that the name "Yahum " or " Yahweh." has been found in Babylonian contract tablets of the age of Abraham, but such similarities in names do not prove that Babylonian beliefs resemble those of the Hebrews any more than a mud hut resembles a palace. How much would we know of God, His nature and attributes, if our knowledge were confined to Babylonian tablets?

THE CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS.

Ladies and Gentlemen: It is needless to say that I think we have listened to a very interesting paper, altogether unlike any that we have heard before. Such a communication as this, by one who has been on the spot and visited the ruins, gives an idea of the country and the conditions prevailing there such as other sources of information rarely contain. From the pictures which have been shown we get a very real idea of the confused heaps of ruin-mounds which the explorers have to investigate and the difficulties by which they are faced. Squadron-Leader Wiseman's knowledge of the literature

* Archæology and Cuneiform Inscriptions, p. 151.

is exceedingly extensive. In my opinion he is quite right in identifying Merodach with Nimrod. From the time of Hammurabi to the fall of the Babylonian Empire, Merodach was the god of its great capital, the magnitude of which classical authorities have handed down to us. Professor Fried. Delitzsch, however, has stated that the portion of the city of Babylon within the walls now standing is no larger than the extent of Munich or Dresden. It is to this part that the explorers have given their attention, and what there may be outside the walls of this older portion we can only guess. It is a great pity that the Tower of Babel is now only represented by its core of unbaked brick, but such work of destruction in Babylonia has been going on for many years. I am glad to say that it is unlikely that it will be allowed to continue.

But it is getting late, and I will not detain you longer. I would ask you, however, before you leave, to pass a most hearty vote of thanks to Squadron-Leader Wiseman for his most interesting and valuable paper.

697TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING,

HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER, S.W.1, ON MONDAY, MARCH 7TH, 1927, AT 4.30 P.M.

DR. JAMES W. THIRTLE IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read, confirmed, and signed. The CHAIRMAN then introduced Professor Theophilus G. Pinches, LL.D., M.R.A.S., to read his paper on "The Completed Legend of BelMerodach and the Dragon," which was illustrated by lantern slides.

THE COMPLETED LEGEND OF BEL-MERODACH AND THE DRAGON.

By PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D., M.R.A.S.

OF all the known accounts of the Creation of the world, there

is none which, after the majestic narrative contained in

the first two chapters of Genesis, exercises such attraction. for the student as does that handed down to us by the Babylonians and the Assyrians. With this account I have dealt on several previous occasions, but every addition thereto renews our interest in that noteworthy legend and leads us to turn our attention once more to the religion, the philosophy, the pantheon, and the turn of mind of that age-old nation with which the Tradition of the beginnings of the Universe originated, as well as the sister-nation-Assyria-which accepted it, and helped in such great measure to hand it down through our explorers of modern times.