Study Title **Watchmen Bible Study Group Christian Bible Studies

[WBSG NOTE: Some typos due to scanner and text-recognition error may be present.
To purchase the actual book, go to: Sargon The Magnificent]

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)

"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.

Cast of Double Headed Bust Frontispiece	Page
Naram-Sin Facing	23
Sumerian Royalties	23
Cylinder with Eight Figures	55
Adam, Eve and the Serpent	60
Cherubim's in Babylonian Art	60
Taking the Hand of Bel	60
Demeter with Little Pig	91
The Sun God, Merodach or Marduk	100
A "Sumerian"	102
Three Semites and a "Sumerian"	103
Trial of Adam	121
Babylonian Cylinder Seal	121
Naram-Sin, with Horned Helmet	142
Babylonian God	149
Babylonian Drawing, Small Head	149
Babylonian Libation Cup	149

I. GREAT FLOODS HAVE FLOWN " 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

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.

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

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.

(**2) Ancient Egyptians, p.150. Dr Elliot Smith. The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, p.22. Professor Sayce, etc.

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.

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

skeptic and every sneer of the mocker, it was thought, in regard to the Bible would be utterly and inevitably confounded."

"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

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:

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:

"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

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

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"

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

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.

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:

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

(**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)

endowed with superhuman knowledge and physique and rendered invulnerable by some divine talisman, taking command over those pre-Adamites; and that he did so seems proved by the fact that he built a city and called it after his son Enoch.

We see, therefore, that the Bible sanctions the belief in pre-Adamites, and that the oldest monuments in the world indicate that they were blacks. In fact both the Bible and modern science confirm these assumptions. The Bible, by showing that only eight of Adam's race were saved in the ark, demands a belief in a previous black race to account for the existence of blacks in later history, for how could the Ethiopian who, the prophet remarks, could no more change his skin than the leopard his spots, have descended from Noah? Science, by discovering the fundamental physical differences between the black and white races, has shown the fallacy of the old idea that they had a common origin(**1), and that either the white race was evolved from the blacks or the blacks were sunburned brothers of the white men.

My claim that the black race was a separate creation previous to Adam may be thought to contradict St. Paul's statement that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men"; I must, therefore, explain my belief that the Apostle only referred to white people - my contention being that the word man (used synonymously with Adam in Genesis II) (**2) distinguished Adam from the pre-Adamites, and has continued to distinguish his descendants from the black race all through history. Do we of the present day ever call a negro a man without using the adjective black? In 2 Sam. xix, 12, Isa. xlvi,8, and Cor xvi,13, the word man is used as a distinction; just as we say, "like a man," "be a man," or, "he is a man."

(**1)"In the texture of bone, the architecture of the skull, the nature of the asymmetry of the body and the character of the variations - in these and many other respects there is evidence of the profound gap that separates the Negro from the rest of mankind." (Ancient Egyptians. Elliot Smith p.73)

(**2) "Adam, in Hebrew as in Assyrian, signifies 'man'." Sayce. The First Book of Moses called Genesis. Appendix.

(**3) Professor Max Muller writes: "Man, a derivative root, means to think. From this we have the Sanskrit Manu, originally the thinker, then man." (Lectures. Vol I.p.425)

that the "living soul" breathed into Adam raised him above some previously created race. In Sanskrit literature the first man is called Manu or Menu. (**1) It will be shown later that the monuments support my theory that the word "man" distinguished Adam's race from the pre-Adamites. (**2)

Just as the discovery that a black race existed at the beginning of history (**3) supports the Bible's testimony that although Adam was the first man he was not the first human being - so does the continued existence of that black race prove that the Deluge was not universal. Noah's sons were surely white men, therefore the "Hamites" of later days must have been the result of the intermarriage of Ham's family with some black race which had survived the Deluge.

In the Bible story of the Deluge the meaning of the writer has obviously been misinterpreted by the translators of the Authorized Version. The Hebrew word eretz has been translated by them "the earth" or "all the earth," which has caused us to think that the Bible teaches that the Deluge was universal, and destroyed every human being and animal in the whole world with the exception of Noah's family. The word eretz however, also means "country," "land" or "district", and is used in that sense in the story of Cain, who says:

In this sentence the word eretz is translated by Ferrar Fenton "this land," and by Dr. Moffat "the country," which are obviously better translations.

"As in may of these passages it might seem as if the habitable globe were intended, the use of so ambiguous a term as "the earth" should have been

(**1) "Menu-Swayambhuva is certainly Adam; and he is described as preceding by several generations Menu-Satyvrata, who is as certainly Noah." (Origin of Pagan Mythology. Vol. II, p.102. Faber.)

avoided and the original rendered by "land," as in Lev.xxv,23 = Isaiah xxiii, and elsewhere." (Kitto's Cyclopedia of Bible Literature. Earth.)

That the writer of Genesis did not intend to teach that the Deluge was universal can scarcely be doubted, for if it had been universal and if only Noah's family had been preserved out of the whole world, not only would the existence of the black races have been inexplicable but also that of the descendants of the pre-Noachian giants (the Nephilim or monsters) found in Palestine in the time of Moses and Joshua. (**1)

We may therefore conclude that when Noah was told that "all men" and "all flesh" upon the "earth" (**2) were to be destroyed only the Adamites and the animals in the district inhabited by them were referred to. Wild beasts would naturally have been exterminated in that district, so we may dispense with the curious picture of every kind of wild beast processing into the ark, for obviously Noah was only commanded to preserve the animals useful to mankind, which had been allowed to remain in the district populated by the Adamites. (**3) It is surely easier to accept these explanations of the seeming contradictions in the Book of Genesis than to allow that the Bible contradicts itself.

It is hoped that this digression will serve its purpose in persuading the reader that both the Bible and Science, as well as common sense, justifies the hypothesis that Cain settled among black pre-Adamites in "the Land of Nod" (Babylonia) after his expulsion from the land of his birth.

The latest writers upon the Babylonian inscriptions unintentionally support my theory that while the knowledge possessed by Adam was preserved in Seth's branch of the family, in the form made familiar to us by the Bible, it was taken into Babylonia by Cain and there parodied. To appreciate their support, however, we must substitute the word Adamites for the word Semites in the following quotations, for the writers are speaking of people who lived before Shem and who therefore cannot accurately be called Semites.

"Assryiologists, as far as I know, have generally dismissed as an impossibility the idea that there was a common Semitic tradition, which developed in Israel in one way and in Babylonia in another. They have unreservedly declared that the Biblical stories have been borrowed from Babylonia, in which land they were indigenous. To me it has always seemed perfectly reasonable that both stories had a common origin among the Semites, some of whom entered Babylonia, while others carried their traditions into Palestine." (The Origin of Biblical Traditions. A.T. Clay. P.150. 1923)

Professor Delaporte of Paris, who holds the same opinion, published the following statement in 1925:

"If the theory that the first Semites to settle among the Sumerians were a branch sprung from the group of the Western Semites be confirmed... then the Pan-Babylonian thesis falls to the ground completely. The civilization of Israel would then no

longer be wholly a reflection of that of Babylon; the traditions preserved in the Book of Genesis would not be importations from Chaldea; on the contrary, it would be the Semites who introduced them in the last stage of their eastward wandering to the Sumerians and the latter who adopted them." (Mesopotamia, p.355)

It will scarcely be denied that these views pave the way for my claims that Cain took knowledge (which he shared with his parents) into Babylonia, and that the inscriptions which have been regarded as the origin of the Genesis stories are the result. They also support Professor Kittel's opinion that the knowledge imparted to man in the beginning has come down in two streams, on one hand through the Hebrews, and on the other through the Babylonians.

My claim that Cain was the great Sargon about whom Babylonian inscriptions have much to say, invites adverse criticism and perhaps ridicule from those who see no connection between early Babylonian history and the first chapters of Genesis. Since, however, George Smith (the first decipherer of the cuneiform inscriptions) and Professor Sayce (**1) identified the Babylonian hero Izdubar or Gilgames with the Biblical Nimrod, and since Noah appears under another name in Babylonian story of the Deluge, it can hardly be regarded as incredible that Cain should also appear in the inscriptions, especially as the name Sargon may, as we shall see, be the Babylonian for "King Cain."

Professor King considered that the Babylonian and Egyptian legends were based upon true history; he writes:

"There is another element in many of their legends which must not be lost sight of, and that is the substratum of historical fact which underlies the story and was the nucleus around which it gathered. Echoes from the history of the remote past may perhaps be traced..." (Books on Egypt and Chaldea, Vol 4, p.198)

To invite at the outset a certain amount of confidence in my theory I mention here the following indications which will be

(**1) In the Hibbert Lectures, 1887 (p8), Professor Sayce says: "There are grounds for thinking that Mr. George Smith was right in seeing in him (Gilgames) the prototype of the Biblical Nimrod." He seems, however, to have changed his opinion, for in Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia (p.447) he says that Assyriologists were "long seduced" into trying to identify Gilgames with Nimrod, but that "it was not with him but with the Greek Herakles that the Babylonian hero was related." My suggestion is that both these pagan heroes may have represented Nimrod, for, as I show later, the Biblical characters appear under different names in the mythologies of Babylonia and Greece.

dealt with more fully later. To begin with, Professor Sayce's opinion that Cain may have built the Babylonian city of Unuk or Erech shows that there is nothing improbable in my claim that Babylonia was the Biblical "Land of Nod" to which Cain journeyed; and allowing that Cain built that Babylonian city, the fact that Sargon is said in inscriptions to have reigned in it, at once connects the two. (**1)

According to another authority, the civilization of Babylonia arrived there suddenly and unaccountably, as Cain would have done; while the Babylonians relate how Sargon arrived mysteriously in Babylonia; that he was a gardener when young and reigned in later years over people called "the men of the black headed race" (**2); all of which agrees with the assumption that he was Cain (the tiller of the ground) who settled among black pre-Adamites.

Another important fact is that Sargon's language (Ancient Babylonian) resembled Hebrew, which was presumably that of Cain. Professor Sayce writes:

"There is, however, one Semitic language which has the closest affinities to Hebrew and this is also the language in which we possess records older than those of the Hebrew scriptures. I need hardly say I am referring to Assyrian (i.e. Babylonian)." (**3) (Hibbert Lectures, p.46)

Amazing things about Sargon have been gathered from the Babylonian inscriptions, and at least one portrait of him has been found, which is thus described:

"Only one sculptured monument of Sargon has been recovered, it is a large triangular monolith found at Susa; the king, according to Semitic fashion, has a long beard reaching to his waist, heavy moustaches and his long hair is rolled into

(**3) "It is usually called the Assyrian, after the name of the country where the first and most important excavations were made; but the term 'Babylonian' would be more correct, as Babylon was the birthplace of this language and of the civilization to which it belonged." (Ency. Brit. Ed XI Semitic Languages.)

"Any one point in early Babylonian history was to be regarded as certainly established it was the historical character of Sargon of Agade... Sargon's reign forms the most important epoch in the early history of his country." (Sumer and Akkad, p.216)

"Few monarchs of the ancient world are so well known to us moderns who are interested in these subjects as Sargon of Agade, and we may say that to the Babylonian he was their hero of heroes, their Menes, Charlemagne or Alfred the Great." (Ancient History of the Near East, pp.20-30)

"The fame of Sargon was such that a range of mountains in the Lebanon region from which frankincense (lupanu) was obtained, was named the Mountain of Sargon... Sargon divided his vast empire from the lower sea to the upper sea, from the rising to the setting of the sun into districts of five double hours march each, over which he placed the "sons of palace." By these delegates of his authority he ruled the hosts of the lands altogether." (Vol. I, p 406)

My suggestion is that these "sons of his palace" were Cain's own descendants, and that they helped him to rule the inferior race (the pre-Adamites). The inscriptions show that Sargon made war against people of his own race (**1) and took prisoners with whom he populated some of his cities. It is probable that he had Adamite wives and that some of those "sons of his palace" were pure Adamites, (**2) as the monuments show his son Naram Sin to have been. (See Illustration.)

conquered peoples of those countries he peopled Akkad." (Stories of the Nations: Chaldea, p.205. Ragozin.)

"In some versions of his new records Sargon states that 5,400 men daily eat bread before him'... though the figure may be intended to convey an idea of the size of Sargon's court, we may perhaps see in it a not inaccurate statement of the total strength of his armed forces." (Legends of Babylon and Egypt. p.9.)

The following statements show the highly civilized state of Babylonia in the time of Sargon of Akkad.

"Babylonian art, however, had already a high degree of excellence; two seal cylinders of the time of Sargon are among the most beautiful specimens of the gem-cutters' art ever discovered. The empire was bound together by roads, along which there was a regular postal service, and clay seals which took the place of stamps are now in the Louver bearing the names of Sargon and his son. A cadastral survey seems to have also been instituted... It is probable that the first collection of astronomical observations and terrestrial omens was made for a library established by Sargon." (Vol I, p.362)

We also find that "transparent glass seems to have been first introduced in the reign of Sargon." (Ency. Brit.Vol 3 Ed.2. Babylonia.) And Professor Kings writes:

"The Babylonians divided the day into twelve double hours; and the Greeks took over their ancient system of time-division along with their knowledge of astronomy and passed it on to us." (Egypt, Babylon and Palestine, p.18)

"Centuries before Abraham was born (about 2000 B.C.) Babylonia was full of schools and libraries,

of teachers and pupils, and poets and prose writers, and of the literary works which they had composed." (Monumental Facts, etc.)

Sargon's voyages by sea and conquests on land will be described later in the words of Assyriologists, who feel forced to accept as history what the inscriptions say about them, although to those who do not identify Sargon with Cain they naturally seem almost incredible The Cambridge History says:

"It seems impossible to explain away the voyage of Sargon across some part of the Mediterranean, and naturally Cyprus was his first objective." (Vol. I, p.405)

"For forty-five years (the number of years is admittedly undecipherable) the kingdom I have ruled, and the black heads (or black) race I have governed. In multitudes of bronze chariots I rode over rugged lands. I governed the upper countries (Assyria, etc). Three times to the sea I have advanced." (Ragozin's Chaldea, pp.205-207)

"He is also stated to have made successful expeditions to Syria and Elam, and that with the conquered peoples of those countries he peopled Akkad, and built there a magnificent palace and temple, and that on one occasion he was absent three years when he advanced to the Mediterranean, and ... left there memorials of his deeds, returning home with immense spoils." (The Worship of the Dead, Colonel Garnier. p.398)

It is evident that no ordinary human being, not even a Charlemagne or an Alfred the Great, could have evolved, during his lifetime, this great civilization; and so Assyriologists find themselves bound to attribute its evolution to the inferior race among whom (according to the inscriptions) Sargon arrived suddenly and over whom he eventually reigned. My

own contention is that nothing short of Cain's arrival in Babylonia, his longevity (Jewish tradition says he lived more than 700 years), and his super human knowledge can account for the magnitude of the achievements ascribed to Sargon, and the advanced civilization and culture of Babylonia.

The strongest evidence of the identity of Sargon with Cain comes from the Babylonian inscriptions and will be given later, but solid grounds for holding it are supplied by several authorities who had no idea of suggesting that identification; a fact which makes their testimony all the more valuable.

To begin with, the city which, as we read in the fourth chapter of Genesis, was built by Cain in the "Land of nod," and which he "called after the name of his son Enoch," was probably, according to Professor Sayce, the Babylonian city Unuk or Erech excavated by him.

"If I am right in identifying Unuk with the Enoch of Genesis, the city built by Kain in commemoration of his son." (Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p.185)

"Erech appears to have been one of the centers of Semitic influence in Babylonia from a very early period." (Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p. 185)

Reasons for thinking that it began with the building, rather than the conquest, of Erech are given later. The facts that Erech is called "the old city" and the "place of the settlement" (see p.72), and that, according to Professor Sayce, the name of "Unuk is found on the oldest bricks" (**1) help to identify Ereck (or Unuk) with the Enoch built by Cain.

As to the sudden and almost miraculous arrival of civilization and culture in Babylonia, Professor King writes:

"We have found, in short, abundant remains of a bronze culture, but no traces of preceding ages of development such as meet us on early Egyptian sites." (Egypt, Babylon and Palestine, p 28)

This, of course, harmonizes with my belief that Cain, protected by some divine talisman, arrived suddenly in Babylonia, bringing with him the supernatural knowledge acquired by his parents. One writer, expressing his astonishment at the high grade of civilization and culture which is known to have existed in Babylonia in the time of Sargon, writes:

"Surely such a people as this could not have sprung into existence as a Deus ex Machina; it must have had its history- a history which presupposes a development of several centuries more." (Times History, Vol I, p.356)

The expression "Deus ex machina" paraphrased by Dr. Brewer into "an intervention of a god or some unlikely event," is curiously appropriate in connection with my belief that the Babylonian civilization was due to the sudden advent of Cain with his marvelous knowledge.

The first Adamites were presumably superhuman in both mind and body, which would account for the great ages to which they lived. We can easily imagine, therefore, how quickly Cain (divinely protected by some mysterious mark) would become the leader, teacher and absolute lord and master of an inferior race. As if in support of this suggestion Professor Sayce writes:

"Slavery was part of the foundation upon which Babylonian society rested." (Babylonia and Assyria. p.67)

The bronze age of Babylonia, which arrived so suddenly and, from a modern scientific point of view, so unaccountably, may well be attributed to Cain by those who accept as history the first chapters of Genesis, from which we infer that the earliest

Adamites possessed a full knowledge of much which was lost sight of for long centuries, and only painfully relearned in later times. As Dr. Kitto writes:

"'To dress and keep' the Garden of Eden, Adam not only required the necessary implements, but also the knowledge of operations for insuring future produce, the use of water and the various trainings of the plants and trees."

Dr. Kitto asks how Adam could have done the work appointed for him without iron instruments:

"Iron cannot be brought into a serviceable state without processes and instruments which it seems impossible to imagine could have been first possessed except in the way of supernatural communication. ... To make iron (as is the technical term) requires previous iron... Tubal Cain most probably lived before the death of Adam; and he acquired fame as 'a hammerer, a universal workman in brass and iron.' Genesis iv,22)" (Kitto's Cyclopaedia. Adam.)

We gather therefore, that Tubal Cain's ancestor Cain may have taken the knowledge of arts and crafts into Babylonia. The tempter had told Eve that the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge would make her and Adam as "gods"; what limit, therefore, can be put to their capabilities? Discoveries witness to the fact that the culture of Babylonia in Sargon's time was of a very high order, and that the art of that period excelled all later art. No adequate explanation for this fact can be found unless we believe that Sargon was Cain, and had inherited the miraculous knowledge of his parents.

Referring to the perfection of the earliest works of Babylonian art, which he ascribes to the reign of Sargon, Professor Kittel says that they

and that they far excel any of the later Babylonian art and also that of the early Greek period. Describing some Babylonian works he says:

"The surprising delicacy of execution, the noble beauty and fidelity to nature by which these representations are characterized, must excite the rapture of everyone who sees them; they would, in my judgment, do honour to the atelier of a Begas or a Dondorf... they come down to us from the time of Sargon I and therefore belong, at the latest, to the fourth, perhaps even to the fifth millennium before Christ. The material of these figures, as determined by a thorough chemical examination, consists of an alloy of copper and antimony." (Babylonian Excavations, etc., p.22)

How, the Professor asks, can we account for the existence of this beautiful art in earliest Babylonia and how can we explain the fact that a

"degradation must have taken place - a species of intellectual impoverishment - a retrograde movement, and a falling off from a previous higher stage of culture." (P.23)

In my opinion, this beautiful and realistic art was introduced by Cain, and the question of its degradation will be discussed later. Unfortunately, the British Museum possesses no example (so far as I know) of the true art described by Professor Kittel - all that we find there is in the usual hieratic mock-archaic style.

Another indication of the identity of Cain with the Babylonian Sargon is that the name variously rendered Sargon, Sargoni, Sarrukinu, Shargani, etc., may reasonably be taken as synonymous with "King Cain," (**1) the first syllable Sar or Shar meaning ruler or King in Babylonia (**2) and obviously the origin of Shah, Czar, Sahib, Sire, Sir, etc., while the second syllable gon, gani, gina or kinu, is very like Cain. George Smith writes:

"Several of the other names of antediluvian patriarchs correspond with Babylonian words and roots, such as Cain with gina and kinu."(*) (Chaldean Genesis P.295. Early edition.)

(*) According to Professor Waddell, the English language is based upon Babylonian. (Phoenician Origin of the Britons. 1926)

We also, it seems, have the right to believe that Sargon's date, circa 3,800 B.C. agrees with Cain's. Accepting Archbishop Usher's reckoning, which has never been discredited, Adam was created about the year 4,004 B.C. and he is said to have lived 930 years. Cain may have been born soon after 4,004 B.C. and may, like Adam's other descendants before the Flood, have lived many hundreds of years (according to Jewish tradition he lived 730 years (**1). That Sargon lived long is indicated by the tales of his marvelous exploits and travels. It seems necessary indeed to picture the Babylonian king as endowed with longevity; and this would account for "the enormous gaps" in Babylonian history which Assyriologists fill up with admittedly conjectural kings and even dynasties.

The great ages of the Biblical patriarchs are sometimes treated as fabulous, but the words in the sixth chapter of Genesis -"Yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years" -seem to imply that human life was to be curtailed, and while there is no evidence that men did not live to the great ages mentioned in the Bible, the whole weight of tradition tends to show that they did.

The gods and demi-gods of the Egyptians were said by the priests to have lived many hundreds of years; and to adopt Professor Kittel's line of argument, would they have imagined that longevity if it had never existed? Although the Jews are known to have disputed as to whether it was common to all men to live to a great age (**2) in those times, they never questioned the longevity of the patriarchs.

that "the ancients" lived nearly a thousand years, (**1) and suggests a commonsense reason for those long lives, saying:

"And besides, God afforded them a longer time of life on account of their virtue, and the good use they made of it in astronomical and geometrical discoveries, which would not have afforded the time of foretelling the period of the stars unless they had lived 600 years; for the Great Year is completed in that interval."

In answer to an enquiry at the British Museum the Secretary wrote (quoting Mr. A.C. D. Crommelin of the Astronomer Royals staff at Greenwich): "It appears that the 600 year period alluded to by Josephus consists of two of the most satisfactory cycles, that is 300 years, for the calculation of total eclipses. How the ancient astronomers became aware of these cycles seems to be unknown." This ancient knowledge can therefore only be accounted for in the way that Josephus suggests or as direct revelation.

Another reason for the longevity of the patriarchs is suggested by a writer who points out that Adam lived with Methuselah for about 233 years, that Methuselah died in the year of the Deluge, and that, therefore,

"there was only one person needed - the godly Methuselah - to transmit the Sacred Hebrew Records from Adam, the First Father of Mankind, to Noah the Second Father of Mankind. And thus is illustrated one purpose for which a few godly lives were so prodigiously prolonged before the Deluge." (The Origins of the Bible. Rev. A.B. Grimaldi.)

The Chinese, too, have accounts of primeval longevity in their records. One writer says:

"It is a curious circumstance that the Emperor Ho-ang-ti who, by the chronology of China, must have been contemporary with the patriarch Reu (Abraham's great-great grandfather), when the life of man was shortened to about three hundred years,

proposed an enquiry in a medical book of which he was the author, whence it happened that the lives of their forefathers were so long compared with the lives of the then present generation." (Prefaet. ad Sin. Chron. Couplet, p.5)

Finally, a Babylonian list of kings has lately been found in which the reigns of the kings are almost exactly the same length as the lives of Adam and his descendants. Adam, for example, lived 930 years (Genesis V), while the first king in the list is said to have reigned 900 years. Seth lived 912 years, while King Zugagib lived 940 years. Enos lived 905 years, while Etana reigned 635 years, and the eighth king is said to have reigned 1,200 years, thus outdoing Methuselah, who only lived 969 years. (**1)

What explanation can there be for the remarkable resemblance between the duration of the reigns of the Babylonian kings and that of the lives of the Bible patriarchs, unless it be that one list was copied from the other, or, still more likely, that they are independent records of the same personages. My own conviction is that the so-called "dynastic list" is simply a disguised reference to the ages of the earliest Biblical characters - that the different names given to these kings were invented by the priests and that there are no grounds for concluding, as some writers have done, that this list of Babylonian kings is older than the Bible records.

One reason for this opinion is that in this list the fifth king (Etana) is said to have been translated to Heaven, which seems like an echo of the Bible story of Enoch; and another is that the twelfth king Enmerkar is said to have built the city of Erech "with the people of Erech" (**2) which, if Professor Sayce is right in identifying Erech with Enoch, is an obvious allusion to Cain's building of that city.(**3) Professor King saw a connection between Cain and Enmerkar, although he does not identify them, for he writes:

"Cain's city-building, for example, may pair with that of Enmerkar." (Legends of Babylon, p.38)

Believing that Cain (i.e. Sargon) built Erech, I naturally accept Colonel Conder's opinion that Sargon was the first king of Erech, (**1) and reject Dr. Hall's opinion that Sargon conquered a former king of Erech (**2) called Lugal-Zaggisi. Colonel Conder thinks that Lugal-Zaggisi meant "the Great Lord" (or king) Sargina" and that both names were applied to Sargon, while Professor King shows how the same achievements are ascribed in the inscriptions to Sargon and Lugal-Zaggisi and evidently suspected the accuracy of the accounts of the latter's exploits, on one page he wrote:

"It is true that Shar-gani-sharri of Akkad, at a rather later period, did succeed in establishing an empire of this extent, but there are difficulties in the way of crediting Lugal- Zaggisi's with a like achievement." (Sumer and Akkad, p.198)

Writing several years later than Dr. Hall, who takes Shar-gani-sharri and Sargon to be two different kings, (**3) Professor King gives reasons for the conclusion that they are the same person. (**4) This confusion arises (I claim) from the fact that the Babylonians willfully twisted and distorted the history recorded in the Book of Genesis, and more evidence of this will be given later.

The importance of this "king-list" from my point of view is that it shows that the longevity of the Bible patriarchs was known of in Babylonia, which helps to verify the statements in Genesis, and may persuade the skeptical to accept the probability that Cain was alive in the year 3800 B.C., the date ascribed to Sargon, and for centuries after. Considering that no Egyptian king can be dated with any certainty pervious to the Ptolemaic period (about 500 B.C.) it is a striking fact and, to my mind, providential, that this very early date should have been established. Professor Sayce describes how, against his previous judgments, he was forced to accept the evidence that

Sargon of Akkad lived as early as the fourth millennium before Christ, and says how that fact "shook to its very foundations" his previous theories. He tells how