352 case must therefore have been due to another conclusion to Mark~ Gospel, whether Aristion or cause, and that was, in fact, the opposition of St. some other, had also no definite conception of the Paul. speaking with tongues, and, as we have seen, Nowhere in Paul’s later Epistles do we find any Irenpeus had just as little. Tertullian, on the mention of speaking with tongues; and the same other hand, knew of the phenomenon in its mon- is the case in the post-Pauline writings. We read, tanistic form, which we can now say resembled it is true, once more in Eph 51s, Be not drunken that of the early Christians. It was, perhaps, with wine, but be filled with the Spirit,’ but this even superior to the latter, in that the montanistic has reference more particularly to the prophets. oracles, although spoken in ecstasy, and in parts After a short time the nature of speaking with needing explanation, yet as far as the individual tongues was so little remembered, that though it words were concerned, appear to have been intel- was indeed not confounded with speaking in ligible. That could not always have been the case foreign languages, yet both could be associated as with the speaking with tongues. Nevertheless, the if they were similar in kind. Thus arose that Church has rejected this reaction, and rightly, conception of the miracle at Pentecost which now for this rejection is but the application of Paul’s lies before us in Ac 2, and which has really a asiom : ‘ God is not a God of confusion, but of deep and true meaning. Will it not be true, peace’ (i I CO 14 33). indeed, in the future, that all peoples-those also In conclusion, if our preachers should wish to of whom nothing was known at that time-will speak again with tongues in the old way, not only hear in their own language the proclamation of the uninitiated and unbelieving, but also the best the mighty works of God? The author of the Christians would certainly say, ‘ Ye are mad.’ The Antedilusian Patriarche. By A. H. SAYCE, LL. D., PROFESSOR OF ASSYRIOLOGY, OXFORD. IN the S~mzday Seltool Times for 31st December between Egypt and Babylonia, and of the plateau 1898, Professor Hommel has an interesting article of Mesopotamia. The name must go back to the on The Story of Cain and Abel,’ in which he period when the ancestors of the Babylonians and points out that, while Abel represents the Semitic Egyptians had not yet separated from one another, nomad shepherds, Cain stands for the cultured popu- and when the wheat of Babylonia was being intro- lation of the Sumerian cities of ancient Babylonia. duced into the valley of the Nile. Cain is, in fact, ‘the smith,’ and, as I pointed out I believe that the Egyptian god Set-or rather, many years ago, the Cainites, or Kenites, were the Sutu, as the Tel el-amarna tablets show the name tribe, or caste, of wandering smiths, among whom should be read-is merely the ‘Sutu’ god. At all the secrets of the craft were handed down from events, Set was the god of the desert in which the father to son. The Assyrian equivalent of Cain Semitic nomads lived, and the name of the god- is Unzmarzn. dess, Satit, at the First Cataract is written in the The tinkers are still a wandering caste in the same way as that of the Satiu, while her consort, East, as they were in Europe during the Middle ’Anuqit, is the feminine of the Canaanite god Anak. This will how it is Ages. explain that though That the Sutu worshipped an eponymous deity we Cain the represents settled Sumerian people of know from Nu 2417, where they are called ’the he can be Babylonia, yet described as a ‘ fugitive children of Sheth,’ (just as the Ammonites are called and a vagabond.’ Can the ‘ mark’ that was set the children of Ammi), and the Assyrian king Samas- upon him be a tattoo-mark peculiar to the caste ? Hadad (or Samas-Rimmon) invokes ’the god Sutu- who took the of a Seth, place Abel, is duplicate sar,’ ’ Sutu the king’ (TV.AJ. i. Z9, 18.), who is ’ of the latter. He is the Sutu of the cuneiform coupled with the god Nabu-rabe, ’Nebo the great,’ the Salin of the monuments, Egyptian inscriptions, in a text published by Dr. Scheil (Z.~. viii. p. 206). that is to the Semitic say, nomads of the deserts The form ‘Nabu-rabe,’ it may be added, belongs to Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 4, 2015 353 the period of West Semitic influence in Babylonia, vening six represent the antediluvian history of in the age of Khammurabi. Babylonia as it was conceived in the ancient The antediluvian patriarchs are ten in number, traditions of Eridu. like the antediluvian kings of Babylonia. This has Now between the six antediluvian kings who often been noted, but what has not been observed belong to the traditions of Eridu and tle corre- is that both the patriarchs and the kings fall into sponding biblical patriarchs there is a close re-. three groups, which exactly correspond with one an- lationship in names. The following table will other. The first two Babylonian kings, Aloros and make this clear :- his son Alaparos, came from Babylon ; their six suc- cessors from Pantibibla ’; while the two last kings, Opartes (Ubara-Tutu), and his son Xisuthros, the Chaldean Noah, were from Larankha,’ the Surip- pak of the cuneiform texts. Similarly, in the Book of Genesis the third and fourth patriarchs are merely a dialectic variation of first and second; in other words, Adam and Cain, for whom Seth is substituted in the Sethite genealogy, belong to the list as it was handed down by one tribe, Enos and In the list of the Cainites (Gn 418) Enoch and Cainan to the list as it was handed down an- by Mekhuyael (llahalaleel) are transposed, but this other tribe. Adam and Cain (or Seth) thus stand is because Cain is stated to have built the city of as much outside the biblical list as Aloros and just Enoch, and it was therefore natural to suppose Alaparos do outside the Babylonian one. The that Enoch was his son. The name, which is latter were foisted into the list at the Babylonian variously written Jared and Irad, seems certainly time when under the dynasty of Khammurabi to be EridÚ, the native of Eridu.’ As for the first became the of Chaldea, and his name Babylon capital I eighth patriarch, the fact that is purely began to claim that the right of sovereignty Babylonian (Mutu-sa-ili) and not West Semitic, is to it from the first. belonged very remarkable. The form Methuselakh may be This, however, was far from being the case. due to a confusion between I~Iutu-sa-ili and Mutu- was one of the cities of Babylon younger Babylonia, sa-irkhu, ’she man of the moon-god’ (cf. the and was a of the on the colony Eridu, seaport name of the king of Hamath, Irkhulena, ’the Persian which the elements of Gulf, through moon-god is our god ’). culture first penetrated into the country. The With the eighth patriarch the list of Eridu fact was even those who made acknowledged by closes, and the correspondence between the gene- Aloros of the first antediluvian Babylon king. alogies of the Sethites and Cainites on the one Berossos tells us that it was from the waters of hand, and the biblical patriarchs and the Baby- the Persian and not from the Gulf, Euphrates at lonian kings on the other, comes to an end. that Oannes arose each Babylon, morning, bring- Lamech, whatever the name may mean, bears no ing with him a knowledge of the arts and sciences, relationship to Ubara-Tutu, ‘ the minister of the and consequently it must have been at Eridu and god Tutu,’ whom the traditions of Surippak made not at that Babylon Babylonian civilization first the father of the Chaldean Noah, ascribing to the established itself. latter the translation to heaven, which in the Book Beings similar to Oannes ascended out of the of Genesis (and probably also in the traditions of the of the six successors of gulf during reigns Eridu) was ascribed to Enoch. Hence we infer that the ’Panti- Alaparos. may The name of Noah, however, must go back to bibla’ of Berossos must be the Eridu of the the age of Khammurabi, when, as we now learn however difficult it be to inscriptions, may explain from the cuneiform inscriptions, names of West the name. Perhaps it is intended to signify the Semitic origin terminated in the mimmation. In town of books.’ At anyrate, while the first two Gn S~9 it is derived from Dn~, ’to comfort,’ im- antediluvian owe their existence to the kings vanity plying that it terminated in -Ill, and was accord- of the natives of Babylon, and the last two are ingly pronounced Nukhum. A. H. SAYCE. derived from the legends of Surippak, the inter- Dahabia ’Istar,’ Assual1. 23 Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 4, 2015.