‘THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I. 9
everything. He wanted, it is true, to eliminate the androgynous
character of the primeval ocean—the result we know.
Again if the Tehom is = Tiamat, then 32m (the darkness) must
be = Tiamat too. Thus it was rightly said that the fight of Marduk
with Zidmat is nothing more or less than a fight of the /ight against
the darkness.
But we have seen above that the god Marduk was called Elo-
him and made coeternal with Tehom, and that simply his atfribute
was retained by the writer of Gen. i. in order to help him to fabri-
cating his days. We also have seen that the functions of the x
are in contradiction to those of the sun, and thus must be spurious,
i. e., 1% does not belong to the original account of Genesis! it must
be left out, if we would restore Gen. i. to its original text.
Bearing this in mind the account of Genesis i. contains a well
connected genealogy, which is as follows :
spirit of Elobim'*—darkness
‘waters which are below the Srmament
waters which are above the firmament”
“the Srmament of heaven" or “heaven” the dry ground
of “earth”
“awarms of living
creatures,” “fons,”
shes
“animals,”
“beaste™
I would draw the reader's attention here to the fact that “the
waters above and below the firmament” are said to come from the
Tehom, or the darkness,? a peculiarity which will be explained
later on.
the RV" of the Targums! It was used in order to avoid as much as possible the
“anthropomorphic idea” of God.
‘If it did it ought to be made coeternal with Jabveb-Elobim, as Marduk was,
is would again be fatal—for in that case it would not be the first act of Elo-
2( FENA PI RA PI ER IN10 THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.
From the analogy above given it will be seen that “man” or
the “creation of man,” if we take our stand on the account of Gen.
i., cannot be referred either to one or to the other side, i. e., we do
not know whether he was a descendant of the ‘waters above the
firmament” or of ‘‘the waters below the firmament,” from which
latter the “earth” and its ‘