creation[22] is specially
interesting because its religious spirit is akin to that of Genesis i.
From a literary point of view, indeed, it cannot compare with the
dignified Hebrew narrative, but considering the misfortunes which have
befallen the collection of Zoroastrian traditions now represented by the
Bundahish (the Parsee Genesis) we cannot reasonably be surprised. The
work referred to begins by describing the state of things in the
beginning; the good spirit in endless light and omniscient, and the evil
spirit in endless darkness and with limited knowledge. Both produced
their own creatures, which remained apart, in a spiritual or ideal
state, for 3000 years, after which the evil spirit began his opposition
to the good creation under an agreement that his power was not to last
more than 9000 years, of which only the middle 3000 were to see him
successful. By uttering a sacred formula the good spirit throws the evil
one into a state of confusion for a second 3000 years, while he produces
the archangels and the material creation, including the sun, moon and
stars. At the end of that period the evil spirit, encouraged by the
demons he had produced, once more rushes upon the good creation to
destroy it. The demons carry on conflicts with each of the six classes
of creation, namely, the sky, water, earth, plants, animals represented
by the primeval ox, and mankind represented by G[=a]y[=o]mard or
Kayumarth (the "first man" of the _Avesta_).[23] Four points to be
noticed here: (1) the belief in the four periods of the world, each of
3000 years (cf. S 3); (2) the comparative success for a time of Angra
Mainyu (the evil principle personified); (3) the absence of any
recognition of pre-existent matter; (4) the mention of six classes of
good creatures. Each of these deserves a comment which we cannot,
however, here give, and the third may seem to suggest direct influence
of the Iranian upon the Jewish cosmogony. But though there are in Gen.
i. six days of creative activity, and the creative works are not six,
but eight, if not ten in number, and indirect Babylonian influence is
more strongly indicated. Jewish thinkers would have been attracted by
the emphatic assertion of the creatorship of the One God in the royal
Persian inscriptions more than by the traditional cosmogony. See further
_Ency. Bib._, "Creation," S 9.

9. _Phoenician and Greek._--Phoenician cosmogonies would appear, from
the notices which have come down to