us,[24] to have been composite. The
traditions are pale and obscure. It is clear, however, that the primeval
flood and the world-egg (out of which came heaven and earth) are
referred to. See _Ency. Bib._, "Creation" S 7; "Phoenicia" S 15;
Lagrange, _Religions semitiques_, pp. 351 ff. Greek cosmogonies (the
orientalism of which is clear) will be found in Hesiod, _Theog._ 116
ff.; Aristophanes, _Birds_, 692 ff.; cf. Clem. Rom., _Homil._ vi. 4. See
Miss Harrison, _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion_, chap. xii,
"Orphic Cosmogony."

10. _Babylonian and Israelitish._--Of the Babylonian and Israelitish
cosmogonies we have several more or less complete records. For details
as to the former, see BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN RELIGION. With regard to
the latter, we may notice that in Gen. ii. 4b-25 we have an account of
creation which, though in its present form very incomplete, is highly
attractive, because it is pervaded by a breath from primitive times. It
has, however, been interwoven with an account of the Garden of Eden from
some other source (see EDEN; PARADISE), and perhaps in order to
concentrate the attention of the reader, the description of the origin
of "earth and heaven" as well as of the plants and of the rain, appears
to have been omitted. In fact, both the creation-stories at the opening
of Genesis must have undergone much editorial manipulation. Originally,
for instance, Gen. i. 26 must have said that man was made out of earth;
this point of contact between the two cosmogonic traditions has,
however, been effaced.

The other narrative, Gen. i. 1-ii. 4a, is a much more complete
cosmogony, and since the theory of P. A. Lagarde (1887), which ascribes
it to Iranian influence (see S 8), has no very solid ground, whereas the
theory which explains it as largely Babylonian is in a high degree
plausible, we must now consider the relations between the Israelitish
and Babylonian cosmogonies. The short account of creation first
translated in 1890 by T. G. Pinches is distinguished by its non-mythical
character; in particular, the dragon of chaos and darkness is
conspicuous by her absence. This may illustrate the fact that the dragon
is also unmentioned in the Hebrew cosmogony; to some writers the
dragon-element may have seemed grotesque and inappropriate. We must,
however, study this element in the most important Babylonian tradition,
even if only for its relation to non-Semitic myths and especially to
some striking pas