] The doctrines of retribution and of
the resurrection of the dead are the inevitable consequences of the
later ethical faith and finally triumph; but the old views, which bring
the ancient Hebrews into such close connection with the Babylonians,
left their impress in the vagueness that for a long time characterized
these doctrines, even after their promulgation. The persistency of the
old beliefs is a proof of the strong hold that they acquired, as also of
the close bond uniting, at one time and for a long period, Hebrews and
Babylonians. What applies to the beliefs regarding the dead holds good
also for the rites. Many a modern Jewish custom[1308] still bears
witness to the original identity of the Hebrew and Babylonian methods of
disposing of and caring for the dead.
There is but one explanation for this close agreement,--the same
explanation that was given for the identity of traditions regarding the
creation of the world, and for the various other points of contact
between the two peoples that we have met with. When the Hebrew clans
left their homes in the Euphrates Valley, they carried with them the
traditions, beliefs, and customs that were current in that district, and
which they shared with the Babylonians. Under new surroundings, some new
features were added to the traditions and beliefs, but the additions did
not obscure the distinctive character impressed upon them by Babylonian
contact. We now know that relations with Babylonia were never entirely
broken off by the Hebrews. The old traditions survived all vicissitudes.
They were adapted to totally changed phases of belief, but the kernel
still remained Babylonian. Beliefs were modified, new doctrines arose;
but, with a happy inconsistency, the old was embodied in the new. Hence
it happens, that in order to understand the Hebrews, their religion,
their customs, and even their manner of thought, we must turn to
Babylonia.
Further discoveries beneath the mounds of Mesopotamia and further
researches in Babylonian literature will add more evidence to the
indebtedness of the Hebrews to Babylonia. It will be found that in the
sacrificial ordinances of the Pentateuch, in the legal regulations, in
methods of justice and punishment, Babylonian models were largely
followed, or, what is an equal testimony to Babylonian influence, an
opposition to Babylonian methods was dominant. It is not strange that
when by a curious fate, the Hebrews were once more carried back t
|