f law, the variations in
regard to the terrestrial phenomena must not be overlooked. According to
the first version, mankind appears as the last episode of creation; in
the second, mankind precedes vegetation and animal life.

If we now take up the two versions of creation found in Genesis, we will
see that the same differences may be observed. According to the first,
the so-called Elohistic version,[803] mankind is not created until the
last day of creation; according to the second,[804] the so-called
Yahwistic version, mankind is first created, then a garden is made and
trees are planted. After that, the beasts of the field and the birds of
heaven are called into existence.

The resemblance of the second Babylonian version to the Yahwistic
version extends even to certain phrases which they have in common. The
opening words of the Yahwist--

And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of
the field had yet sprung up--

might serve almost as a translation of the second line of the Babylonian
counterpart. The reference to the Tigris and Euphrates in the second
Babylonian version reminds one of the four streams mentioned in the
Yahwistic version, two of which are likewise the Tigris and Euphrates.
Again, Tiamat is mentioned only in the first Babylonian version, and
T'hom similarly only in the Elohistic version; while, on the other hand,
the building of cities is included in the Yahwistic version,[805] as it
forms part of the second Babylonian version. The points mentioned
suffice to show that the Elohistic version is closely related to the
larger creation epic of the Babylonians, while the Yahwistic
version--more concise, too, than the Elohistic--agrees to an astonishing
degree with the second and more concise Babylonian record.

The conclusion, therefore, is justified that the variations between the
Babylonian versions rest upon varying traditions that must have arisen
in different places. The attempt was made to combine these traditions by
the Babylonians, and among the Hebrews we may see the result of a
similar attempt in the first two or, more strictly speaking, in the
first three chapters of Genesis. At the same time, the manner in which
both traditions have been worked over by the Hebrew compilers of Genesis
precludes, as has been pointed out, the theory of a direct borrowing
from cuneiform documents. The climatic conditions involved in the Hebrew
versions are those peculiar to Babylonia.