higher
religions
of
antiquity.
Many
of
these
cosmog-onies
(as
they
are
called)
are
known
to
us;
and
amidst
all
the
diversity
ol
representation
which
characterizes
them,
we
cannot
fail
to
detect
certain
underlying
affinities
which
suggest
a
common
source,
either
in
the
natural
tendencies
of
early
thought,
or
In
some
dominant
type
of
cosraological
tradition.
That
the
Hebrew
cosmogony
is
influenced
by
such
a
tradition
is
proved
by
its
striking
Ukeness
to
the
Babylonian
story
of
creation
as
contained
in
cuneiform
tablets
from
Ashur-banipal's
library,
first
unearthed
in
1872.
From
these
Assyriologists
have
deciphered
a
highly
coloured
mytho-logical
epic,
describing
the
origin
of
the
world
in
the
form
of
a
conflict
between
Marduk,
god
of
light
and
supreme
deity
of
the
pantheon
of
Babylon,
and
the
power
of
Chaos
personified
as
a
female
monster
named
Ti'amat
(Heb.
TehSm').
Wide
as
is
the
difference
between
the
polytheistic
assumptions
and
fantastic
imagery
of
the
Babylonian
narrative
and
the
sober
dignity
and
elevated
monotheism
of
Genesis,
there
are
yet
coincidences
in
general
outline
and
in
detail
which
are
too
marked
and
too
numerous
to
be
ascribed
to
chance.
In
both
we
have
the
conception
of
chaos
as
a
watery
abyss,
in
both
the
separation
of
the
waters
into
an
upper
and
a
lower
ocean
;
the
formation
of
the
heavenly
bodies
and
their
function
in
regulating
time
are
described
with
remarkable
similarity;
special
prominence
is
given
to
the
creation
of
man;
and
it
may
be
added
that,
while
the
order
of
creation
differs
in
the
two
documents,
yet
the
separate
works
themselves
are
practically
Identical.
In
view
of
this
pervading
parallelism,
it
is
clear
that
the
Hebrew
and
Babylonian
cosmogonies
are
very
closely
related;
and
the
only
question
open
to
discussion
is
which
of
them
represents
more
faithfully
the
primary
tradition
on
which
each
is
based.
Looking,
however,
to
the
vastly
higher
antiquity
of
the
Babylonian
narra-tive,
to
its
conformity
(even
in
points
which
affect
the
Biblical
record)
to
the
cUmatic
conditions
of
the
Euphrates
VaUey,
and
to
the
general
indebtedness
of
Israel
to
the
civilization
of
Babylon,
it
cannot
reason-ably
be
doubted
that
the
Hebrew
narrative
is
dependent
on
Babylonian
models;
though
it
is
of
course
not
certain
that
the
particular
version
preserved
in
the
tablets
referred
to
is
the
exact
original
by
which
the
Biblical
writers
were
influenced.
From
this
point
of
view
we
are
able
to
state
the
significance
of
the
Scripture
account
of
creation
in
a
way
which
does
justice
at
once
to
its
unrivalled
religious
value
and
to
its
lack
of
scientific
corroboration.
The
material
is
derived
from
some
form
of
the
Babylonian
cosmogony,
and
shares
the
imperfection
and
error
incident
to
all
pre-scientiflc
speculation
regarding
the
past
history
of
the
world.
The
Scripture
writers
make
no
pretension
to
supernatural
illumination
on
matters
which
it
is
the
province
of
physical
investigation
to
ascertain.
Their
theology,
on
the
other
hand,
is
the
product
of
a
revelation
which
placed
them
tar
in
advance
of
their
heathen
contemporaries,
and
imparted
to
all
their
thinking
a
sanity
of
imagination
and
a
sublimity
of
conception
that
instinctively
rejected
the
grosser
features
of
paganism,
and
transformed
what
was
retained
into
a
vehicle
of
Divine
truth.
Thus
the
cosmogony
became
a
classical
expression
of
the
monotheistic
principle
of
the
OT,
which
is
here
embodied
in
a
detailed
description
of
the
genesis
of
the
universe
that
lays
hold
of
the
mind
as
no
abstract
statement
of
the
principle
could
do.
In
opposition
to
the
heathen
theogonles,
the
world
is
affirmed
to
have
been
created,
i.e.
to
have
originated
in
the
will
of
God,
whose
Personality
tran-scends
the
universe
and
exists
independently
of
it.
The
spirituality
of
the
First
Cause
of
all
things,
and
His
absolute
sovereignty
over
the
material
He
employs,
are
further
emphasized
in
the
idea
of
the
word
of
God
as
the
agency
through
which
the
various
orders
of
existence
were
produced;
and
the
repeated
assertion
that
the
world
in
all
its
parts
was
'good,'
and
as
a
whole
'very
good,'
suggests
that
it
perfectly
reflected
the
Divine
thought
which
called
it
into
being.
When
to
these
doctrines
we
add
the
view
of
man,
as
made
in
the
Uke-
ness
of
God,
and
marked
out
as
the
crown
and
goal
of
creation,
we
have
a
body
of
spiritual
truth
which
distin-guishes
the
cosmogony
of
Gn
1
from
all
similar
com-positions,
and
entitles
it
to
rank
amongst
the
most
important
documents
of
revealed
religion.
John
Skinneb.
CREATURE.—
In
AV
'creature'
is
used
in
the
general
(and
original)
sense
of
'
what
is
created.'
Thus
2
Co
5"
'if
any
man
be
in
Christ,
he
is
a
new
creature';
1
Ti
4'
'for
every
creature
of
God
is
good.'
In
Ro
819,
20.
21
it
is
not
merely
living
creatures
in
the
modern
use
of
the
word
that
wait
for
deliverance,
but
the
whole
creation
of
God
(as
AV
itself
has
it
in
v.^').
CREDITOR.—
See
Debt.
CREED
(or
Credo
[AS.
creda],
taken
from
the
first
word
of
the
Latin
confession
of
faith
=
Greek
'symbol'
[symbolon,
symbolum]).
—
An
ecclesiastical
(non-Biblical)
term,
signifying
'the
faith'
objectively
and
as
explicitly
declared,
'the
articles
of
Christian
'belief
drawn
up
in
systematic
and
authoritative
form.
'The
Creeds'
denote
the
three
great
historical
Confessions
of
the
early
Church
—
'the
Apostles','
the
Nicene
or
Constantino-politan
(325,
381
A.D.),
and
the
Athanasian
(of
Latin
origin,
6th
century)
;
'
the
Creed
'
commonly
means
the
Apostles'
Creed
alone.
This
last
can
be
traced,
in
its
simplest
form,
to
the
2nd
century;
see
Lumby's
Hist,
of
the
Creeds,
or
Swete's
Apostles'
Creed.
Shaped
in
their
developed
form
by
doctrinal
controversy
and
Conciliar
definition,
the
Creeds
owe
their
origin
to
the
necessities
of
worship
and
the
instinct
of
public
confession
in
the
Church,
felt
at
baptism
to
begin
with.
Christian
believers
formed
the
habit,
when
they
met,
of
reciting
their
common
faith,
and
this
recitation
assumed
a
fixed
rhythmical
form
;
so
that
the
creed
is
akin
to
the
hymn
and
the
doxology.
Its
beginnings
are
visible
in
the
NT—
see
Mt
16i«
28",
Ro
IQS-
",
1
Co
8»
12^
(RV),
Eph
4<-6,
1
Ti
3'6,
1
Jn
4^;
and
further
back,
for
the
OT
and
the
Synagogue,
in
the
Shema
of
Dt
6<.
G.
G.
FiNDLAY.
CREEPING
THINGS.—
In
the
EV
this
term
is
the
tr.
of
two
distinct
words,
which
have
no
etymological
connexion,
and
in
usage
are
not
synonymous.
The
Hebrew
words
are
remes
and
sherets.
It
is
unfortunate
that
the
latter
term
is
tr.
'
creeping
thing,'
for
the
root
means
to
swarm.
It
includes
both
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals
which
appear
in
great
swarms;
in
Gn
l^'
it
refers
to
the
creatures
that
teem
in
the
waters,
while
in
other
passages
it
includes
insects,
as
locusts,
crickets,
and
grasshoppers
(Lv
112»-!»),
together
with
the
smaller
quadrupeds
as
the
weasel
and
mouse,
as
well
as
reptiles
proper
(Lv
ll"-si).
The
verb
is
used
of
frogs
(Ex
8=).
Etymologically
remes
signifies
that
which
glides
or
creeps,
and
for
its
usage
the
two
crucial
passages
are
Gn
I'*
and
1
K
4'^.
In
the
latter
the
entire
animal
kingdom
is
popularly
divided
into
four
classes:
beasts,
birds,
creeping
things,
and
fishes
(cf.
Hos
2").
In
Gn
1"
the
land
animals
are
put
into
three
groups:
cattle,
creeping
things,
and
beasts
of
the
earth.
By
eliminating
the
first
and
third
classes,
which
respectively
include
domesticated
quadrupeds,
and
the
wild
animals,
we
see
that
the
expression
'
creeping
things
'
is,
roughly
speaking,
equivalent
to
our
term
'
reptiles,'
exclusive
of
those
which
are
aquatic.
Delitzsch
defines
remes
as
'
the
smaller
creeping
animals
that
keep
close
to
the
earth';
Dillmann
as
creatures
'
which
move
along
the
ground
either
without
feet
or
with
imperceptible
feet.'
From
this
discussion
it
is
evident
that
the
two
are
not
interchange-able
terms.
Bem^s
has
also
a
wider
signification:
in
Ps
1042S
it
is
used
of
marine
animals,
in
Gn
9'
(EV
'moving
thing')
it
includes
all
living
creatures.
See,
further,
the
careful
discussion
by
Professor
Driver
in
Hastings'
DB
i.
517
f.
James
A.
Kelso.
