The cherubim were therefore the good spirits who performed the will of God, and, in the minds of the Assyrians and Babylonians, watched over and guarded the man who was the “son of his God,” _i.e._ the pious man. The cherub upon which the Almighty rode, and upon whom he sat, corresponds more to the _guzalū_ or “throne-bearer” of Assyro-Babylonian mythology. They were apparently beings who bore up the thrones of the gods, and are frequently to be seen in Babylonian sculptures thus employed, at rest, and waiting patiently, to all appearance, until their divine master, seated on the throne which rests on their shoulders, should again give them word, or make known that it was now his will to start and journey forth once more. The story of Cain and Abel, and the first tragedy that occurred in the world after the creation of man, has always attracted the attention of the pious on that account, and because the first recorded murder was that of a brother. This is a story to which the discovery of a Babylonian parallel was least likely to be found, and, as a matter of fact, none has as yet come to light. Notwithstanding this, a few remarks upon such remote parallels which exist, and such few illustrations of the event that can be found, may be cited in this place. These are contained in the story of Tammuz or Adonis, who, though not supposed to have been slain by his brother, was nevertheless killed by the cold of Winter, who might easily have been regarded as his brother, for Tammuz typified the season of Summer, the Brother-season, so to say, of Winter. As is well known, the name Tammuz is Akkadian, and occurs in that language under the form of Dumu-zi, or, more fully, Dumu-zida, meaning “the everlasting son,” in Semitic Babylonian _âblu kênu_. It is very noteworthy that Prof. J. Oppert has suggested that the name of Abel, in Hebrew Habel, is, in reality, none other than the Babylonian _ablu_, “son,” and the question naturally arises, May not the story of Cain and Abel have given rise to the legend of Tammuz, or _Ablu kênu_, as his name would be if translated into Semitic Babylonian? Unless by a folk-etymology, however, the Semitic Babylonian translation of the name of Tammuz can hardly be a composition of Abel and Cain, because the first letter is _q_ (qoph) and not _k_ (kaph), the transcription Cain for Kain or Kayin being faulty in the A.V. Still, we feel bound to recognize that there is a possibility, though naturally a remote one, that the legend of Tammuz is connected with that of Cain and Abel, just as the division of the Dragon (in the Babylonian story of the Creation) by the god Merodach into two halves, with one of which he covered the heavens, leaving the other below upon the earth, typifies the division of the waters above the earth from those below in the Biblical story of the same event.