Appendix. The Stele Inscribed With The Laws Of Ḫammurabi.
Appendix To The Third Edition.
Notes And Additions.
Index.
Footnotes
[Plate I.]
Bas-relief and inscription of Hammurabi, generally regarded as the
Biblical Amraphel (Gen. xiv. 1), apparently dedicated for the saving of
his life. In this he bears the title (incomplete) of “King of Amoria” (the
Amorites), _lugal Mar[tu]_, Semitic Babylonian _sar mât Amurrî_ (see page
315).
“There is a charm in finding ourselves, our common humanity, our puzzles,
our cares, our joys, in the writings of men severed from us by race,
religion, speech, and half the gulf of historical time, which no other
literary pleasure can equal.”—ANDREW LANG.
FOREWORD
The present work, being merely a record of things for the most part well
known to students and others, cannot, on that account, contain much that
is new. All that has been aimed at is, to bring together as many of the
old discoveries as possible in a new dress.
It has been thought well to let the records tell their story as far as
possible in their own way, by the introduction of translations, thus
breaking the monotony of the narrative, and also infusing into it an
element of local colour calculated to bring the reader into touch, as it
were, with the thoughts and feelings of the nations with whom the records
originated. Bearing, as it does, upon the life, history, and legends of
the ancient nations of which it treats, controversial matter has been
avoided, and the higher criticism left altogether aside.
Assyriology (as the study of the literature and antiquities of the
Babylonians and Assyrians is called) being a study still in the course of
development, improvements in the renderings of the inscriptions will
doubtless from time to time be made, and before many months have passed,
things now obscure may have new light thrown upon them, necessitating the
revision of such portions as may be affected thereby. It is intended to
utilize in future editions any new discoveries which may come to light,
and every effort will be made to keep the book up to date.
For shortcomings, whether in the text or in the translations, the author
craves the indulgence of the reader, merely pleading the difficult and
exacting nature of the study, and the lengthy chronological period to
which the book refers.
A little explanation is probably needful upon the question of
pronunciation. The vowels in Assyro-Babylonian should be uttered as in
Italian or German. _Ḫ_ is a strong guttural like the Scotch _ch_ in
“loch”; _m_ had sometimes the pronunciation of _w_, as in Tiamtu (=
Tiawthu), so that the spelling of some of the words containing that letter
may later have to be modified. The pronunciation of _s_ and _š_ is
doubtful, but Assyriologists generally (and probably wrongly) give the
sound of _s_ to the former and _sh_ to the latter. _T_ was often
pronounced as _th_, and probably always had that sound in the feminine
endings _-tu_, _-ti_, _-ta_, or _at_, so that Tiamtu, for instance, may be
pronounced Tiawthu, Tukulti-âpil-Êšarra (Tiglath-pileser),
Tukulthi-âpil-Êšarra, etc., etc., and in such words as _qâtâ_, “the
hands,” _šumāti_, “names,” and many others, this was probably always the
case. In the names Âbil-Addu-nathanu and Nathanu-yâwa this transcription
has been adopted, and may be regarded as correct. _P_ was likewise often
aspirated, assuming the sound of _ph_ or _f_, and _k_ assumed, at least in
later times, a sound similar to _ḫ (kh)_, whilst _b_ seems sometimes to
have been pronounced as _v_. _G_ was, to all appearance, never soft, as in
_gem_, but may sometimes have been aspirated. Each member of the group
_ph_ is pronounced separately. _Ṭ_ is an emphatic _t_, stronger than in
the word “time.” A terminal _m_ represents the _mimmation_, which, in
later times, though written, was not pronounced.
The second edition, issued in 1903, was revised and brought up to
date, and a translation of the Laws of Ḫammurabi, with notes, and
a summary of Delitzsch’s _Babel und Bibel_, were appended. For the
third edition the work has again been revised, with the help of
the recently-issued works of King, Sayce, Scheil, Winckler, and
others. At the time of going to press, the author was unable to
consult Knudtzon’s new edition of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets beyond
his No. 228, but wherever it was available, improvements in the
translations were made. In addition to revision, the Appendix has
been supplemented by paragraphs upon the discoveries at
Boghaz-Keui, a mutilated letter from a personage named Belshazzar,
and translations of the papyri referring to the Jewish temple at
Elephantine.
New material may still be expected from the excavations in
progress at Babylon, Susa, Ḫattu, and various other sites in the
nearer East.
THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES.
CHAPTER I. THE EARLY TRADITIONS OF THE CREATION.
The Hebrew account—Its principal points—The Babylonian account—The
story of the Creation properly so called—The version given by the
Greek authors—Comparison of the Hebrew and the Greek accounts—The
likenesses—The differences—Bêl and the Dragon—The
epilogue—Sidelights (notes upon the religion of the Babylonians).
To find out how the world was made, or rather, to give forth a theory
accounting for its origin and continued existence, is one of the subjects
that has attracted the attention of thinking minds among all nations
having any pretension to civilization. It was, therefore, to be expected
that the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians, far advanced in civilization
as they were at an exceedingly early date, should have formed opinions
thereupon, and placed them on record as soon as those opinions were
matured, and the art of writing had been perfected sufficiently to enable
a serviceable account to be composed.
This, naturally, did not take place all at once. We may take it for
granted that the history of the Creation grew piece by piece, as different
minds thought over and elaborated it. The first theories we should expect
to find more or less improbable—wild stories of serpents and gods,
emblematic of the conflicting powers of good and evil, which, with them,
had their origin before the advent of mankind upon the earth.
But all men would not have the same opinion of the way in which the
universe came into existence, and this would give rise, as really happened
in Babylonia, to conflicting accounts or theories, the later ones less
improbable than, and therefore superior to, the earlier. The earlier
Creation-legend, being a sort of heroic poem, would remain popular with
the common people, who always love stories of heroes and mighty conflicts,
such as those in which the Babylonians and Assyrians to the latest times
delighted, and of which the Semitic Babylonian Creation-story consists.
As the ages passed by, and the newer theories grew up, the older popular
ones would be elaborated, and new ideas from the later theories of the
Creation would be incorporated, whilst, at the same time, mystical
meanings would be given to the events recorded in the earlier legends to
make them fit in with the newer ones. This having been done, the scribes
could appeal at the same time to both ignorant and learned, explaining how
the crude legends of the past were but a type of the doctrines put forward
by the philosophers of later and more enlightened days, bringing within
the range of the intellect of the unlearned all those things in which the
more thoughtful spirits also believed. By this means an enlightened
monotheism and the grossest polytheism could, and did, exist side by side,
as well as clever and reasonable cosmologies along with the strangest and
wildest legends.
Thus it is that we have from the literature of two closely allied peoples,
the Babylonians and the Hebrews, accounts of the Creation of the world so
widely differing, and, at the same time, possessing, here and there,
certain ideas in common—ideas darkly veiled in the old Babylonian story,
but clearly expressed in the comparatively late Hebrew account.
It must not be thought, however, that the above theory as to the origin of
the Hebrew Creation-story interferes in any way with the doctrine of its
inspiration. We are not bound to accept the opinion so generally held by
theologians, that the days of creation referred to in Genesis i. probably
indicate that each act of creation—each day—was revealed in seven
successive dreams, in order, to the inspired writer of the book. The
opinion held by other theologians, that “inspiration” simply means that
the writer was moved by the Spirit of God to choose from documents already
existing such portions as would serve for our enlightenment and
instruction, adding, at the same time, such additions of his own as he was
led to think to be needful, may be held to be a satisfactory definition of
the term in question.
Without, therefore, binding ourselves down to any hard and fast line as to
date, we may regard, for the purposes of this inquiry, the Hebrew account
of the Creation as one of the traditions handed down in the thought of
many minds extending over many centuries, and as having been chosen and
elaborated by the inspired writer of Genesis for the purpose of his
narrative, the object of which was to set forth the origin of man and the
Hebrew nation, to which he belonged, and whose history he was about to
narrate in detail.
The Hebrew story of the Creation, as detailed in Genesis i., may be
regarded as one of the most remarkable documents ever produced. It must
not be forgotten, however, that it is a document that is essentially
Hebrew. For the author of this book the language of God and of the first
man was Hebrew—a literary language, showing much phonetic decay. The
retention of this matter (its omission not being essential at the period
of the composition of the book) is probably due, in part, to the natural
patriotism of the writer, overruling what ought to have been his inspired
common-sense. How this is to be explained it is not the intention of the
writer of this book to inquire, the account of the Creation and its
parallels being the subject in hand at present.
The question of language apart, the account of the Creation in Genesis is
in the highest degree a common-sense one. The creation of (1) the heaven,
and (2) the earth; the darkness—not upon the face of the earth, but upon
the face of the deep. Then the expansion dividing the waters above from
the waters below on the earth. In the midst of this waste of waters dry
land afterwards appears, followed by the growth of vegetation. But the sun
and the moon had not yet been appointed, nor the stars, all of which come
into being at this point. Last of all are introduced the living things of
the earth—fish, and bird, and creeping thing, followed by the animals,
and, finally, by man.
It is noteworthy and interesting that, in this account, the acts of
creation are divided into seven periods, each of which is called a “day,”
and begins, like the natural day in the time-reckoning of the Semitic
nations, with the evening—“and it was evening, and it was morning, day
one.” It describes what the heavenly bodies were for—they were not only to
give light upon the earth—they were also for signs, for seasons, for days,
and for years.
And then, concerning man, a very circumstantial account is given. He was
to have dominion over everything upon the earth—the fish of the sea, the
fowl of the air, the cattle, and every creeping thing. All was given to
him, and he, like the creatures made before him, was told to “be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth.” It is with this crowning work of
creation that the first chapter of the Book of Genesis ends.
The second chapter refers to the seventh day—the day of rest, and is
followed by further details of the creation, the central figure of which
is the last thing created, namely, man. This chapter reads, in part, like
a recapitulation of the first, but contains many additional details. “No
plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb ... had sprung up:
for the Lord God had not caused it to rain ..., and there was not a man to
till the ground.” A mist, therefore, went up from the earth, and watered
all the face of the ground. Then, to till the earth, man was formed from
the dust of the ground, and the Lord God “breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, and man became a living soul.”
The newly-created man was, at this time, innocent, and was therefore to be
placed by his Creator in a garden of delight, named Eden, and this garden
he was to dress and keep. A hidden danger, however, lay in this pleasant
retreat—the tree of knowledge of good and evil, of which he was forbidden
to eat, but which was to form for him a constant temptation, for ever
testing his obedience. All might have been well, to all appearance, but
for the creation of woman, who, giving way to the blandishments of the
tempter, in her turn tempted the man, and he fell. Death in the course of
nature was the penalty, the earthly paradise was lost, and all chance of
eating of the tree of life, and living for ever, disappeared on man’s
expulsion from his first abode of delight.
In the course of this narrative interesting details are given—the four
rivers, the country through which they flowed, and their precious mineral
products; the naming of the various animals by the man; the forming of
woman from one of his ribs; the institution of marriage, etc.
Such is, in short, the story of the Creation as told in the Bible, and it
is this that we have to compare with the now well-known parallel accounts
current among the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians. And here may be noted
at the outset that, though we shall find some parallels, we shall, in the
course of our comparison, find a far greater number of differences, for
not only were they produced in a different land, by a different people,
but they were also produced under different conditions. Thus, Babylonian
polytheism takes the place of the severe and uncompromising monotheism of
the Hebrew account in Genesis; Eden was, to the Babylonians, their own
native land, not a country situated at a remote distance; and, lastly, but
not least, their language, thoughts, and feelings differed widely from
those of the dwellers in the Holy Land.
The Babylonian story of the Creation is a narrative of great interest to
all who occupy themselves with the study of ancient legends and folklore.
It introduces us not only to exceedingly ancient beliefs concerning the
origin of the world on which we live, but it tells us also of the
religion, or, rather, the religious beliefs, of the Babylonians, and
enables us to see something of the changes which those beliefs underwent
before adopting the form in which we find them at the time this record was
composed.
A great deal has been written about the Babylonian story of the Creation.
As is well known, the first translation of these documents was by him who
first discovered their nature, the late George Smith, who gave them to the
world in his well-known book, _The Chaldean Account of Genesis_, in 1875.
Since that time numerous other translations have appeared, not only in
England, but also on the Continent. Among those who have taken part in the
work of studying and translating these texts may be named Profs. Sayce,
Oppert, Hommel, and Delitzsch, the last-named having both edited the first
edition of Smith’s book (the first issued on this subject on the
Continent), and published one of the last and most complete editions of
the whole legend yet placed before the public. To Prof. Sayce, as well as
to Prof. Hommel, belongs the honour of many brilliant suggestions as to
the tendency of the texts of the creation as a whole: Prof. Oppert was the
first to point out that the last tablet of the series was not, as Smith
thought, an “Address to primitive man,” but an address to the god Merodach
as the restorer of order out of chaos; whilst Delitzsch has perhaps (being
almost the last to write upon it) improved the translation more than many
of his predecessors in the work.
Before proceeding to deal with the legend itself, a few remarks upon the
tablets and the text that they bear will probably not be considered out of
place. There are, in all likelihood, but few who have not seen in the
British Museum or elsewhere those yellow baked terra-cotta tablets of
various sizes and shapes, upon which the Babylonians and Assyrians were
accustomed to write their records. And well it is for the science of
Assyriology that they used this exceedingly durable material. I have said
that the tablets are yellow in colour, and this is generally the case, but
the tint varies greatly, and may approach dark grey or black, and even
appear as a very good sage-green. The smaller tablets are often
cushion-shaped, but, with some few exceptions, they are rectangular, like
those of larger size. The writing varies so considerably that the hand of
the various scribes can sometimes be distinguished. In the best class of
tablets every tenth line is often numbered—a proof that the Assyrians and
Babylonians were very careful with the documents with which they had to
deal. The Babylonian tablets closely resemble the Assyrian, but the style
of the writing differs somewhat, and it is, in general, more difficult to
read than the Assyrian. None of the tablets of the Creation-series are,
unfortunately, perfect, and many of the fragments are mere scraps, but as
more than one copy of each anciently existed, and has survived, the
wanting parts of one text can often be supplied from another copy. That
copies come from Babylon as well as from Nineveh is a very fortunate
circumstance, as our records are rendered more complete thereby.
Of the obverse of the first tablet very little, unfortunately, remains,
but what there is extant is of the highest interest. Luckily, we have the
beginning of this remarkable legend, which runs, according to the latest
and best commentaries, as follows—
“When on high the heavens were unnamed,
Beneath the earth bore not a name:
The primæval ocean was their producer;
Mummu Tiamtu was she who begot the whole of them.
Their waters in one united themselves, and
The plains were not outlined, marshes were not to be seen.
When none of the gods had come forth,
They bore no name, the fates [had not been determined].
There were produced the gods [all of them?]:
Laḫmu and Laḫamu went forth [as the first?]:
The ages were great, [the times were long?].
Anšar and Kišar were produced and over th[em]....
Long grew the days; there came forth (?)...
The god Anu, their son.....
Anšar, the god Anu......”
Such is the tenor of the opening lines of the Babylonian story of the
Creation, and the differences between the two accounts are striking
enough. Before proceeding, however, to examine and compare them, a few
words upon the Babylonian version may not be without value.
First we must note that the above introduction to the legend has been
excellently explained and commented upon by the Syrian writer Damascius.
The following is his explanation of the Babylonian teaching concerning the
creation of the world—
“But the Babylonians, like the rest of the Barbarians, pass over in
silence the one principle of the Universe, and they constitute two, Tauthé
and Apason, making Apason the husband of Tauthé, and denominating her the
mother of the gods. And from these proceeds an only-begotten son, Moumis,
which, I conceive, is no other than the intelligible world proceeding from
the two principles. From them, also, another progeny is derived, Daché and
Dachos; and again a third, Kissaré and Assoros, from which last three
others proceed, Anos, and Illinos, and Aos. And of Aos and Dauké is born a
son called Belos, who, they say, is the fabricator of the world, the
Creator.”
The likeness of the names given in this extract from Damascius will be
noticed, and will probably also be recognized as a valuable verification
of the certainty now attained by Assyriologists in the reading of the
proper names. In Tiamtu, or, rather, Tiawthu, will be easily recognized
the Tauthé of Damascius, whose son, as appears from a later fragment, was
called Mummu (= Moumis). Apason he gives as the husband of Tauthé, but of
this we know nothing from the Babylonian tablet, which, however, speaks of
this Apason (_apsû_, “the abyss”), which corresponds with the “primæval
ocean” of the Babylonian tablet.
In Daché and Dachos it is easy to see that there has been a confusion
between Greek Λ and Δ, which so closely resemble each other. Daché and
Dachos should, therefore, be corrected into Laché and Lachos, the Laḫmu
and Laḫamu (better Laḫwu and Laḫawu) of the Babylonian text. They were the
male and female personifications of the heavens. Anšar and Kišar are the
Greek author’s Assoros and Kisaré, the “Host of Heaven” and the “Host of
Earth” respectively. The three proceeding from them, Anos, Illinos, and
Aos, are the well-known Anu, the god of the heavens; Illil, for En-lila,
the Sumerian god of the earth and the Underworld; and Aa or Ea, the god of
the waters, who seems to have been identified by some with Yau or Jah. Aa
or Ea was the husband of Damkina, or Dawkina, the Dauké of Damascius, from
whom, as he says, Belos, _i.e._ Bel-Merodach, was born, and if he did not
“fabricate the world,” at least he ordered it anew, after his great fight
with the Dragon of Chaos, as we shall see when we come to the third tablet
of the series.
After the lines printed above the text is rather defective, but it would
seem that the god Nudimmud (Ae or Ea), “the wise and open of ear,” next
came into existence. A comparison is then apparently made between these
deities on the one hand, and Tiamtu, Apsû, and Mummu on the other—to the
disadvantage of the latter. On Apsû complaining that he had no peace by
day nor rest by night on account of the ways of the gods, their sons, it
was at last determined to make war upon them.
“They have become hostile, and at the side of Tiamtu they advance,
Storming, planning, not resting night and day,
They make ready for battle, wrathful (and) raging.
They assemble themselves together, and make ready (for) the
strife.
Ummu Ḫubur, she who created everything,
Added irresistible weapons, produced giant serpents,
Sharp of tooth, unsparing (their) stings (?)
She caused poison to fill their bodies like blood.
Raging dragons clothed she with terrors,
She endowed (them) with brilliance, she made (them) like the high
ones (?)
‘Whoever sees them may fright overwhelm,
May their bodies rear on high, and may (none) turn aside their
breast.’
She set up the viper, the pithon, and the Laḫamu,
Great monsters, raging dogs, scorpion-men,
Driving demons, fish-men, and mountain-rams,
Bearing unsparing weapons, not fearing battle;
Powerful are (her) commands, and irresistible,
She made altogether eleven like that,
Among the gods her firstborn, he who had made for her a host,
Kingu, she raised among them, him she made chief.
Those going in front before the army, those leading the host,
Raising weapons, attacking, who rise up (for) the fray,
The leadership of the conflict
She delivered into his hand, and caused him to sit in state (?).
‘I have set firm thy word, in the assembly of the gods I have made
thee great,
The rule of the gods, all of them, have I delivered into thy hand,
Only be thou great—thou, my only husband—
Let them exalt thy name over all the heavenly ones (?)’
She gave him then the tablets of fate, she placed them in his
bosom:
‘As for thee, thy command shall not be changed, may thy utterances
stand firm!’
Now Kingu is exalted, he has taken to him the godhood of Anu,
Among the gods her sons he determines the fates.
‘Open your mouths, let the Firegod be at rest.
Be ye fearful in the fight, let resistance be laid low (?).’ ”
Such are the last verses of the first tablet of the so-called story of the
Creation as known to the Babylonians, and though it would be better named
if called the Story of Bêl and the Dragon, the references to the creation
of the world that are made therein prevent the name from being absolutely
incorrect, and it may, therefore, serve, along with the more correct one,
to designate it still. As will be gathered from the above, the whole story
centres in the wish of the goddess of the powers of evil to get
creation—the production of all that is in the world—into her own hands. In
this she is aided by certain gods, over whom she sets one, Kingu, her
husband, as chief. In the preparations that she makes she exercises her
creative powers to produce all kinds of dreadful monsters to help her
against the gods whom she wishes to overthrow, and the full and vigorous
description of her defenders, created by her own hands, adds much to the
charm of the narrative, and shows well what the Babylonian scribes were
capable of in this class of record.
The first tablet breaks off after the speech of Tiamtu to her husband
Kingu. The second one begins by stating how Aa or Ea heard of the plot of
Tiamtu and her followers against the gods of heaven. When his first wrath
on account of this had somewhat abated, he went and related the whole, in
practically the same words as the story is given on the two foregoing
pages, to Anšar, his father, who in his turn became filled with rage,
biting his lips, and uttering cries of deepest grief. In the mutilated
lines which follow Apsû’s subjugation seems to be referred to. After this
is another considerable gap, and then comes the statement that Anšar
applied to his son Anu, “the mighty and brave, whose power is great, whose
attack irresistible,” saying that if he will only speak to her, the great
Dragon’s anger will be calmed and her rage disappear.
“(Anu heard) the words of his father Anšar,
(Took the ro)ad towards her, and descended by her path,
Anu (went),—he examined Tiamtu’s lair, and
(Not having power to resist her?), turned back.”
How the god excused himself to his father Anšar on account of his
ignominious flight we do not know, the record being again defective at
this point. With the same want of success the god Anšar then, as we learn
from another part of the narrative, applied to the god Nudimmud, a deity
who is explained in the inscriptions as being the same as the god Aa or
Ea, but whom Professor Delitzsch is rather inclined to regard as one of
the forms of Bêl.
In the end the god Merodach, the son of Aa, was asked to be the champion
of the gods against the great emblem of the powers of evil, the Dragon of
Chaos. To become, by this means, the saviour of the universe, was
apparently just what the patron-god of the city of Babylon desired, for he
seems immediately to have accepted the task of destroying the hated
Dragon—
“The lord rejoiced at his father’s word,
His heart was glad, and he saith to his father:
‘O lord of the gods, fate of the great gods!
If then I be your avenger,
(If) I bind Tiamtu and save you,
Assemble together, cause to be great, (and) proclaim ye, my lot.
In Upšukenaku assembled, come ye joyfully together,
Having opened my mouth, like you also, let me the fates decide,
That naught be changed that I do, (even) I.
May the word of my lips neither fail nor altered be!’ ”
Anšar, without delay, calls his messenger Gaga, and directs him to summon
all the gods to a festival, where with appetite they may sit down to a
feast, to eat the divine bread and drink the divine wine, and there let
Merodach “decide the fates,” as the one chosen to be their avenger. Then
comes the message that Gaga was to deliver to Laḫmu and Laḫamu, in which
the rebellion of Tiamtu is related in practically the same words as the
writer used at the beginning of the narrative to describe Tiamtu’s revolt.
Merodach’s proposal and request are then stated, and the message ends with
the following words—
“Hasten, and quickly decide for him your fate—
Let him go, let him meet your mighty foe!”
Laḫmu and Laḫamu having heard all the words of Anšar’s message, which his
messenger Gaga faithfully repeated to them, they, with the Igigi, or gods
of the heavens, broke out in bitter lamentation, saying that they could
not understand Tiamtu’s acts.
Then all the great gods, who “decided the fates,” hastened to go to the
feast, where they ate and drank, and, apparently with loud acclaim,
“decided the fate” for Merodach their avenger.
Here follow the honours conferred on Merodach on account of the mighty
deed that he had undertaken to do. They erected for him princely chambers,
wherein he sat as the great judge “in the presence of his fathers,” and
they praised him as the highest honoured among the great gods,
incomparable as to his ordinances, changeless as to the word of his mouth,
uncontravenable as to his utterances. None of them would go against the
authority that was to be henceforth his domain.
“Merodach, thou art he who is our avenger,
(Over) the whole universe have we given thee the kingdom.”
His weapons were never to be defeated, his foes were to be smitten down,
but as for those who trusted in him, the gods prayed him that he would
grant them life, “pouring out,” on the other hand, the life of the god who
had begun the evil against which Merodach was about to fight.
Then, so that he should see that they had indeed given him the power to
which they referred, they laid in their midst a garment, and in accordance
with their directions, Merodach spoke, and the garment vanished,—he spoke,
and it reappeared—
“ ‘Open thy mouth, may the garment be destroyed,
Speak to it once more, and let it be restored again!’
He spoke with his mouth, and the garment was destroyed,
He spoke to it again, and the garment was reproduced.”
Then all the gods called out, “Merodach is king!” and they gave him
sceptre, throne, and insignia of royalty, and also an irresistible weapon,
which should shatter his enemies.
“ ‘Now, go, and cut off the life of Tiamtu,
Let the winds bear away her blood to hidden places!’
(Thus) did the gods, his fathers, fix the fate of Bel.
A path of peace and goodwill they set for him as his road.”
Then the god armed himself for the fight, taking spear (or dart), bow, and
quiver. To these he added lightning flashing before him, flaming fire
filling his body; the net which his father Anu had given him wherewith to
capture “_kirbiš Tiamtu_” or “Tiamtu who is in the midst,” he set north
and south, east and west, in order that nothing of her might escape. In
addition to all this, he created various winds—the evil wind, the storm,
the hurricane, “wind four and seven,” the harmful, the uncontrollable (?),
and these seven winds he sent forth, to confuse _kirbiš Tiamtu_, and they
followed after him.
Next he took his great weapon called _âbubu_, and mounted his dreadful,
irresistible chariot, to which four steeds were yoked—steeds unsparing,
rushing forward, flying along, their teeth full of venom, foam-covered,
experienced (?) in galloping, schooled for overthrowing. Merodach being
now ready for the fray, he fared forth to meet the Dragon.
“Then, they clustered around him, the gods clustered around him,
The gods his fathers clustered around him, the gods clustered
around him.
And the lord advanced, Tiamtu’s retreat regarding
Examining the lair of Kingu her consort.”
The sight of the enemy was so menacing, that even the great Merodach began
to falter and lose courage, whereat the gods, his helpers, who accompanied
him, were greatly disturbed in their minds, fearing approaching disaster.
The king of the gods soon recovered himself, however, and uttered to the
demon a longish challenge, on hearing which she became as one possessed,
and cried aloud. Muttering then incantations and charms, she called the
gods of battle to arms, and the great fight for the rule of the universe
began.
“The lord spread wide his net, made it enclose her.
The evil wind following behind, he sent on before.
Tiamtu opened her mouth as much as she could.
He caused the evil wind to enter so that she could not close her
lips,
The angry winds filled out her body,
Her heart was overpowered, wide opened she her mouth.”
Being now at the mercy of the conqueror, the divine victor soon made an
end of the enemy of the gods, upon whose mutilated body, when dead, he
stood triumphantly. Great fear now overwhelmed the gods who had gone over
to her side, and fought against the heavenly powers, and they fled to save
their lives. Powerless to escape, however, they were captured, and their
weapons broken to pieces. Notwithstanding their cries, which filled the
vast region, they had to bear the punishment which was their due, and were
shut up in prison. The creatures whom Tiamtu had created to help her and
strike terror into the hearts of the gods, were also brought into
subjection, along with Kingu, her husband, from whom the tablets of fate
were taken by the conqueror as things unmeet for Tiamtu’s spouse to own.
It is probable that we have here the true explanation of the origin of
this remarkable legend, for the tablets of fate were evidently things
which the king of heaven alone might possess, and Merodach, as soon as he
had overcome his foe, pressed his own seal upon them, and placed them in
his breast.
He had now conquered the enemy, the proud opposer of the gods of heaven,
and having placed her defeated followers in safe custody, he was able to
return to the dead and defeated Dragon of Chaos. He split open her skull
with his unsparing weapon, hewed asunder the channels of her blood, and
caused the north wind to carry it away to hidden places. His fathers saw
this, and rejoiced with shouting, and brought him gifts and offerings.
And there, as he rested from the strife, Merodach looked upon her who had
wrought such evil in the fair world as created by the gods, and as he
looked, he thought out clever plans. Hewing asunder the corpse of the
great Dragon that lay lifeless before him, he made with one half a
covering for the heavens, keeping it in its place by means of a bolt, and
setting there a watchman to keep guard. He also arranged this portion of
the Dragon of Chaos in such a way, that “her waters could not come forth,”
and this circumstance suggests a comparison with “the waters above the
firmament” of the Biblical story in Genesis.
Passing then through the heavens, he beheld that wide domain, and opposite
the abyss, he built an abode for the god Nudimmud, that is, for his father
Aa as the creator.
“Then measured the lord the abyss’s extent,
A palace in its likeness he founded:—Êšarra;
The palace Êšarra, which he made, (is) the heavens,
(For) Anu, Bêl, and Aa he founded their strongholds.”
With these words, which are practically a description of the creation or
building, by Merodach, of the heavens, the fourth tablet of the Babylonian
legend of the Creation comes to an end. It is difficult to find a parallel
to this part of the story in the Hebrew account in Genesis.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
[Plate II.]
Plate II. Fragments of tablets (duplicates), giving the words for the
different fasts, festivals, etc., of the Babylonians and Assyrians. Line 4
of the small piece, and 16 of the large one, have the words _ûm nûh
libbi_, "day of rest of the heart," explained by _sapattum_ (from the
Sumerian _sa-bat_, "heart-rest"), generally regarded as the original of
the Hebrew _Sabbath_. _Sapattum_, however, was the 15th day of the month.
The nearest approaches to Sabbaths were the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, and
19th, which were called _u-hul-gallu_ or _ûmu limnu_, "the evil day" (the
19th being a _week of weeks_, from the 1st day of the preceding month),
because it was unlawful to do certain things on those days.
The fifth tablet of the Babylonian story of the Creation is a mere
fragment, but is of considerable interest and importance. It describes, in
poetical language, in the style with which the reader has now become
fairly familiar, the creation and ordering, by Merodach, of the heavenly
bodies, as the ancient Babylonians conceived them to have taken place. The
text of the first few stanzas is as follows—
“He built firmly the stations of the great gods—
Stars their likeness—he set up the Lumaši,
He designated the year, he outlined the (heavenly) forms.
He set for the twelve months three stars each.
From the day when the year begins, ... for signs.
He founded the station of Nîbiru, to make known their limits,
That none might err, nor go astray.
The station of Bêl and Aa he placed with himself,
Then he opened the great gates on both sides,
Bolts he fixed on the left and on the right,
In its centre (?) then he set the zenith (?).
Nannaru (the moon) he caused to shine, ruling the night,
So he set him as a creature of the night, to make known the days,
Monthly, without failing, he provided him with a crown,
At the beginning of the month then, dawning in the land,
The horns shine forth to make known the seasons (?),
On the 7th day crown (perfect)ing (?).
The [Sa]bbath shalt thou then fall in with, half-monthly,
When the sun (is) in the base of the heavens, at thy [approach?].
...... hath caused to be cut off and
... nearing the path of the sun.
[The ...]th [day] shalt thou then fall in with, the sun shall
change (?)...
...... the sign seeking its path.
... cause to approach and give the judgment.
........................ to injure (?)
........................... one.”
The final lines of this portion seem to refer to the moon on the 7th and
other days of the month, and would in that case indicate the quarters.
“Sabbath” is doubtful on account of the mutilation of the first character,
but in view of the forms given on pl. II. and p. 527 (_šapattu__m_,
_šapatti_) the restoration as _šapattu_ seems possible. It is described on
p. 527 as the 15th of the month, but must have indicated also the 14th,
according to the length of the month.
An exceedingly imperfect fragment of what is supposed to be part of the
fifth tablet exists. It speaks of the bow with which Merodach overcame the
Dragon of Chaos, which the god Anu, to all appearance, set in the heavens
as one of the constellations. After this comes, apparently, a fragment
that may be regarded as recording the creation of the earth, and the
cities and renowned shrines upon it, the houses of the great gods, and the
cities Nippuru (Niffer) and Asshur being mentioned. Everything, however,
is very disconnected and doubtful.
The sixth tablet, judging from the fragment recognized by Mr. L. W. King,
must have been one of special interest, as it to all appearance contained
a description of the creation of man. Unfortunately, only the beginning of
the text is preserved, and is as follows:—
“Merodach, on hearing the word of the gods,
His heart urged him, and he made [cunning plans].
He opened his mouth and [said] to the god Aê—
[What] he thought out in his heart he communicates ...:
‘Let me gather my blood and let me ... bone,
Let me set up a man, and let the man ....
Let me make then men dwelling ....
May the service of the gods be established, and as for them, let
....
Let me alter the ways of the gods, let me chan[ge their paths]—
As one let them be honoured, as two let them be ....’
Aê answered him, and the word he spake.”
Here come the remains of ten very imperfect lines, which probably related
the consent of the other gods to the proposal, and must have been followed
by a description of the way in which it was carried out. All this,
however, is unfortunately not preserved. That the whole of Merodach’s work
received the approval of “the gods his fathers” is shown by the remains of
lines with which the sixth tablet closes:—
“They rejoiced ....................
In Upšukenaku they caused .............
Of the son, the hero, who brought back [benefit for them]
‘As for us, whom, succouring, he ...........’
They sat down, and in their assembly they proclaimed
... they all announced ...............”
What they proclaimed and announced was apparently his glorious names, as
detailed in the seventh and last tablet of the series, which was regarded
by George Smith as containing an address to primitive man, but which
proves to be really an address to the god Merodach praising him on account
of the great work that he had done in overcoming the Dragon, and in
thereafter ordering the world anew. As this portion forms a good specimen
of Babylonian poetry at its best, the full text of the tablet, with the
exception of some short remains of lines, is here presented in as careful
a translation as is at present possible.
The Seventh Tablet Of The Creation-Series, Also Known As The
Tablet Of The Fifty-One Names.
1 Asari, bestower of planting, establisher of irrigation.
2 Creator of grain and herbs, he who causes verdure to grow.
3 Asari-alim, he who is honoured in the house of counsel, [who
increases counsel?].
4 The gods bow down to him, fear [possesses them?].
5 Asari-alim-nunna, the mighty one, light of the father his
begetter.
6 He who directs the oracles of Anu, Bel, [and Aa].
7 He is their nourisher, who has ordained....
8 He whose provision is fertility, sendeth forth....
9 Tutu, the creator of their renewal, [is he?].
10 Let him purify their desires, (as for) them, let them [be
appeased].
11 Let him then make his incantation, let the gods [be at rest].
12 Angrily did he arise, may he lay low [their breast].
13 Exalted was he then in the assembly of the gods....
14 None among the gods shall [forsake him].
15 _Tutu._(1) “Zi-ukenna,” “life of the people”
16 “He who fixed for the gods the glorious heavens;”
17 Their paths they took, they set
18 May the deeds (that he performed) not be forgotten among men.
19 _Tutu._ “Zi-azaga,” thirdly, he called (him),—“he who effects
purification,”
20 “God of the good wind,” “Lord of hearing and obedience,”
21 “Creator of fulness and plenty,” “Institutor of abundance,”
22 “He who changes what is small to great,”
23 In our dire need we scented his sweet breath.
24 Let them speak, let them glorify, let them render him
obedience.
25 _Tutu._ “Aga-azaga,” fourthly, May he make the crowns glorious,
26 “The lord of the glorious incantation bringing the dead to
life,”
27 “He who had mercy on the gods who had been overpowered,”
28 “He who made heavy the yoke that he had laid on the gods who
were his enemies,
29 (And) for their despite (?), created mankind.”
30 “The merciful one,” “He with whom is lifegiving,”
31 May his word be established, and not forgotten,
32 In the mouth of the black-headed ones (mankind) whom his hands
have made.
33 _Tutu._ “Mu-azaga,” fifthly, May their mouth make known his
glorious incantation,
34 “He who with his glorious charm rooteth out all the evil ones,”
35 “Sa-zu,” “He who knoweth the heart of the gods,” “He who
looketh at the inward parts,”
36 “He who alloweth not evil-doers to go forth against him,”
37 “He who assembleth the gods,” appeasing their hearts,
38 “He who subdueth the disobedient,”...
39 “He who ruleth in truth (and justice”), ...
40 “He who setteth aside injustice,” ...
41 _Tutu._ “Zi-si” (“He who bringeth about silence”), ...
42 “He who sendeth forth stillness.” ...
43 _Tutu._ “Suḫ-kur,” “Annihilator of the enemy,” ...
44 “Dissolver of their agreements,” ...
45 “Annihilator of everything evil.” ...
About 40 lines, mostly very imperfect, occur here, and some 20 others are
totally lost. The text after this continues:—
107 “Then he seized the back part (?) of the head, which he
pierced (?),
108 And as Kirbiš-Tiamtu he circumvented restlessly,
109 His name shall be Nibiru, he who seized Kirbišu (Tiamtu).
110 Let him direct the paths of the stars of heaven,
111 Like sheep let him pasture the gods, the whole of them.
112 May he confine Tiamtu, may he bring her life into pain and
anguish,
113 In man’s remote ages, in lateness of days,
114 Let him arise, and he shall not cease, may he continue into
the remote future
115 As he made the (heavenly) place, and formed the firm (ground),
116 Father Bêl called him (by) his own name, “Lord of the World,”
117 The appellation (by) which the Igigi have themselves (always)
called him.
118 Aa heard, and he rejoiced in his heart:
119 Thus (he spake): “He, whose renowned name his fathers have so
glorified,
120 He shall be like me, and Aa shall be his name!
121 The total of my commands, all of them, let him possess, and
122 The whole of my pronouncements he, (even) he, shall make
known.”
123 By the appellation “fifty” the great gods
124 His fifty names proclaimed, and they caused his career to be
great (beyond all).
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
125 May they be accepted, and may the primæval one make (them)
known,
126 May the wise and understanding altogether well consider
(them),
127 May the father repeat and teach to the son,
128 May they open the ears of the shepherd and leader.
129 May they rejoice for the lord of the gods, Merodach,
130 May his land bear in plenty; as for him, may he have peace.
131 His word standeth firm; his command changeth not—
132 No god hath yet made to fail that which cometh forth from his
mouth.
133 If he frown down in displeasure, he turneth not his neck,
134 In his anger, there is no god who can withstand his wrath.
135 Broad is his heart, vast is the kindness (?) of (his) ...
136 The sinner and evildoer before him are (ashamed?).”
The remains of some further lines exist, but they are very uncertain, the
beginnings and ends being broken away. All that can be said is, that the
poem concluded in the same strain as the last twelve lines preserved.
In the foregoing pages the reader has had placed before him all the
principal details of the Babylonian story of the Creation, and we may now
proceed to examine the whole in greater detail.
If we may take the explanation of Damascius as representing fairly the
opinion of the Babylonians concerning the creation of the world, it seems
clear that they regarded the matter of which it was formed as existing in
the beginning under the two forms of Tiamtu (the sea) and _Apsû_ (the
deep), and from these, being wedded, proceeded “an only begotten son,”
_Mummu_ (Moumis), conceived by Damascius to be “no other that the
intelligible world proceeding from the two principles,” _i.e._ from Tiamtu
and _Apsû_. From these come forth, in successive generations, the other
gods, ending with Marduk or Merodach, also named Bêl (Bêl-Merodach), the
son of Aa (Ea) and his consort Damkina (the Aos and Dauké of Damascius).
Judging from the material that we have, the Babylonians seemed to have
believed in a kind of evolution, for they evidently regarded the first
creative powers (the watery waste and the abyss) as the rude and barbaric
beginnings of things, the divine powers produced from these first
principles (Laḫmu and Laḫamu, Anšar and Kišar, Anu, Ellila, and Aa, and
finally Marduk), being successive stages in the upward path towards
perfection, with which the first rude elements of creation were ultimately
bound to come into conflict; for Tiamtu, the chief of the two rude and
primitive principles of creation, was, notwithstanding this, ambitious,
and desired still to be the creatress of the gods and other inferior
beings that were yet to be produced. All the divinities descending from
Tiamtu were, to judge from the inscriptions, creators, and as they
advanced towards perfection, so also did the things that they created
advance, until, by contrast, the works of Tiamtu became as those of the
Evil Principle, and when she rebelled against the gods who personified all
that was good, it became a battle between them of life and death, which
only the latest-born of the gods, elected in consequence of the perfection
of his power, to be king and ruler over “the gods his fathers,” was found
worthy to wage. The glorious victory gained, and the Dragon of Evil
subdued and relegated to those places where her exuberant producing power,
which, to all appearance, she still possessed, would be of use, Merodach,
in the fulness of his power as king of the gods, perfected and ordered the
universe anew, and created his crowning work, Mankind. Many details are,
to all appearance, wanting on account of the incompleteness of the series,
but those which remain seem to indicate that the motive of the whole story
was as outlined here.
In Genesis, however, we have an entirely different account, based,
apparently, upon a widely different conception of the origin of the
Universe, for one principle only appears throughout the whole narrative,
be it Elohistic, Jehovistic, or priestly. “In the beginning God created
the heavens and the earth,” and from the first verse to the last it is He,
and He alone, who is Creator and Maker and Ruler of the Universe. The only
passage containing any indication that more than one person took part in
the creation of the world and all that therein is, is in verse 26, where
God is referred to as saying, “Let US make man,” but that this is simply
the plural of majesty, and nothing more, seems to be proved by the very
next verse, where the wording is, “and God made man in HIS own image,”
etc. There is, therefore, no trace of polytheistic influence in the whole
narrative.
Let us glance awhile at the other differences.
To begin with, the whole Babylonian narrative is not only based upon an
entirely different theory of the beginning of all things, but upon an
entirely different conception of what took place ere man appeared upon the
earth. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” implies
the conception of a time when the heavens and the earth existed not. Not
so, seemingly, with the Babylonian account. There the heavens and the
earth are represented as existing, though in a chaotic form, from the
first. Moreover, it is not the external will and influence of the Almighty
that originates and produces the forms of the first creatures inhabiting
the world, but the productive power residing in the watery waste and the
deep:
“The primæval ocean (_apsû rêstū_) was their producer (lit.
seeder);
Mummu Tiamtu was _she who brought forth_ the whole of them.”
It is question here of “seeding” (_zaru_) and “bearing” (_âlādu_), not of
creating.
The legend is too defective to enable us to find out anything as to the
Babylonian idea concerning the formation of the dry land. Testimony as to
its non-existence at the earliest period is all that is vouchsafed to us.
At that time none of the gods had come forth, seemingly because (if the
restoration be correct) “the fates had not been determined.” There is no
clue, however, as to who was then the determiner of the fates.
Then, gradually, and in the course of long-extended ages, the gods Laḫmu
and Laḫamu, Anšar and Kišar, with the others, came into existence, as
already related, after which the record, which is mutilated, goes on to
speak of Tiamtu, Apsū, and Mummu.
These deities of the Abyss were evidently greatly disquieted on account of
the existence and the work of the gods of heaven. They therefore took
counsel together, and Apsū complained that he could not rest either night
or day on account of them. Naturally the mutilated state of the text makes
the true reason of the conflict somewhat uncertain. Fried. Delitzsch
regarded it as due to the desire, on the part of Merodach, to have
possession of the “Tablets of Fate,” which the powers of good and the
powers of evil both wished to obtain. These documents, when they are first
spoken of, are in the hands of Tiamtu (see p. 19), and she, on giving the
power of changeless command to Kingu, her husband, handed them to him. In
the great fight, when Merodach overcame his foes, he seized these precious
records, and placed them in his breast—
“And Kingu, who had become great over (?) them—
He bound him, and with Ugga (the god of death) ... he counted him;
From him then he took the Fate-tablets, which were not his,
With his ring he pressed them, and took them to his breast.”
To all appearance, Tiamtu and Kingu were in unlawful possession of these
documents, and the king of the gods, Merodach, when he seized them, only
took possession of what, in reality, was his own. What power the “Tablets
of Fate” conferred on their possessor, we do not know, but in all
probability the god in whose hands they were, became, by the very fact,
creator and ruler of the universe for ever and ever.
This creative power the king of the gods at once proceeded to exercise.
Passing through the heavens, he surveyed them, and built a palace called
Ê-šarra, “The house of the host,” for the gods who, with himself, might be
regarded as the chief in his heavenly kingdom. Next in order he arranged
the heavenly bodies, forming the constellations, marking off the year; the
moon, and probably the sun also, being, as stated in Genesis, “for signs,
and for seasons, and for days and years,” though all this is detailed, in
the Babylonian account, at much greater length. Indeed, had we the whole
legend complete, we should probably find ourselves in possession of a
detailed description of the Babylonian idea of the heavens which they
studied so constantly, and of the world on which they lived, in relation
to the celestial phenomena which they saw around them.
Fragments of tablets have been spoken of that seem to belong to the fifth
and sixth of the series, and one of them speaks of the building of certain
ancient cities, including that now represented by the mounds known by the
name of Niffer, which must, therefore, apart from any considerations of
paleographic progression in the case of inscriptions found there, or
evidence based on the depth of rubbish-accumulations, be one of the oldest
known. It is probably on account of this that the Talmudic writers
identified the site with the Calneh of Gen. x. 10, which, notwithstanding
the absence of native confirmation, may very easily be correct, for the
Jews of those days were undoubtedly in a better position to know than we
are, after a lapse of two thousand years. The same text, strangely enough,
also refers to the city of Aššur, though this city (which did not,
apparently, belong to Nimrod’s kingdom) can hardly have been a primæval
city in the same sense as “Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh.”
The text of the Semitic Creation-story is here so mutilated as to be
useless for comparative purposes, and in these circumstances the bilingual
story of the Creation, published by me in 1891, practically covering, as
it does, the same ground, may be held, in a measure, to supply its place.
Instead, therefore, of devoting to this version a separate section, I
insert a translation of it here, together with a description of the tablet
upon which it is written.
This second version of the Creation-story is inscribed on a large fragment
(about four and a half inches high) of a tablet found by Mr. Rassam at
Sippar (Abu Habbah) in 1882. The text is very neatly written in the
Babylonian character, and is given twice over, that is, in the original
(dialectic) Akkadian, with a Semitic (Babylonian) translation. As it was
the custom of the Babylonian and Assyrian scribes, for the sake of giving
a nice appearance to what they wrote, to spread out the characters in such
a way that the page (as it were) was “justified,” and the ends of the
lines ranged, like a page of print, it often happens that, when a line is
not a full one, there is a wide space, in the middle, without writing. In
the Akkadian text of the bilingual Creation-story, however, a gap is left
in _every_ line, sufficiently large to accommodate, in slightly smaller
characters, the whole Semitic Babylonian translation. The tablet therefore
seems to be written in three columns, the first being the first half of
the Akkadian version, the second (a broad one) the Semitic translation,
and the third the last half of the Akkadian original text, separated from
the first part to allow of the Semitic version being inserted between.
The reason of the writing of the version already translated and in part
commented upon is not difficult to find—it was to give an account of the
origin of the world and the gods whom they worshipped. The reason of the
writing of the bilingual story of the Creation, however, is not so easy to
decide, the account there given being the introduction to one of those
bilingual incantations for purification, in which, however, by the
mutilation of the tablet, the connecting-link is unfortunately lost. But
whatever the reason of its being prefixed to this incantation, the value
and importance of the version presented by this new document is
incontestable, not only for the legend itself, but also for the linguistic
material which a bilingual text nearly always offers.
The following is a translation of this document—
“Incantation: The glorious house, the house of the gods, in a
glorious place had not been made,
A plant had not grown up, a tree had not been created,
A brick had not been laid, a beam had not been shaped,
A house had not been built, a city had not been constructed,
A city had not been made, no community had been established,
Niffer had not been built, Ê-kura had not been constructed,
Erech had not been built, Ê-ana had not been constructed,
The Abyss had not been made, Êridu had not been constructed,
(As for) the glorious house, the house of the gods, its seat had
not been made—
The whole of the lands were sea.
When within the sea there was a stream,
In that day Eridu was made, Ê-sagila was constructed—
Ê-sagila, which the god Lugal-du-azaga founded within the Abyss.
Babylon he built, Ê-sagila was completed.
He made the gods (and) the Anunnaki together,
The glorious city, the seat of the joy of their hearts, supremely
he proclaimed.
Merodach bound together a foundation before the waters,
He made dust, and poured (it) out beside the foundation,
That the gods might sit in a pleasant place.
He made mankind—
Aruru made the seed of mankind with him.
He made the beasts of the field and the living creatures of the
desert,
He made the Tigris and the Euphrates, and set (them) in (their)
place—
Well proclaimed he their name.
Grass, the marsh-plant, the reed and the forest, he made,
He made the verdure of the plain,
The lands, the marsh, the thicket also,
The wild cow (and) her young the steer; the ewe (and) her
young—the sheep of the fold,
Plantations and forests also.
The goat and the wild goat multiplied for him (?).
Lord Merodach on the sea-shore made a bank,
... (which) at first he made not,
... he caused to be.
(He caused the plant to be brought forth), he made the tree,
(Everything?) he made in (its) place.
(He laid the brick), he made the beams,
(He constructed the house), he built the city,
(He built the city), the community exercised power,
(He built the city Niffer), he built Ê-kura, the temple,
(He built the city Erech, he built Ê-a)na, the temple,”
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Here the obverse breaks off, and the end of the bilingual story of the
Creation-story is lost. How many more lines were devoted to it we do not
know, nor do we know how the incantation proper, which followed it, and to
which it formed the introduction, began. Where the text (about half-way
down on the reverse) again becomes legible, it reads as follows—
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
“Thy supreme messenger, Pap-sukal, the wise one, counsellor of the
gods.
Nin-aḫa-kudu, daughter of Aa,
May she make thee glorious with a glorious lustration (?),
May she make thee pure with pure fire,
With the glorious pure fountain of the abyss purify thou thy
pathway,
By the incantation of Merodach, king of the universe of heaven and
earth,
May the abundance of the land enter into thy midst,
May thy command be fulfilled for ever.
O Ê-zida, seat supreme, the beloved of Anu and Ištar art thou,
Mayest thou shine like heaven; mayest thou be glorious like the
earth; mayest thou shine like the midst of heaven;
May the malevolent curse dwell outside of thee.
Incantation making (the purification of the temple).
Incantation: The star ... the long chariot of the heavens.”
The last line but one is apparently the title, and is followed by the
first line of the next tablet. From this we see that this text belonged to
a series of at least two tablets, and that the tablet following the above
had an introduction of an astronomical or astrological nature.
It will be noticed that this text not only contains an account of the
creation of gods and men, and flora and fauna, but also of the great and
renowned sites and shrines of the country where it originated. It is in
this respect that it bears a likeness to the fragmentary portions of the
intermediate tablets of the Semitic Babylonian story of the Creation, or
Bêl and the Dragon, and this slight agreement may be held to justify, in
some measure, its introduction here. The bilingual version, however,
differs very much in style from that in Semitic only, and seems to lack
the poetical form which characterizes the latter. This, indeed, was to be
expected, for poetical form in a translation which follows the original
closely is an impossibility, though the poetry of words and ideas which it
contains naturally remains. It is not unlikely that the original Sumerian
text is in poetical form, as is suggested by the cesura, and the recurring
words.
In the bilingual account of the Creation one seems to get a glimpse of the
pride that the ancient Babylonians felt in the ancient and renowned cities
of their country. The writer’s conception of the wasteness and voidness of
the earth in the beginning seems to have been that the ancient cities
Babel, Niffer, Erech and Eridu had not yet come into existence. For him,
those sites were as much creations as the vegetation and animal life of
the earth. Being, for him, sacred sites, they must have had a sacred, a
divine foundation, and he therefore attributes their origin to the
greatest of the gods, Merodach, who built them, brick, and beam, and
house, himself. Their renowned temples, too, had their origin at the hands
of the Divine Architect of the Universe.
A few words are necessary in elucidation of what follows the line, “When
within the sea there was a stream.” “In that day,” it says, “Êridu was
made, Ê-sagila was constructed—Ê-sagila which the god Lugal-du-azaga
founded within the Abyss. Babylon he built, Ê-sagila was completed.” The
connection of Ê-sagila, “the temple of the lofty head,” which was within
the Abyss, with Êridu, shows, with little or no doubt, that the Êridu
there referred to was not the earthly city of that name, but a city
conceived as lying also “within the Abyss.” This Êridu, as we shall see
farther on, was the “blessed city,” or Paradise, wherein was the tree of
life, and which was watered by the twin stream of the Tigris and the
Euphrates.
But there was another Ê-sagila than that founded by the god Lugal-du-azaga
within the Abyss, namely the Ê-sagila at Babylon, and it is this fane that
is spoken of in the phrase following that mentioning the temple so called
within the Abyss. To the Babylonian, therefore, the capital of the country
was, in that respect, a counterpart of the divine city that he regarded as
the abode of bliss, where dwelt Nammu, the river-god, and the sun-god
Dumuzi-Abzu, or “Tammuz of the Abyss.” Like Sippar too, Babylon was
situated in what was called the plain, the _edina_, of which Babylonia
mainly consisted, and which is apparently the original of the Garden of
Eden.
The present text differs from that of the longer (Semitic) story of the
Creation, in that it makes Merodach to be the creator of the gods, as well
as of mankind, and all living things. This, of course, implies that it was
composed at a comparatively late date, when the god Merodach had become
fully recognized as the chief divinity, and the fact that Aa was his
father had been lost sight of, and practically forgotten. The goddess
Aruru is apparently introduced into the narrative out of consideration for
the city Sippar-Aruru, of which she was patron. In another text she is
called “Lady of the gods of Sippar and Aruru.” There is also a goddess
(perhaps identical with her) called Gala-aruru, “Great Aruru,” or “the
great one (of) Aruru,” who is explained as “Ištar the star,” on the tablet
K. 2109.
After the account of the creation of the beasts of the field, the Tigris
and the Euphrates, vegetation, lands, marshes, thickets, plantations and
forests, which are named, to all appearance, without any attempt at any
kind of order, “The lord Merodach” is represented as creating those things
which, at first, he had not made, namely, the great and ancient shrines in
whose antiquity and glorious memories the Babylonian—and the Assyrian
too—took such delight. The list, however, is a short one, and it is to be
supposed that, in the lines that are broken away, further cities of the
kingdom of Babylon were mentioned. That this was the case is implied by
the reverse, which deals mainly—perhaps exclusively—with the great shrine
of Borsippa called Ê-zida, and identified by many with the Tower of Babel.
How it was brought in, however, we have no means of finding out, and must
wait patiently for the completion of the text that will, in all
probability, ultimately be discovered.
The reverse has only the end of the text, which, as far as it is
preserved, is in the form of an “incantation of Êridu,” and mentions “the
glorious fountain of the Abyss,” which to was to “purify” or “make
glorious” the pathway of the personified fane referred to. As it was the
god Merodach, “the merciful one,” “he who raises the dead to life,” “the
lord of the glorious incantation,” who was regarded by the Babylonians as
revealing to mankind the “incantation of Êridu,” which he, in his turn,
obtained from his father Aa, we may see in this final part of the legend
not only a glorification of the chief deity of the Babylonians, but also a
further testimony of the fact that the composition must belong to the
comparatively late period in the history of Babylonian religion, when the
worship of Merodach had taken the place of that of his father Aa.
Of course, it must not be supposed that the longer account of the Creation
was told so shortly as the bilingual narrative that we have introduced
here to supply the missing parts of the longer version. Everything was
probably recounted at much greater length, and in confirmation of this
there is the testimony of the small fragment of the longer account,
translated on p. 28. This simply contains the announcement that Merodach
had made cunning plans, and decided to create man from his own blood, and
[to form?] his bones, but there must have been, in the long gap which then
ensues, a detailed account of the actual creation of the human race,
probably with some reference to the formation of animals. One cannot base
much upon this mutilated fragment, but, as the first translator has
pointed out, the object in creating man was seemingly to ensure the
performance of the service (or worship) of the gods, and the building of
their shrines, prayer and sacrifice, with the fear of God, being duties
from which there was no escape.
In the last tablet of the series—that recording the praises of Merodach
and his fifty new names,—there are a few points that are worthy of
examination. In the first place, the arrangement of the first part is
noteworthy. The principal name that was given to him seems not to have
been Merodach, as one would expect from the popularity of the name in
later days, but Tutu, which occurs in the margin, at the head of six of
the sections, and was probably prefixed to at least three more. This name
Tutu is evidently an Akkadian reduplicate word, from the root _tu_, “to
beget,” and corresponds with the explanation of the word given by the list
of Babylonian gods, K. 2107; _muâllid îlāni, mûddiš îlāni_, “begetter of
the gods, renewer of the gods”—a name probably given to him on account of
his identification with his father, Aa, for, according to the legend,
Merodach was rather the youngest than the oldest of the gods, who are even
called, as will be remembered, “his fathers.” In the lost portion at the
beginning of the final tablet he was also called, according to the tablet
here quoted, Gugu = _muttakkil îlāni_, “nourisher of the gods”; Mumu =
_mušpiš îlāni_, “increaser (?) of the gods”; Dugan = _banî kala îlāni_,
“maker of all the gods”; Dudu = _muttarrû îlāni_, “saviour (?) of the
gods”; Šar-azaga = _ša šipat-su êllit_, “he whose incantation is
glorious”; and Mu-azaga = _ša tû-šu êllit_, “he whose charm is glorious”
(cf. p. 31, l. 33). After this we have Ša-zu or Ša-sud = _mûdê libbi
īlāni_ or _libbi rûḳu_, “he who knoweth the heart of the gods,” or “the
remote of heart” (p. 31, l. 35); Zi-uḳenna = _napšat napḫar îlāni_, “the
life of the whole of the gods” (p. 30, l. 15); Zi-si = _nasiḫ šabuti_, “he
who bringeth about silence” (p. 31, l. 41); Suḫ-kur = _muballû aabi_,
“annihilator of the enemy” (p. 31, l. 43); and other names meaning
_muballû napḫar aabi, nasiḫ raggi_, “annihilator of the whole of the
enemy, rooter out of evil,” _nasiḫ napḫar raggi_, “rooter out of the whole
of the evil,” _êšû raggi_, “troubler of the evil (ones),” and _êšû napḫar
raggi_, “troubler of the whole of the evil (ones).” All these last names
were probably enumerated on the lost part of the tablet between where the
obverse breaks off and the reverse resumes the narrative, and the whole of
the fifty names conferred upon him, which were enumerated in their old
Akkadian forms and translated into Semitic Babylonian in this final tablet
of the Creation, were evidently repeated in the form of a list of gods, on
the tablet in tabular form from which the above renderings are taken.
Hailed then as the vanquisher of Kirbiš-Tiamtu, the great Dragon of Chaos,
he is called by the name of Nibiru, “the ferry,” a name of the planet
Jupiter as the traverser of the heavens (one of the points of contact
between Babylonian and Greek mythology), the stars of which he was
regarded as directing, and keeping (lit. pasturing) like sheep. (Gods and
stars may here be regarded as convertible terms.) His future is then
spoken of, and “father Bêl” gives him his own name, “lord of the world.”
Rejoicing in the honours showered on his son, and not to be outdone in
generosity, Aa decrees that henceforth Merodach shall be like him, and
that he shall be called Aa, possessing all his commands, and all his
pronouncements—_i.e._ all the wisdom which he, as god of deep wisdom,
possessed. Thus was Merodach endowed with all the names, and all the
attributes, of the gods of the Babylonians—“the fifty renowned names of
the great gods.”
This was, to all intents and purposes, symbolic of a great struggle, in
early days, between polytheism and monotheism—for the masses the former,
for the more learned and thoughtful the latter. Of this we shall have
further proof farther on, when discussing the name of Merodach. For the
present be it simply noted, that this is not the only text identifying
Merodach with the other gods.
The reference to the creation of mankind in line 29 of the obverse (p. 31)
is noteworthy, notwithstanding that the translation of one of the
words—and that a very important one—is very doubtful. Apparently man was
created to the despite of the rebellious gods, but there is also just the
possibility that there exists here an idiomatic phrase meaning “in their
room.” If the latter be the true rendering, this part of the legend would
be in striking accord with Bishop Avitus of Vienne, with the old English
poet Caedmon, and with Milton in his _Paradise Lost_. In connection with
this, too, the statement in the reverse, lines 113 and 114, where “man’s
remote ages” is referred to, naturally leads one to ask, Have we here
traces of a belief that, in ages to come (“in lateness of days”), Merodach
was to return and live among men into the remote future? The return of a
divinity or a hero of much-cherished memory is such a usual thing among
popular beliefs, that this may well have been the case likewise among the
Babylonians.
The comparison of the two accounts of the Creation—that of the Hebrews and
that of the Babylonians, that have been presented to the reader—will
probably have brought prominently before him the fact, that the Babylonian
account, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, differs
so much from the Biblical account, that they are, to all intents and
purposes, two distinct narratives. That there are certain ideas in common,
cannot be denied, but most of them are ideas that are inseparable from two
accounts of the same event, notwithstanding that they have been composed
from two totally different standpoints. In writing an account of the
Creation, statements as to what are the things created must of necessity
be inserted. There is, therefore, no proof of a connection between two
accounts of the Creation in the fact that they both speak of the formation
of dry land, or because they both state that plants, animals, and man were
created. Connection may be inferred from such statements that the waters
were the first abode of life, or that an expansion was created dividing
the waters above from those below. With reference to such points of
contact as these just mentioned, however, the question naturally arises,
Are these points of similarity sufficient to justify the belief that two
so widely divergent accounts as those of the Bible and of the Babylonian
tablets have one and the same origin? In the mind of the present writer
there seems to be but one answer, and that is, that the two accounts are
practically distinct, and are the production of people having entirely
different ideas upon the subject, though they may have influenced each
other in regard to certain points, such as the two mentioned above. For
the rest, the fact that there is—
No direct statement of the creation of the heavens and the earth;
No systematic division of the things created into groups and
classes, such as is found in Genesis;
NO REFERENCE TO THE DAYS OF CREATION;
No appearance of the Deity as the first and only cause of the
existence of things—
must be held as a sufficient series of prime reasons why the Babylonian
and the Hebrew versions of the Creation-story must have had different
origins.
As additional arguments may also be quoted the polytheism of the
Babylonian account; the fact that it appears to be merely the setting to
the legend of Bêl and the Dragon, and that, as such, it is simply the
glorification of Merodach, the patron divinity of the Babylonians, over
the other gods of the Assyro-Babylonian Pantheon.
Sidelights:—Merodach.
To judge from the inscriptions of the Babylonians and Assyrians, one would
say that there were not upon the earth more pious nations than they. They
went constantly in fear of their gods, and rendered to them the glory for
everything that they succeeded in bringing to a successful conclusion.
Prayer, supplication, and self-debasement before their gods seem to have
been their delight.
“The time for the worship of the gods was my heart’s delight,
The time of the offering to Ištar was profit and riches,”
sings Ludlul the sage, and one of a list of sayings is to the following
effect—
“When thou seest the profit of the fear of God,
Thou wilt praise God, thou wilt bless the king.”
Many a penitential psalm and hymn of praise exists to testify to the piety
of the ancient nations of Assyria and Babylonia. Moreover, this piety was,
to all appearance, practical, calling forth not only self-denying
offerings and sacrifices, but also, as we shall see farther on, lofty
ideas and expressions of the highest religious feeling.
And the Babylonians were evidently proud of their religion. Whatever its
defects, the more enlightened—the scribes and those who could read—seem to
have felt that there was something in it that gave it the very highest
place. And they were right—there was in this gross polytheism of theirs a
thing of high merit, and that was, the character of the chief of their
gods, Merodach.
We see something of the reverence of the Babylonians and Assyrians for
their gods in almost all of their historical inscriptions, and there is
hardly a single communication of the nature of a letter that does not call
down blessings from them upon the person to whom it is addressed. In many
a hymn and pious expression they show in what honour they held them, and
their desire not to offend them, even involuntarily, is visible in
numerous inscriptions that have been found.
“My god, who art displeased, receive (?) my (prayer?),
My goddess, who art wroth, accept (my supplication)—
Accept my supplication, and let thy mind be at rest.
My lord, gracious and merciful, (let thy mind be at rest).
Make easy (O my goddess) the day that is directed for death,
My god, (grant that I be?) free (?).
My goddess, have regard for me, and receive my supplication.
Let my sins be separated, and let my misdeeds be forgotten—
Let the ban be loosened, let the fetter fall.
Let the seven winds carry away my sighing.
Let me tear asunder my evil, and let a bird carry it aloft to the
sky.
Let a fish carry off my trouble, and let the stream bear it away.
Let the beasts of the field take (it) away from me.
Let the flowing waters of the stream cleanse me.
Make me bright as a chain of gold—
Let me be precious in thy eyes as a diamond ring!
Blot out my evil, preserve my life.
Let me guard thy court, and stand in thy sanctuary (?).
Make me to pass away from my evil state, let me be preserved with
thee!
Send to me, and let me see a propitious dream—
Let the dream that I shall see be propitious—let the dream that I
shall see be true,
Turn the dream that I shall see to a favour,
Let Mašara (?), the god of dreams, rest by my head,
Make me to enter into Ê-sagila, the temple of the gods, the house
of life.
Deliver me, for his favour, into the gracious hands of the
merciful Merodach,
Let me be subject to thy greatness, let me glorify thy divinity;
Let the people of my city praise thy might!”
Here the text breaks off, but sufficient of it remains to show of what the
devotion of the Babylonians and Assyrians to their gods consisted, and
what their beliefs really were. For some reason or other, the writer
recognizes that the divinity whom he worships is displeased with him, and
apparently comes to the conclusion that the consort of the god is
displeased also. He therefore prays and humbles himself before them,
asking that his misdeeds may be forgotten, and that he may be separated
from his sins, by which he feels himself to be bound and fettered. He
imagines to himself that the seven winds, or a little bird, or a fish, or
a beast of the field, or the waters of a stream, may carry his sin away,
and that the flowing waters of the river may cleanse him from his sin,
making him pure in the eyes of his god as a chain of gold, and precious to
him as the most precious thing that he can think of, namely, a diamond
ring (upon such material and worldly similes did the thoughts of the
Babylonians run). He wishes his life (or his soul—the word in the original
is _napišti_, which Zimmern translates _Seele_) to be saved, to pass away
from his evil state, and to dwell with his god, from whom he begs for a
sign in the form of a propitious dream, a dream that shall come true,
showing that he is in reality once more in the favour of his god, who, he
hopes, will deliver him into the gracious hands of the merciful Merodach,
that he and all his city may praise his great divinity.
Fragment though it be, in its beginning, development, and climax, it is,
to all intents and purposes, perfect, and a worthy specimen of
compositions of this class.
It is noteworthy that the suppliant almost re-echoes the words of the
Psalmist in those passages where he speaks of his guarding the court of
the temple of his god and dwelling in his temple (Ê-sagila, the renowned
temple at Babylon), wherein, along with other deities, the god Merodach
was worshipped—the merciful one, into whose gracious hands he wished to be
delivered. The prayer that his sin might be carried away by a bird, or a
fish, etc., brings up before the mind’s eye the picture of the scapegoat,
fleeing, laden with the sins of the pious Israelite, into the desert to
Azazel.
To all appearance, the worshipper, in the above extract, desires to be
delivered by the god whom he worships into the hands of the god Merodach.
This is a point that is worthy of notice, for it seems to show that the
Babylonians, at least in later times, regarded the other deities in the
light of mediators with the chief of the Babylonian Pantheon. As
manifestations of him, they all formed part of his being, and through them
the suppliant found a channel to reconciliation and forgiveness of his
sins.
In this there seems to be somewhat of a parallel to the Egyptian belief in
the soul, at death, being united with Osiris. The annihilation of self,
however, did not, in all probability, recommend itself to the Babylonian
mind any more than it must have done to the mind of the Assyrian. To all
appearance, the preservation of one’s individuality, in the abodes of
bliss after death, was with them an essential to the reality of that life
beyond the grave. If we adopt here Zimmern’s translation of _napišti_ by
“soul,” the necessity of interpreting the above passage in the way here
indicated seems to be rendered all the greater.
The Creation legend shows us how the god Merodach was regarded by the
Babylonians as having attained his high position among the “gods his
fathers,” and the reverence that they had for this deity is not only
testified to by that legend, but also by the many documents of a religious
nature that exist. This being the case, it is only natural to suppose,
that he would be worshipped both under the name of Merodach, his usual
appellation, and also under any or all of the other names that were
attributed to him by the Babylonians as having been conferred upon him by
the gods at the time of his elevation to the position of their chief.
Not only, therefore, was he called Marduk (Amaruduk, “the brightness of
day”), the Hebrew Merodach, but he bore also the names of Asaru or Asari,
identified by the Rev. C. J. Ball and Prof. Hommel with the Egyptian
Osiris—a name that would tend to confirm what is stated above concerning
the possible connection between the Egyptian and Babylonian beliefs in the
immortality of the soul. This name Asaru was compounded with various other
(explanatory) epithets, making the fuller names Asari-lu-duga (probably
“Asari, he who is good”), Asari-lu-duga-namsuba (“Asari, he who is good,
the charm”), Asari-lu-duga-namtî (“Asari, he who is good, the life”),
Asari-alima (“Asari, the prince”), Asari-alima-nuna (“Asari, the prince,
the mighty one”), etc., all showing the estimation in which he was held,
and testifying to the sacredness of the first component, which, as already
remarked, has been identified with the name of Osiris, the chief divinity
of the Egyptians. Among his other names are (besides those quoted from the
last tablet of the story of the Creation and the explanatory list that
bears upon it) some of apparently foreign origin, among them being Amaru
(? short for Amar-uduk) and Sal-ila, the latter having a decidedly western
Semitic look.(2) As “the warrior,” he seems to have borne the name of
Gušur (? “the strong”); another of his Akkadian appellations was Gudibir,
and as “lord” of all the world he was called Bêl, the equivalent of the
Baal of the Phœnicians and the Beel of the Aramæans. In astronomy his name
was given to several stars, and he was identified with the planet Jupiter,
thus making him the counterpart of the Greek and Latin Zeus or Jove.
As has been said above, Merodach was the god that was regarded by the
Babylonians and Assyrians as he who went about doing good on behalf of
mankind. If he saw a man in affliction—suffering, for instance, from any
malady—he would go and ask his father Aa, he who knew all things, and who
had promised to impart all his knowledge to his royal son, what the man
must do to be cured of the disease or relieved of the demon which troubled
him. The following will give some idea of what the inscriptions detailing
these charms and incantations, which the god was supposed to obtain from
his father, were like—
“Incantation: The sickness of the head hath darted forth from the
desert, and rushed like the wind.
Like lightning it flasheth, above and below it smiteth,
The impious man(3) like a reed it cutteth down, and
His nerves like a tendril it severeth.
(Upon him) for whom the goddess Ištar hath no care, and whose
flesh is in anguish,
Like a star of heaven it (the sickness) flasheth down, like a
night-flood it cometh.
Adversity is set against the trembling man, and threateneth him
like a lion—
It hath stricken that man, and
The man rusheth about like one who is mad—
Like one whose heart is smitten he goeth to and fro,
Like one thrown into the fire he burneth,
Like the wild ass that runneth (?), his eyes are filled with
cloud,
Being alive, he eateth, yet is he bound up with death.
The disease,(4) which is like a violent wind, nobody knoweth its
path—
Its completed time, and its connection nobody knoweth.”
(Here come abbreviations of the set phrases stating that the god Merodach
perceived the man who was suffering, and went to ask his father Aa,
dwelling in the Abyss, how the man was to be healed of the sickness that
afflicted him. In the texts that give the wanting parts, Aa is represented
as asking his son Merodach what it was that he did not know, and in what
he could still instruct him. What he (Aa) knows, that Merodach shall also
know. He then tells Merodach to go and work the charm.)
“The ḫaltigilla plant groweth alone in the desert
Like the sun-god entering his house, cover its head with a
garment, and
Cover the ḫaltigilla plant, and enclose some meal, and
In the desert, before the rising sun
Root it out from its place, and
Take its root, and
Take the skin of a young goat, and
Bind up the head of the sick man, and
May a gust (?) of wind carry it (the disease) away, and may it not
return to its place.
O spirit of heaven, exorcise; spirit of earth, exorcise.”
The numerous incantations of this class, in which the god Merodach is
represented as playing the part of benefactor to the sick and afflicted
among mankind, and interesting himself in their welfare, are exceedingly
numerous, and cover a great variety of maladies and misfortunes. No
wonder, therefore, that the Babylonians looked upon the god, their own
god, with eyes of affection, and worship, and reverence. Indeed, it is
doubtful whether the Hebrews themselves, the most God-fearing nation of
their time, looked upon the God of their fathers with as much affection,
or reverence, as did the Babylonians regard the god Merodach. They show it
not only in the inscriptions of the class quoted above, but also in
numerous other texts. All the kings of Babylonia, and not a few of those
of Assyria, with one consent pay him homage, and testify to their
devotion. The names of princes and common people, too, often bear witness
to the veneration that they felt for this, the chief of their gods.
“Merodach is lord of the gods,” “Merodach is master of the word,” “With
Merodach is life,” “The dear one of the gods is Merodach,” “Merodach is
our king,” “(My, his, our) trust is Merodach,” “Be gracious to me, O
Merodach,” “Direct me, O Merodach,” “Merodach protects,” “Merodach has
given a brother” (Marduk-nadin-aḫi, the name of one of Nebuchadrezzar’s
sons), “A judge is Merodach,” etc., etc., are some of the names compounded
with that of this popular divinity. Merodach was not so much in use, as
the component part of a name, as the god of wisdom, Nebo, but it is not by
any means improbable that this is due to the reverence in which he was
held, which must, at times, have led the more devout to avoid the
pronunciation of his name any more than was necessary, though, if that was
the case, it never reached the point of an utter prohibition against its
utterance, such as caused the pronunciation of the Hebrew Yahwah to become
entirely lost even to the most learned for many hundred years. Those,
therefore, who wished to avoid the profanation, by too frequent utterance,
of this holy name, could easily do so by substituting the name of some
other deity, for, as we have seen above, the names of all the gods could
be applied to him, and the doctrine of their identification with him only
grew in strength—we know not under what influence—as time went on, until
Marduk or Merodach became synonymous with the word _îlu_, “God,” and is
even used as such in a list where the various gods are enumerated as his
manifestations. The portion of the tablet in question containing these
advanced ideas is as follows—
81-11-3, 111.
“... is Merodach of planting.
Lugal-a-ki- ... is Merodach of the water-spring.
Ninip is Merodach of the garden (?).
Nergal is Merodach of war.
Zagaga is Merodach of battle.
Bêl is Merodach of lordship and dominion.
Nebo is Merodach of wealth (or trading).
Sin is Merodach the illuminator of the night.
Šamaš is Merodach of truth (or righteousness).
Rimmon is Merodach of rain.
Tišḫu is Merodach of handicraft.
Sig is Merodach of....
Suqamuna is Merodach of the (irrigation-) reservoir.”
As this tablet is not complete, there is every probability that the god
Merodach was identified, on the lost portion, with at least as many
deities as appear on the part that time has preserved to us.
This identification of deities with each other would seem to have been a
far from uncommon thing in the ancient East during those heathen times. A
large number of deities of the Babylonian Pantheon are identified, in the
Assyrian proper names, with a very interesting divinity whose name appears
as Aa, and which may possibly turn out to be only one of the many forms
that are met with of the god Ya’u or Jah, who was not only worshipped by
the Hebrews, but also by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, and other
nations of the East in ancient times. Prof. Hommel, the well-known
Assyriologist and Professor of Semitic languages at Munich, suggests that
this god Yâ is another form of the name of Ea, which is possible, but any
assimilation of the two divinities is probably best explained upon the
supposition that the people of the East in ancient times identified them
with each other in consequence of the likeness between the two names.
In any case, the identification of a large number of the gods—perhaps all
of them—with a deity whose name is represented by the group Aa, is quite
certain. Thus we have Aššur-Aa, Ninip-Aa, Bel-Aa, Nergal-Aa, Šamaš-Aa,
Nusku-Aa, Sin-Aa, etc., and it is probable that the list might be greatly
extended. Not only, however, have we a large number of deities identified
with Aa, but a certain number of them are also identified with the deity
known as Ya, Ya’u, or Au, the Jah of the Hebrews. Among these may be cited
Bêl-Yau, “Bel is Jah,” Nabû-Yâ’, “Nebo is Jah,” Aḫi-Yau, “Aḫi is Jah,” a
name that would seem to confirm the opinion which Fuerst held, that _aḫi_
was, in this connection, a word for “god,” or a god. In Ya-Dagunu, “Jah is
Dagon,” we have the elements reversed, showing a wish to identify Jah with
Dagon, rather than Dagon with Jah, whilst another interesting name, Au-Aa,
shows an identification of Jah with Aa, two names which have every
appearance of being etymologically connected.
There is then but little doubt that we have in these names an indication
of an attempt at what may be regarded as concentration—a desire and
tendency towards monotheism. When this began, and what the real opinions
of the more thoughtful upon the subject of the unity or the plurality of
the deity may have been, we have at present no means of finding out. There
can be no doubt, however, that it sprang from more than one cause—the
desire not to offend either heavenly or earthly powers by seeming to
favour one divinity more than another, the difficulty of dividing and
apportioning the domain in nature of every divinity, the wish to identify
the divine patrons of the various nationalities with a view to
understanding what they really were, and describing their nature for
either religious or political purposes—all these things, and probably
others, would tend to counteract not only polytheistic bigotry, but also
the exclusive appropriation by one tribe or people of any particular
divinity, who was their own special helper against their enemies, and to
whose particular protection they defiantly laid claim. When in conflict or
in dispute with another, there is no doubt that the man bearing the name
of Šamaš-nûri, for instance, would be met with the fierce taunt, “The
Sun-god is not more thy light than he is mine,” and, as an answer to
Yâ-abî-ni, “Jah is our father too, and more so than he is yours,” would at
once spring to the lips of any Jew with whom the bearer of the name may
have had a dispute.
For the thoughtful, God was one, and all the various gods of the heathen
were but His manifestations, misconceived and misunderstood by the
ignorant and thoughtless, but, rightly regarded, full of deep
significance. The Jews in later times had, in all probability, no tendency
to polytheism, yet it is certain that they had but little objection to
bearing heathen names, and of all the examples that might be adduced,
there is probably not one that is more noteworthy than Mordecai, or
Mardecai, the worshipper of Merodach as typical of the God beside whom
there was none other, of whom, as we have seen,—and that from a Babylonian
tablet,—all the other deities of the Babylonian Pantheon were but
manifestations.
The God Aa, Ae, Or Ea.
As the primitive deity of the Babylonian Pantheon, and as apparently
closely identified with the well-known deity Jah, who was worshipped by a
large section of the Semitic nations, and whose name is one of the words
for “god” in the Assyro-Babylonian language, the god Ea, Ae, or Aa,
deserves notice here not only on account of his being the creator of all
the gods, but also on account of his fatherhood to Merodach, who, in
Babylonian mythology, was conceived as supplanting him—not by any unfair
means, but by the right of being the fittest to exercise power and
dominion over the world, the universe, and even over “the gods his
fathers.”
Assyriologists early recognized the attributes of the god whose name they
then read Hea. They saw that he was regarded by the ancient Babylonians
and Assyrians as the god of streams, rivers, seas, and the watery abyss of
the under-world—the waters under the earth. Of the god Ae or Ea all sorts
of wonderful stories were told by the Babylonians, who attributed to him,
as the god of wisdom and knowledge, the origin of the civilization which
they enjoyed. His name, as god of deep wisdom, was Nin-igi-azaga, “the
lord of the bright eye,” a name which would seem to show that the
Akkadians (the names of most of the deities of the Assyro-Babylonian
Pantheon are written in Akkadian) associated, as we also do at the present
day, intelligence with brightness of the eyes, or, more correctly, with
alertness of appearance.
But this god had many other names than those mentioned above. He was
En-ki, “lord of the world”; Amma-ana-ki, “lord of heaven and earth”;
Engur, “god of the Abyss”; Nudimmud, “god of creation”; Nadimmud, “god of
everything”; Nun-ura, “god of the potter”; Nin-agal, “god of the smith”;
Dunga, “god of the singer” (?); Nin-bubu, “god of the sailor”;
Kuski-banda, “god of goldsmiths”;—in fact, he seems to have been the god
of arts and crafts in general. He was also called Ellila-banda, “the
powerful lord”; En-uru and Nin-uru, “the protecting lord”; Lugal-ida,
“king of the river”; Lugal, En, Nuna, and Dara-abzu, “king,” “lord,”
“prince,” and “ruler of the abyss”; Dara-dim, Dara-nuna, and Dara-banda,
honorific titles as “creator,” “princely ruler,” and “powerful ruler”;
Alima-nuna, Alima-banda, and Alima-šum-ki, “princely lord,” “powerful
lord,” and “lord disposer of the earth.” He bore also besides these a
large number of names, among which may be cited, as an example of his
many-sidedness, the following—
Šaršara, apparently “the overwhelmer,” probably as lord of the sea
and its teeming myriads.
En-tî, “lord of life.”
Gana-si, probably “the enclosure full (of life).”
Nam-zida, “righteousness.”
Idima (Akk.) or Naqbu (Bab.), “the deep.”
Sa-kalama, “ruler of the land.”
Šanabaku and Šanabi, the god “40.”
That the sea was the abode of the god of knowledge seems to have been the
belief of the Babylonians from the earliest times. According to Berosus,
whose record has been preserved by Apollodoros, Abydenus, and Alexander
Polyhistor, there appeared more than once, from the Erythræan Sea (the
Persian Gulf), “the Musaros Oannes, the Annedotos,” a creature half man
and half fish, probably conceived in shape of the deity answering to this
description found on certain Babylonian cylinder-seals, in a sculpture
with representations of marine monsters, now preserved in the Louvre, and
in the divine figures in the shape of a man clothed with a fish’s skin,
preserved in the form of clay statuettes and large sculptures
(bas-reliefs) in the British Museum. Abydenus apparently understands
Berosus differently, for he makes Annedotos and Oannes to be different
personages. All those who have quoted Berosus, however, agree in the main
point, that these beings, half man and half fish, came out of the sea to
teach mankind. There is hardly any doubt that in some of these cases the
deity that is intended is the god whose name is now read Ae or Ea, who was
called Aos by Damascius. After the appearance of the fourth Annedotos,
there came another person, also from the Erythræan Sea, named Odakon,
having, like the former, the same complicated form, between a man and a
fish. To these names Abydenus, still quoting Berosus, adds those of four
more “double-shaped personages” named Euedocos, Eneugamos, Eneuboulos, and
Anementos. These last came forth in the reign of Daos (probably Dumuzi
(Duwuzi) or Tammuz) the shepherd, of Pantibiblon (Sippar or Sippara), who
reigned for the space of ten sari (360,000 years)! “After these things was
Anodaphos, in the time of Euedoreschos.”
Besides his son Merodach, who, in Babylonian mythology, became “king of
the gods,”—like Jupiter, in the place of his father—Ae or Ea was regarded
as having six other sons, Dumu-zi-abzu, “Tammuz of the abyss”; Ki-gulla,
“the destroyer of the world”; Nira (meaning doubtful); Bara, “the
revealer” (?); Bara-gula, “the great revealer (?)”; and Burnunta-sā, “the
broad of ear.” One daughter is attributed to him, her name being
Ḫi-dimme-azaga, “the glorious spirit’s offspring,” called, in one of the
incantations (W.A.I. iv., 2nd ed., col. ii., line 54), “the daughter of
the abyss.” He had also two bull-like guardians (probably those composite
creatures, winged bulls with human heads, representations of which guarded
the approaches to the Assyrian palaces), one seemingly named Duga, “the
good,” and the other Dub-ga, apparently meaning “he who causes (the bolt)
to be raised,” giving the suppliant access to the palace of his lord. To
all appearance, the gates giving access to his domain were guarded by
eight porters, the names of most of whom are unfortunately broken away on
the tablet that gives these details, but one of them seems to have borne
the name of Eniw-ḫengala, “the bespeaker of fertility,” whilst another was
named Igi-ḫen(?)gala, “the eye of fertility,” and the third had a name
beginning, like that of the first, with the element Eniw, a circumstance
which would lead one to ask whether this may not be the element Eneu found
in the names of the two creatures Eneugamos and Eneuboulos, mentioned by
Berosus.
His consort was called Damkina, “the lady of the earth,” the Dauké of
Damascius, or Dam-gala-nuna, “the great princely lady.” She likewise had
two bull-like attendants, A-eru and E-a-eru, of whom but little or nothing
is known.
The tablet already quoted (W.A.I. iv., pl. 1, col. ii., ll. 36-39) names
Engur (the deep) as being the mother of Ae or Ea, and attributes to him
another daughter, Nina, with whom the name of Nineveh is apparently
connected.
Down in the Abyss, in the city called Eridu, “the good city,” there dwelt
Ae, with all his court. Sitting on his throne, he waited for the time when
his son Merodach, the good of heart, came to ask him for those
health-bringing incantations for the benefit of mankind. Sometimes,
seemingly, instead of Merodach, his sixth son Burnunsia (Burnunta-sā),
“the broad of ear,” would perform this office. Ae was always ready to help
with his counsels, and no one whose case Merodach forwarded was spurned by
the King of the Abyss.
Here, too, dwelt “Tammuz of the Abyss,” one of Ae’s sons, but whether this
was the well-known Tammuz who was the husband of the goddess Ishtar, is
uncertain. Judging from the legends of the Babylonians, Ishtar’s husband
descended, not to the abode of the lord of the deep, but to the realms of
the Babylonian Persephone, the consort of Nergal, in Hades, “the land of
no return,” whither Ishtar once descended in search of him. Concerning the
Babylonian paradise, where Ae dwelt, see the following chapter.
The second month of the Babylonian year, Iyyar, corresponding to
April—May, was dedicated to Ae as lord of mankind, though in this the
records contradict each other, for the Creation-stories of the Babylonians
attribute the creation of mankind to Merodach, who has, therefore, the
best right to be regarded as their lord.
Anšar And Kišar (pp. 16, 17, 20, etc.).
Anšar, “host of heaven,” and Kišar, “host of earth,” are, it will be
remembered, given in the Semitic Babylonian account of the Creation as the
names of the powers that succeeded Laḫmu and Laḫamu, according to
Damascius, the second progeny of the sea and the deep (Tiamtu and Apsū).
The Greek forms, Assoros and Kisaré, imply that Damascius understood the
former to be masculine and the latter feminine, though there is no hint of
gender in the wedge-written records. That the Babylonians regarded them as
being of different genders, however, is conceivable enough. The Greek form
of the first, Assoros, moreover, implies that, in course of time, the _n_
of Anšar became assimilated with the _š_ (as was usual in Semitic
Babylonian), and on account of this, the etymology that connects Anšar
with the name of the Assyrian national god Aššur, is not without
justification, though whether it be preferable to that of Delitzsch which
makes Aššur to be really Ašur, and connects it with _ašaru_, meaning
“holy,” is doubtful. In favour of Delitzsch, however, is the fact that the
Assyrians would more probably have given their chief divinity the name of
“the Holy one” than that of one of the links in the chain of divinities
which culminated in the rise of the god Merodach to the highest place in
the kingdom of heaven.
The question naturally arises: Who were these deities, “the host of
heaven” and “the host of earth”? and this is a question to which we do not
get a very complete answer from the inscriptions. According to the
explanatory lists of gods (as distinct from the mythological texts proper)
Kišar is explained as the “host of heaven and earth” and also as Anu and
Antum, in other words, as the male and female personifications of the
heavens. Strange to say, this is just the explanation given in the
inscriptions of the names Laḫmu and Laḫamu, for though they are not “the
host of heaven and earth,” they are the same, according to the lists of
gods, as the deities Anu and his consort Antum. This probably arises from
the worship of Anu, the god of the heavens, and his consort, at some
period preceding that of the worship of Merodach, or even that of his
father Aa or Ea, whose cult, as we have seen, was in early times abandoned
for that of the patron god of the city of Babylon. Concerning this portion
of the legend of the Creation, however, much more light is required.
Besides the simple form Kišar, there occurs in the lists of gods also
Kišaragala, which is likewise explained as a manifestation of Anu and
Antum, and described moreover as “Anu, who is the host (_kiššat_) of
heaven and earth.” In addition to Anšar and Kišar, the deities Enšara and
Ninšara are mentioned. These names are apparently to be translated “lord
of the host” and “lady of the host” respectively, and are doubtless both
closely connected with, or the same as, the Anšar and Kišar of the
Babylonian story of the Creation, in close connection with which they are,
in fact, mentioned. En-kišara is given, in W.A.I., III., pl. 68, as one of
the three _mu-gala_ (apparently “great names”) of Anu, the god of the
heavens. Another Nin-šara (the second element written with a different
character) is given as the equivalent of both Antum and Ištar, the latter
being the well-known goddess of love and war, Venus.
Tiamat.
Tiamat is the common transcription of a name generally and more correctly
read as Tiamtu. The meaning of this word is “the sea,” and its later and
more decayed pronunciation is _tâmtu_ or _tâmdu_, the feminine _t_ having
changed into _d_ after the nasal _m_, a phenomenon that also meets us in
other words having a nasal before the dental. As this word is the Tauthé
of the Greek writer Damascius, it is clear that in his time the _m_ was
pronounced as _w_ (this peculiarity is common to the Semitic Babylonian
and Akkadian languages, and finds its converse illustration in the
provincialism of _mir_ for _wir_, “we,” in German), though the decayed
word _tâmtu_ evidently kept its labial unchanged, for it is difficult to
imagine _w_ changing _t_ into _d_, unless it were pronounced in a way to
which wee are not accustomed. We have here, then, an example of a
differentiation by which one and the same word, by a change of
pronunciation, forms two “vocables,” the one used as a proper noun and the
other—a more decayed form—as a common one.
Tiamtu (from the above it may be supposed that the real pronunciation was
as indicated by the Greek form, namely, Tiauthu), meaning originally “the
sea,” became then the personification of the watery deep as the producer
of teeming animal life such as we find in the waters everywhere.
Dominating and covering at first the whole earth, it was she who was the
first producer of living things, but when the land appeared, and creatures
of higher organization and intelligence began, under the fostering care of
the higher divinities, to make their appearance, she saw, so the
Babylonians seem to have thought, that with the advent of man, whom the
gods purposed forming, her power and importance would, in a short time,
disappear, and rebellion on her part was the result. How, in the
Babylonian legends, this conflict ended, the reader of the foregoing pages
knows, and after her downfall and destruction or subjugation, she retained
her productive power under the immediate control and direction of the gods
under whose dominion she had fallen.
Tiamtu is represented in the Old Testament by _tehôm_, which occurs in
Gen. i. 2, where both the Authorised and Revised Versions translate “the
deep.” The Hebrew form of the word, however, is not quite the same, the
Assyrian feminine ending being absent.
To all appearance the legend of Tiamtu was well known all over Western
Asia. As Gunkel and Zimmern have shown, there is a reference thereto in
Ps. lxxxix. 10, where Rahab, who was broken in pieces, is referred to, and
under the same name she appears also in Isaiah li. 9, with the additional
statement that she is the dragon who was pierced; likewise in Job xxvi. 12
and ix. 13, where her followers are said to be referred to; in Ps. lxxiv.
14 the dragon whose heads (a plural probably typifying the diverse forms
under which Nature’s creative power appears) are spoken of. Tiamtu, as
Rahab and the dragon, therefore played a part in Hebrew legends of old as
great, perhaps, as in the mythology of Babylonia, where she seems to have
originated.
CHAPTER II. THE HISTORY, AS GIVEN IN THE BIBLE, FROM THE CREATION TO THE
FLOOD.
Eden—The so-called second story of the Creation and the bilingual
Babylonian account—The four rivers—The tree of life—The
Temptation—The Cherubim—Cain and Abel—The names of the Patriarchs
from Enoch to Noah.
“And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the
man whom He had formed.” There also He made every pleasant and good tree
to grow, including the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and
evil. A river came out of Eden to water the garden, and this river was
afterwards divided into four smaller streams, the Pishon, flowing round
“the Hawilah,” a land of gold (which was good) and bdellium and onyx
stone; the Gihon, flowing round the whole land of Cush; the Hiddekel or
Tigris, and the Euphrates.
It is to be noted that it was not the garden itself that was called Eden,
but the district in which it lay. The river too seems to have risen in the
same tract, and was divided at some indeterminate point, either in the
land of Eden or on its borders.
The whereabouts of the Garden of Eden and its rivers has been so many
times discussed, and so many diverse opinions prevail concerning them,
that there is no need at present to add to these theories yet another,
more or less probable. Indeed, in the present work, theories will be kept
in the background as much as possible, and prominence given to such facts
as recent discoveries have revealed to us.
It had long been known that one of the Akkadian names for “plain” was
_edina_, and that that word had been borrowed by the Babylonians under the
form of _êdinnu_, but it was Prof. Delitzsch, the well-known
Assyriologist, who first pointed out to a disbelieving world that this
must be the Eden of Genesis. The present writer thought this
identification worthless until he had the privilege of examining the
tablets acquired by Dr. Hayes Ward in Babylonia on the occasion of his
conducting the Wolfe expedition. Among the fragments of tablets that he
then brought back was a list of cities in the Akkadian language (the
Semitic Babylonian column was unfortunately broken away) which gave the
following—
Transcription. Translation.
Sipar, D.S. Sippara.
Sipar Edina, D.S. Sippara of Eden.
Sipar uldua, D.S. Sippara the everlasting.
Sipar Šamaš, D.S. Sippara of the Sun-god.
Here at last was the word Eden used as a geographical name, showing that
the explanation of Delitzsch was not only plausible, but also, in all
probability, true in substance and in fact. Less satisfactory, however,
were the learned Professor’s identifications of the rivers of Eden, for he
regards the Pishon and the Gihon as canals—the former being the Pallacopas
(the Pallukatu of the Babylonian inscriptions), and the latter the Guḫandê
(also called the Araḫtu, now identified with a large canal running through
Babylon). He conjectured that it might be the waterway known as the Shatt
en-Nîl. Whatever doubt, however, attaches to his identifications of the
rivers, he seems certainly to be right with regard to the Biblical Eden,
and this is a decided gain, for it locates the position of that district
beyond a doubt.
To Prof. Sayce belongs the honour of identifying the Babylonian story of
the nature and position of Paradise as they conceived it, and here we have
another example of the important details that the incantation-tablets may
contain concerning beliefs not otherwise preserved to us, for the text in
question, like the bilingual story of the Creation, is simply an
introduction to a text of that nature. This interesting record, to which I
have been able to add a few additional words since Prof. Sayce first gave
his translation of it to the world, is as follows—
“Incantation: ‘(In) Êridu a dark vine grew, it was made in a
glorious place,
Its appearance (as) lapis-lazuli, planted beside the Abyss,
Which is Ae’s path, filling Êridu with fertility.
Its seat is the (central) point of the earth,
Its dwelling is the couch of Nammu.
In the glorious house, which is like a forest, its shadow extends,
No man enters its midst.
In its interior is the Sun-god Tammuz.
Between the mouths of the rivers (which are) on both sides.’ ”
The lines which follow show how this plant, which was a miraculous remedy,
was to be used in the cure of a sick man. It was to be placed upon his
head, and beneficent spirits would then come and stay with him, whilst the
evil ones would stand aside.
From the introductory lines above translated, we see that Êridu, “the good
city,” which Sir Henry Rawlinson recognized many years ago as a type of
paradise, was, to the Babylonians, as a garden of Eden, wherein grew a
glorious tree, to all appearance a vine, for the adjective “dark” may very
reasonably be regarded as referring to its fruit. Strange must have been
its appearance, for it is described as resembling “white lapis-lazuli,”
that is, the beautiful stone of that kind mottled blue and white. The
probability that it was conceived by the Babylonians as a garden is
strengthened by the fact that the god Aê, and his path, _i.e._ the rivers,
filled the place with fertility, and it was, moreover, the abode of the
river-god Nammu, whose streams, the Tigris and Euphrates, flowed on both
sides. There, too, dwelt the Sun, making the garden fruitful with his
ever-vivifying beams, whilst “the peerless mother of heaven,” as Tammuz
seems to be called, added, by fructifying showers, to the fertility that
the two great rivers brought down from the mountains from which they
flowed. To complete still further the parallel with the Biblical Eden, it
was represented as a place to which access was forbidden, for “no man
entered its midst,” as in the case of the Garden of Eden after the fall.
Though one cannot be dogmatic in the presence of the imperfect records
that we possess, it is worthy of note that Eden does not occur as the name
of the earthly paradise in any of the texts referring to the Creation that
have come down to us; and though it is to be found in the bilingual story
of the Creation, it there occurs simply as the equivalent of the Semitic
word _ṣêrim_ in the phrase “he (Merodach) made the verdure of the
_plain_.” That we shall ultimately find other instances of Eden as a
geographical name, occurring by itself, and not in composition with
another word (as in the expression _Sipar Edina_), and even a reference to
_gannat Edinni_, “the Garden of Eden,” is to be expected.
Schrader(5) has pointed out that whilst in Eden the river bears no name,
it is only after it has left the sacred region that it is divided, and
then each separate branch received a name. So, also, in the Babylonian
description of the Eridu, the rivers were unnamed, though one guesses that
the Tigris and the Euphrates are meant. The expression, “the mouth of the
rivers [that are on] both sides” (_pî nârãti ... kilallan_), recalls to
the mind the fact, that it was to “a remote place at the mouth of the
rivers” that the Babylonian Noah (Pir-napištim) was translated after the
Flood, when the gods conferred upon him the gift of immortality. To all
appearance, therefore, Gilgameš, the ancient Babylonian hero who visited
the immortal sage, entered into the tract regarded by the Babylonians of
old times as being set apart for the abode of the blessed after their
journeyings on this world should cease.
The connection of the stream which was “the path of Ae” with Eridu, seems
to have been very close, for in the bilingual story of the Creation the
flowing of the stream is made to be the immediate precursor of the
building of Êridu and Êsagila, “the lofty-headed temple” within it—
“When within the sea there was a stream,
In that day Êridu was made, Êsagila was built—
Êsagila which the god Lugal-du-azaga had founded within the
Abyss.”
In this Babylonian Creation-story it is a question of a stream and two
rivers. In Genesis it is a question of a river and four branches. The
parallelism is sufficiently close to be noteworthy and to show, beyond a
doubt, that the Babylonians had the same accounts of the Creation and
descriptions of the circumstances concerning it, as the Hebrews, though
told in a different way, and in a different connection.
Two trees are mentioned in the Biblical account of the Creation, “the tree
of life” and “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” By the eating
of the former, a man would live for ever, and the latter would confer upon
him that knowledge which God alone was supposed to possess, namely, of
good and evil, carrying with it, however, the disadvantage of the loss of
that innocence which he formerly possessed. Like the Hebrews, the
Babylonians and Assyrians also had their sacred trees, but whether they
attached to them the same deep significance as the Hebrews did to theirs
we do not know. Certain, however, it is, that they had beliefs concerning
them that were analogous.
The most familiar form of the sacred tree is that employed by the
Assyrians, to a certain extent as a decorative ornament, on the sculptured
slabs that adorned the walls of the royal palaces. This was the curious
conglomeration of knots and leaves which various figures—winged genii with
horned hats emblematic of divinity, eagle-headed figures, etc.—worship,
and to which they make offerings, and touch with a conical object
resembling the fruit of the fir or pine. An ingenious suggestion has been
made to the effect that the genius with the pine-cone is represented in
the act of fructifying the tree with the pollen (in an idealized form)
from the flowers of another tree, just as it is necessary to fructify the
date-palm from the pollen of the flowers growing on the “male” tree. This,
however, can hardly be the true explanation of the mystic act represented,
as similar genii are shown on other slabs not only holding out the conical
object as if to touch therewith the figure of the king, but also doing the
same thing to the effigies of the great winged bulls. Of course, the
fructification of the king would be not only a possible representation to
carve in alabaster, but one that we might even expect to find among the
royal sculptures. The fructification of a winged bull, however, is quite a
different thing, and in the highest degree improbable, unless the divine
bull were a kind of representation of the king, which, though possible, is
at present unprovable.
This symbolic scene, therefore, remains still a mystery for scholars to
explain when they obtain the material to do so. It seems to be a
peculiarly Assyrian design, for the offering of a pine-cone or
similarly-shaped object to the sacred tree has not yet been found in
Babylonian art. The Babylonian sacred tree is, moreover, a much more
natural-looking object than the curious combination of knots and
honeysuckle-shaped flowers found in the sculptures of Assyria. As in the
case of the tree shown in the picture of the Temptation, described below,
the sacred tree of the Babylonians often takes the form of a palm-tree, or
something very like one. (See pl. III.)
As has been already remarked, the tree of Paradise of the Babylonians was,
to all appearance, a vine, described as being in colour like blue and
white mottled lapis-lazuli, and apparently bearing fruit (grapes) of a
dark colour. That the Babylonian tree of life was a vine is supported by
the fact that the ideograms composing the word for “wine” are _geš-tin_
(for _kaš-tin_), “drink of life,” and “the vine,” _giš geš-tin_, “tree of
the drink of life.” In the text describing the Babylonian Paradise and its
divine tree, the name of the latter is given as _kiškanû_ in Semitic, and
_giš-kin_ or _giš-kan_ in Akkadian, a word mentioned in the bilingual
lists among plants of the vine species. Whether the Hebrews regarded the
tree of life as having been a vine or not, cannot at present be decided,
but it is very probable that they had the same ideas as the Babylonians in
the matter.
It is noteworthy, in this connection, that the Babylonians also believed
that there still existed in the world a plant (they do not seem to have
regarded it as a tree) which “would make an old man young again.” Judging
from the statements concerning it, one would imagine that it was a kind of
thorn-bush. As we shall see later, when treating of the story of the
Flood, it was this plant which the Chaldean Noah gave the hero Gilgameš
instructions how to find—for the desire to become young again had seized
him—and he seems to have succeeded in possessing himself of it, only to
lose it again almost immediately, for a lion, coming that way at a time
when Gilgameš was otherwise occupied, carried it off—to his own benefit,
as the hero remarks, for he naturally supposed that the lion who had
seized the plant would have his life renewed, and prey all the longer upon
the people.
The title of a lost legend, “When the _kiškanû_ (? vine, see above) grew
in the land” (referring, perhaps, to the tree of life which grew in
Êridu), leads one to ask whether “The legend of Nisaba (the corn-deity)
and the date-palm,” and “The legend of the _luluppu_-tree” may not also
refer to sacred trees, bearing upon the question of the tree of knowledge
referred to in Gen. ii. As, however, the titles (generally a portion of
the first line only) are all that are at present preserved, there is
nothing to be done but wait patiently until it pleases Providence to make
them further known to us.
The _kiškanû_ was of three kinds, white (_piṣu_), black (_ṣalmi_), as in
the description of the tree of Paradise, and grey or blue (_sâmi_). In
view of there being these three colours, it would seem that they refer
rather to the fruit of the tree than to the tree itself. Now the only
plant growing in the country and having these three colours of fruit, is
the vine. Of course, this raises the question whether (1) the _kiškanû_ is
a synonym of _gištin_ or _karanu_, or (2) the word _gištin_, which is
generally rendered “vine,” is, in reality, correctly translated. Whatever
be the true explanation, one thing is certain, namely, that in the
description of Paradise, the word black or dark (_ṣalmu_), applied to the
tree there mentioned, cannot refer to the tree itself, for that is
described as being like “white lapis” (_uknū êbbu_), a beautiful stone
mottled blue and white.
[Plate III A.]
Babylonian Mythological Composition. Impression of a cylinder-seal showing
a male figure on the right and a bull-man on the left, holding erect bulls
by the horns and tails. In the centre is a form of the sacred tree on a
hill. Date about 2500 B.C. British Museum.
[Plate III B.]
Babylonian Mythological Composition. Impression of a cylinder-seal showing
Istar, goddess of love and of war as archeress, standing on the back of a
lion, which turns its head to caress her feet. Before her is a worshipper
(priest) and two goats (reversed to form a symmetrical design), leaping.
Behind her is a date-palm. Date about 650 B.C. British Museum.
Among other trees of a sacred nature is “the cedar beloved of the great
gods,” mentioned in an inscription of a religious or ceremonial nature,
though exactly in what connection the imperfectness of the document does
not enable us to see. It would seem, however, that there were certain
priests or seers to whom was confided the “tablet of the gods,” containing
the secret of the heavens and earth (probably the “tablet of fate,” which
Merodach took from the husband of Tiamat after his fight with her for the
dominion of the universe). These persons, who seem to have been the
descendants of En-we-dur-an-ki (the Euedoranchos of Berosus), king of
Sippar, were those to whom was confided “the cedar beloved of the great
gods”—perhaps a kind of sceptre. They had, however, not only to be of
noble race, but also perfect physically and free from every defect and
disease. Moreover, one who did not keep the command of Šamaš and Addu
(Hadad) could not approach the place of Ae, Šamaš, Marduk, and Nin-edina,
nor the number of the brothers who were to enter the seership; they were
not to reveal to him the word of the oracle, and “the cedar beloved of the
great gods” was not to be delivered into his hands.
There is hardly any doubt, then, that we have here the long-sought
parallel to the Biblical “tree of knowledge,” for that, too, was in the
domain of “the lord of knowledge,” the god Ae, and also in the land which
might be described as that of “the lord of Eden,” the “hidden place of
heaven and earth” for all the sons of Adam, who are no longer allowed to
enter into that earthly Paradise wherein their first parents gained, at
such a cost, the knowledge, imperfect as it must have been, and evidently
undesirable, which they handed down to their successors.
Adam.
The name of the first man, Adam, is one that has tried the learning of the
most noted Hebraists to explain satisfactorily. It was formerly regarded
as being derived from the root _ādam_, “to be red,” but this explanation
has been given up in favour of the root _ādam_, “to make, produce,” man
being conceived as “the created one.” This etymology is that put forward
by the Assyriologist Fried. Delitzsch, who quotes the Assyrian _âdmu_,
“young bird,” and _âdmi summāti_, “young doves,” literally, “the young of
doves,” though he does not seem to refer the Assyrian _udumu_, “monkey,”
to the same root. He also quotes, apparently from memory, the evidence of
a fragment of a bilingual list found by Mr. Rassam, in which Adam is
explained by the usual Babylonian word for “man,” _amēlu_.