{'Apason---Tauthe} Apsû---Tiamat
|
{Moumis} Mummu
{Lakhos---Lakhe}(2) Lakhmu---Lakhamu
{'Assoros---Kissare} Anshar---Kishar
{'Anos, 'Illinos, 'Aos} Anu, ( ), Nudimmud (= Ea)
{'Aos---Dauke}
|
{Belos}
(1) _Quaestiones de primis principiis_, cap. 125; ed. Kopp,
p. 384.
(2) Emended from the reading {Dakhen kai Dakhon} of the
text.
In the passage of the poem which describes the birth of the great gods
after the last pair of primaeval deities, mention is duly made of Anu
and Nudimmud (the latter a title of Ea), corresponding to the {'Anos}
and {'Aos} of Damascius; and there appears to be no reference to Enlil,
the original of {'Illinos}. It is just possible that his name occurred
at the end of one of the broken lines, and, if so, we should have a
complete parallel to Damascius. But the traces are not in favour of the
restoration;(1) and the omission of Enlil's name from this part of
the poem may be readily explained as a further tribute to Marduk, who
definitely usurps his place throughout the subsequent narrative. Anu and
Ea had both to be mentioned because of the parts they play in the Epic,
but Enlil's only recorded appearance is in the final assembly of the
gods, where he bestows his own name "the Lord of the World"(2) upon
Marduk. The evidence of Damascius suggests that Enlil's name was here
retained, between those of Anu and Ea, in other versions of the poem.
But the occurrence of the name in any version is in itself evidence
of the antiquity of this strand of the narrative. It is a legitimate
inference that the myth of the Birth of the Gods goes back to a time at
least before the rise of Babylon, and is presumably of Sumerian origin.
(1) Anu and Nudimmud are each mentioned for the first time
at the beginning of a line, and the three lines following
the reference to Nudimmud are entirely occupied with
descriptions of his wisdom and power. It is also probable
that the three preceding lines (ll. 14-16), all of which
refer to Anu by name, were entirely occupied with his
description. But it is only in ll. 13-16 that any reference
to Enlil can have occurred, and the traces preserved of
their second halves do not suggestion the restoration.
(2) Cf. Tabl. VII, . 116.
Further evidence of this may be seen in the fact that Anu, Enlil, and Ea
(i.e. Enki), who are here created together, are the three great gods of
the Sumerian Version of Creation; it is they who create mankind with the
help of the goddess Ninkharsagga, and in the fuller version of that myth
we should naturally expect to find some account of their own origin. The
reference in Damascius to Marduk ({Belos}) as the son of Ea and Damkina
({Dauke}) is also of interest in this connexion, as it exhibits a
goddess in close connexion with one of the three great gods, much as
we find Ninkharsagga associated with them in the Sumerian Version.(1)
Before leaving the names, it may be added that, of the primaeval
deities, Anshar and Kishar are obviously Sumerian in form.
(1) Damkina was the later wife of Ea or Enki; and
Ninkharsagga is associated with Enki, as his consort, in
another Sumerian myth.
It may be noted that the character of Apsû and Tiamat in this portion of
the poem(1) is quite at variance with their later actions. Their revolt
at the ordered "way" of the gods was a necessary preliminary to the
incorporation of the Dragon myths, in which Ea and Marduk are the
heroes. Here they appear as entirely beneficent gods of the primaeval
water, undisturbed by storms, in whose quiet depths the equally
beneficent deities Lakhmu and Lakhamu, Anshar and Kishar, were
generated.(2) This interpretation, by the way, suggests a more
satisfactory restoration for the close of the ninth line of the poem
than any that has yet been proposed. That line is usually taken to imply
that the gods were created "in the midst of (heaven)", but I think the
following rendering, in connexion with ll. 1-5, gives better sense:
When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not bear a name,
And the primaeval Apsû who begat them,(3)
And Mummu, and Tiamat who bore them(3) all,--
Their waters were mingled together,
. . .
. . .
. . .
Then were created the gods in the midst of (their waters),(4)
Lakhmu and Lakhamu were called into being . . .
(1) Tabl. I, ll. 1-21.
(2) We may perhaps see a survival of Tiamat's original
character in her control of the Tablets of Fate. The poem
does not represent her as seizing them in any successful
fight; they appear to be already hers to bestow on Kingu,
though in the later mythology they are "not his by right"
(cf. Tabl. I, ll. 137 ff., and Tabl. IV, l. 121).
(3) i.e. the gods.
(4) The ninth line is preserved only on a Neo-Babylonian
duplicate (_Seven Tablets_, Vol. II, pl. i). I suggested the
restoration _ki-rib (a-ma-mi)_, "in the midst of heaven",
as possible, since the traces of the first sign in the last
word of the line seemed to be those of the Neo-Babylonian
form of _a_. The restoration appeared at the time not
altogether satisfactory in view of the first line of the
poem, and it could only be justified by supposing that
_amâmu_, or "heaven", was already vaguely conceived as in
existence (op. cit., Vol. I, p. 3, n. 14). But the traces of
the sign, as I have given them (op. cit., Vol. II, pl. i),
may also possibly be those of the Neo-Babylonian form of the
sign _me_; and I would now restore the end of the line in
the Neo-Babylonian tablet as _ki-rib m(e-e-u-nu)_, "in the
midst of (their waters)", corresponding to the form _mu-u-
u-nu_ in l. 5 of this duplicate. In the Assyrian Version
_mé(pl)-u-nu_ would be read in both lines. It will be
possible to verify the new reading, by a re-examination of
the traces on the tablet, when the British Museum
collections again become available for study after the war.
If the ninth line of the poem be restored as suggested, its account of
the Birth of the Gods will be found to correspond accurately with
the summary from Berossus, who, in explaining the myth, refers to the
Babylonian belief that the universe consisted at first of moisture
in which living creatures, such as he had already described, were
generated.(1) The primaeval waters are originally the source of life,
not of destruction, and it is in them that the gods are born, as in
Egyptian mythology; there Nu, the primaeval water-god from whom Ra was
self-created, never ceased to be the Sun-god's supporter. The change in
the Babylonian conception was obviously introduced by the combination of
the Dragon myth with that of Creation, a combination that in Egypt
would never have been justified by the gentle Nile. From a study of some
aspects of the names at the beginning of the Babylonian poem we have
already seen reason to suspect that its version of the Birth of the Gods
goes back to Sumerian times, and it is pertinent to ask whether we have
any further evidence that in Sumerian belief water was the origin of all
things.
(1) {ugrou gar ontos tou pantos kai zoon en auto
gegennemenon (toionde) ktl}. His creatures of the primaeval
water were killed by the light; and terrestrial animals were
then created which could bear (i.e. breathe and exist in)
the air.
For many years we have possessed a Sumerian myth of Creation, which has
come to us on a late Babylonian tablet as the introductory section of
an incantation. It is provided with a Semitic translation, and to judge
from its record of the building of Babylon and Egasila, Marduk's temple,
and its identification of Marduk himself with the Creator, it has
clearly undergone some editing at the hands of the Babylonian priests.
Moreover, the occurrence of various episodes out of their logical order,
and the fact that the text records twice over the creation of swamps and
marshes, reeds and trees or forests, animals and cities, indicate that
two Sumerian myths have been combined. Thus we have no guarantee that
the other cities referred to by name in the text, Nippur, Erech, and
Eridu, are mentioned in any significant connexion with each other.(1) Of
the actual cause of Creation the text appears to give two versions also,
one in its present form impersonal, and the other carried out by a
god. But these two accounts are quite unlike the authorized version
of Babylon, and we may confidently regard them as representing genuine
Sumerian myths. The text resembles other early accounts of Creation by
introducing its narrative with a series of negative statements, which
serve to indicate the preceding non-existence of the world, as will be
seen from the following extract:(2)
No city had been created, no creature had been made,
Nippur had not been created, Ekur had not been built,
Erech had not been created, Eanna had not been built,
Apsû had not been created, Eridu had not been built,
Of the holy house, the house of the gods, the habitation had not
been created.
All lands(3) were sea.
At the time when a channel (was formed) in the midst of the sea,
Then was Eridu created, Esagila built, etc.
Here we have the definite statement that before Creation all the world
was sea. And it is important to note that the primaeval water is not
personified; the ordinary Sumerian word for "sea" is employed, which
the Semitic translator has faithfully rendered in his version of
the text.(4) The reference to a channel in the sea, as the cause of
Creation, seems at first sight a little obscure; but the word implies
a "drain" or "water-channel", not a current of the sea itself, and the
reference may be explained as suggested by the drainage of a flood-area.
No doubt the phrase was elaborated in the original myth, and it is
possible that what appears to be a second version of Creation later on
in the text is really part of the more detailed narrative of the
first myth. There the Creator himself is named. He is the Sumerian god
Gilimma, and in the Semitic translation Marduk's name is substituted. To
the following couplet, which describes Gilimma's method of creation,
is appended a further extract from a later portion of the text, there
evidently displaced, giving additional details of the Creator's work:
Gilimma bound reeds in the face of the waters,
He formed soil and poured it out beside the reeds.(5)
(He)(6) filled in a dike by the side of the sea,
(He . . .) a swamp, he formed a marsh.
(. . .), he brought into existence,
(Reeds he form)ed,(7) trees he created.
(1) The composite nature of the text is discussed by
Professor Jastrow in his _Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions_,
pp. 89 ff.; and in his paper in the _Journ. Amer. Or. Soc._,
Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 279 ff.; he has analysed it into two
main versions, which he suggests originated in Eridu and
Nippur respectively. The evidence of the text does not
appear to me to support the view that any reference to a
watery chaos preceding Creation must necessarily be of
Semitic origin. For the literature of the text (first
published by Pinches, _Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc._, Vol. XXIII,
pp. 393 ff.), see _Sev. Tabl._, Vol. I, p. 130.
(2) Obv., ll. 5-12.
(3) Sum. _nigin-kur-kur-ra-ge_, Sem. _nap-har ma-ta-a-tu_,
lit. "all lands", i.e. Sumerian and Babylonian expressions
for "the world".
(4) Sum. _a-ab-ba_, "sea", is here rendered by _tâmtum_, not
by its personified equivalent Tiamat.
(5) The suggestion has been made that _amu_, the word in the
Semitic version here translated "reeds", should be connected
with _ammatu_, the word used for "earth" or "dry land" in
the Babylonian Creation Series, Tabl. I, l. 2, and given
some such meaning as "expanse". The couplet is thus
explained to mean that the god made an expanse on the face
of the waters, and then poured out dust "on the expanse".
But the Semitic version in l. 18 reads _itti ami_, "beside
the _a._", not _ina ami_, "on the _a._"; and in any case
there does not seem much significance in the act of pouring
out specially created dust on or beside land already formed.
The Sumerian word translated by _amu_ is written _gi-dir_,
with the element _gi_, "reed", in l. 17, and though in the
following line it is written under its variant form _a-dir_
without _gi_, the equation _gi-a-dir_ = _amu_ is elsewhere
attested (cf. Delitzsch, _Handwörterbuch_, p. 77). In favour
of regarding _amu_ as some sort of reed, here used
collectively, it may be pointed out that the Sumerian verb
in l. 17 is _keda_, "to bind", accurately rendered by
_rakau_ in the Semitic version. Assuming that l. 34 belongs
to the same account, the creation of reeds in general beside
trees, after dry land is formed, would not of course be at
variance with the god's use of some sort of reed in his
first act of creation. He creates the reed-bundles, as he
creates the soil, both of which go to form the first dike;
the reed-beds, like the other vegetation, spring up from the
ground when it appears.
(6) The Semitic version here reads "the lord Marduk"; the
corresponding name in the Sumerian text is not preserved.
(7) The line is restored from l. 2 o the obverse of the
text.
Here the Sumerian Creator is pictured as forming dry land from the
primaeval water in much the same way as the early cultivator in the
Euphrates Valley procured the rich fields for his crops. The existence
of the earth is here not really presupposed. All the world was sea until
the god created land out of the waters by the only practical method that
was possible in Mesopotamia.
In another Sumerian myth, which has been recovered on one of the early
tablets from Nippur, we have a rather different picture of beginnings.
For there, though water is the source of life, the existence of the
land is presupposed. But it is bare and desolate, as in the Mesopotamian
season of "low water". The underlying idea is suggestive of a period
when some progress in systematic irrigation had already been made, and
the filling of the dry canals and subsequent irrigation of the parched
ground by the rising flood of Enki was not dreaded but eagerly desired.
The myth is only one of several that have been combined to form the
introductory sections of an incantation; but in all of them Enki, the
god of the deep water, plays the leading part, though associated with
different consorts.(1) The incantation is directed against various
diseases, and the recitation of the closing mythical section was
evidently intended to enlist the aid of special gods in combating them.
The creation of these deities is recited under set formulae in a sort of
refrain, and the divine name assigned to each bears a magical connexion
with the sickness he or she is intended to dispel.(2)
(1) See Langdon, Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect.,
Vol. X, No. 1 (1915), pl. i f., pp. 69 ff.; _Journ. Amer.
Or. Soc._, Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 140 ff.; cf. Prince,
_Journ. Amer. Or. Soc._, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 90 ff.; Jastrow,
_Journ. Amer. Or. Soc._, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 122 ff., and in
particular his detailed study of the text in _Amer. Journ.
Semit. Lang._, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 91 ff. Dr. Langdon's first
description of the text, in _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, Vol.
XXXVI (1914), pp. 188 ff., was based on a comparatively
small fragment only; and on his completion of the text from
other fragments in Pennsylvania. Professor Sayce at once
realized that the preliminary diagnosis of a Deluge myth
could not be sustained (cf. _Expos. Times_, Nov., 1915, pp.
88 ff.). He, Professor Prince, and Professor Jastrow
independently showed that the action of Enki in the myth in
sending water on the land was not punitive but beneficent;
and the preceding section, in which animals are described as
not performing their usual activities, was shown
independently by Professor Prince and Professor Jastrow to
have reference, not to their different nature in an ideal
existence in Paradise, but, on familiar lines, to their non-
existence in a desolate land. It may be added that Professor
Barton and Dr. Peters agree generally with Professor Prince
and Professor Jastrow in their interpretation of the text,
which excludes the suggested biblical parallels; and I
understand from Dr. Langdon that he very rightly recognizes
that the text is not a Deluge myth. It is a subject for
congratulation that the discussion has materially increased
our knowledge of this difficult composition.
(2) Cf. Col. VI, ll. 24 ff.; thus _Ab_-u was created for the
sickness of the cow (_ab_); Nin-_tul_ for that of the flock
(u-_tul_); Nin-_ka_-u-tu and Nin-_ka_-si for that of the
mouth (_ka_); Na-zi for that of the _na-zi_ (meaning
uncertain); _Da zi_-ma for that of the _da-zi_ (meaning
uncertain); Nin-_til_ for that of _til_ (life); the name of
the eighth and last deity is imperfectly preserved.
We have already noted examples of a similar use of myth in magic, which
was common to both Egypt and Babylonia; and to illustrate its employment
against disease, as in the Nippur document, it will suffice to cite
a well-known magical cure for the toothache which was adopted in
Babylon.(1) There toothache was believed to be caused by the gnawing of
a worm in the gum, and a myth was used in the incantation to relieve
it. The worm's origin is traced from Anu, the god of heaven, through
a descending scale of creation; Anu, the heavens, the earth, rivers,
canals and marshes are represented as each giving rise to the next in
order, until finally the marshes produce the worm. The myth then relates
how the worm, on being offered tempting food by Ea in answer to her
prayer, asked to be allowed to drink the blood of the teeth, and the
incantation closes by invoking the curse of Ea because of the worm's
misguided choice. It is clear that power over the worm was obtained by a
recital of her creation and of her subsequent ingratitude, which led to
her present occupation and the curse under which she laboured. When the
myth and invocation had been recited three times over the proper mixture
of beer, a plant, and oil, and the mixture had been applied to the
offending tooth, the worm would fall under the spell of the curse and
the patient would at once gain relief. The example is instructive,
as the connexion of ideas is quite clear. In the Nippur document the
recital of the creation of the eight deities evidently ensured their
presence, and a demonstration of the mystic bond between their names
and the corresponding diseases rendered the working of their powers
effective. Our knowledge of a good many other myths is due solely to
their magical employment.
(1) See Thompson, _Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia_,
Vol. II, pp. 160 ff.; for a number of other examples, see
Jastrow, _J.A.O.S._, Vol. XXXVI, p. 279, n. 7.
Perhaps the most interesting section of the new text is one in which
divine instructions are given in the use of plants, the fruit or roots
of which may be eaten. Here Usmû, a messenger from Enki, God of the
Deep, names eight such plants by Enki's orders, thereby determining the
character of each. As Professor Jastrow has pointed out, the passage
forcibly recalls the story from Berossus, concerning the mythical
creature Oannes, who came up from the Erythraean Sea, where it borders
upon Babylonia, to instruct mankind in all things, including "seeds and
the gathering of fruits".(1) But the only part of the text that concerns
us here is the introductory section, where the life-giving flood, by
which the dry fields are irrigated, is pictured as following the union
of the water-deities, Enki and Ninella.(2) Professor Jastrow is right in
emphasizing the complete absence of any conflict in this Sumerian
myth of beginnings; but, as with the other Sumerian Versions we have
examined, it seems to me there is no need to seek its origin elsewhere
than in the Euphrates Valley.
(1) Cf. Jastrow, _J.A.O.S._, Vol. XXXVI, p. 127, and
_A.J.S.L._, Vol. XXXIII, p. 134 f. It may be added that the
divine naming of the plants also presents a faint parallel
to the naming of the beasts and birds by man himself in Gen.
ii. 19 f.
(2) Professor Jastrow (_A.J.S.L._, Vol. XXXIII, p. 115)
compares similar myths collected by Sir James Frazer (_Magic
Art_, Vol. II, chap. xi and chap. xii, § 2). He also notes
the parallel the irrigation myth presents to the mist (or
flood) of the earlier Hebrew Version (Gen. ii. 5 f). But
Enki, like Ea, was no rain-god; he had his dwellings in the
Euphrates and the Deep.
Even in later periods, when the Sumerian myths of Creation had been
superseded by that of Babylon, the Euphrates never ceased to be regarded
as the source of life and the creator of all things. And this is
well brought out in the following introductory lines of a Semitic
incantation, of which we possess two Neo-Babylonian copies:(1)
O thou River, who didst create all things,
When the great gods dug thee out,
They set prosperity upon thy banks,
Within thee Ea, King of the Deep, created his dwelling.
The Flood they sent not before thou wert!
Here the river as creator is sharply distinguished from the Flood; and
we may conclude that the water of the Euphrates Valley impressed the
early Sumerians, as later the Semites, with its creative as well as with
its destructive power. The reappearance of the fertile soil, after the
receding inundation, doubtless suggested the idea of creation out of
water, and the stream's slow but automatic fall would furnish a model
for the age-long evolution of primaeval deities. When a god's active and
artificial creation of the earth must be portrayed, it would have been
natural for the primitive Sumerian to picture the Creator working as
he himself would work when he reclaimed a field from flood. We are thus
shown the old Sumerian god Gilimma piling reed-bundles in the water and
heaping up soil beside them, till the ground within his dikes dries off
and produces luxuriant vegetation. But here there is a hint of struggle
in the process, and we perceive in it the myth-redactor's opportunity
to weave in the Dragon _motif_. No such excuse is afforded by the other
Sumerian myth, which pictures the life-producing inundation as the gift
of the two deities of the Deep and the product of their union.
But in their other aspect the rivers of Mesopotamia could be terrible;
and the Dragon _motif_ itself, on the Tigris and Euphrates, drew its
imagery as much from flood as from storm. When therefore a single deity
must be made to appear, not only as Creator, but also as the champion
of his divine allies and the conqueror of other gods, it was inevitable
that the myths attaching to the waters under their two aspects should be
combined. This may already have taken place at Nippur, when Enlil
became the head of the pantheon; but the existence of his myth is
conjectural.(1) In a later age we can trace the process in the light of
history and of existing texts. There Marduk, identified wholly as the
Sun-god, conquers the once featureless primaeval water, which in the
process of redaction has now become the Dragon of flood and storm.
(1) The aspect of Enlil as the Creator of Vegetation is
emphasized in Tablet VII of the Babylonian poem of Creation.
It is significant that his first title, Asara, should be
interpreted as "Bestower of planting", "Founder of sowing",
"Creator of grain and plants", "He who caused the green herb
to spring up" (cf. _Seven Tablets_, Vol. I, p. 92 f.). These
opening phrases, by which the god is hailed, strike the key-
note of the whole composition. It is true that, as Sukh-kur,
he is "Destroyer of the foe"; but the great majority of the
titles and their Semitic glosses refer to creative
activities, not to the Dragon myth.
Thus the dualism which is so characteristic a feature of the
Semitic-Babylonian system, though absent from the earliest Sumerian
ideas of Creation, was inherent in the nature of the local rivers, whose
varied aspects gave rise to or coloured separate myths. Its presence
in the later mythology may be traced as a reflection of political
development, at first probably among the warring cities of Sumer, but
certainly later in the Semitic triumph at Babylon. It was but to
be expected that the conqueror, whether Sumerian or Semite, should
represent his own god's victory as the establishment of order out of
chaos. But this would be particularly in harmony with the character of
the Semitic Babylonians of the First Dynasty, whose genius for method
and organization produced alike Hammurabi's Code of Laws and the
straight streets of the capital.
We have thus been able to trace the various strands of the
Semitic-Babylonian poem of Creation to Sumerian origins; and in the
second lecture we arrived at a very similar conclusion with regard to
the Semitic-Babylonian Version of the Deluge preserved in the Epic of
Gilgamesh. We there saw that the literary structure of the Sumerian
Version, in which Creation and Deluge are combined, must have survived
under some form into the Neo-Babylonian period, since it was reproduced
by Berossus. And we noted the fact that the same arrangement in Genesis
did not therefore prove that the Hebrew accounts go back directly to
early Sumerian originals. In fact, the structural resemblance presented
by Genesis can only be regarded as an additional proof that the
Sumerian originals continued to be studied and translated by the Semitic
priesthood, although they had long been superseded officially by their
later descendants, the Semitic epics. A detailed comparison of the
Creation and Deluge narratives in the various versions at once discloses
the fact that the connexion between those of the Semitic Babylonians
and the Hebrews is far closer and more striking than that which can be
traced when the latter are placed beside the Sumerian originals. We may
therefore regard it as certain that the Hebrews derived their knowledge
of Sumerian tradition, not directly from the Sumerians themselves, but
through Semitic channels from Babylon.
It will be unnecessary here to go in detail through the points of
resemblance that are admitted to exist between the Hebrew account of
Creation in the first chapter of Genesis and that preserved in the
"Seven Tablets".(1) It will suffice to emphasize two of them, which gain
in significance through our newly acquired knowledge of early Sumerian
beliefs. It must be admitted that, on first reading the poem, one is
struck more by the differences than by the parallels; but that is due
to the polytheistic basis of the poem, which attracts attention when
compared with the severe and dignified monotheism of the Hebrew writer.
And if allowance be made for the change in theological standpoint, the
material points of resemblance are seen to be very marked. The outline
or general course of events is the same. In both we have an abyss of
waters at the beginning denoted by almost the same Semitic word, the
Hebrew _tehôm_, translated "the deep" in Gen. i. 2, being the equivalent
of the Semitic-Babylonian _Tiamat_, the monster of storm and flood who
presents so striking a contrast to the Sumerian primaeval water.(2) The
second act of Creation in the Hebrew narrative is that of a "firmament",
which divided the waters under it from those above.(3) But this, as we
have seen, has no parallel in the early Sumerian conception until it was
combined with the Dragon combat in the form in which we find it in the
Babylonian poem. There the body of Tiamat is divided by Marduk, and from
one half of her he constructs a covering or dome for heaven, that is to
say a "firmament", to keep her upper waters in place. These will suffice
as text passages, since they serve to point out quite clearly the
Semitic source to which all the other detailed points of Hebrew
resemblance may be traced.
(1) See _Seven Tablets_, Vol. I, pp. lxxxi ff., and Skinner,
_Genesis_, pp. 45 ff.
(2) The invariable use of the Hebrew word _tehôm_ without
the article, except in two passages in the plural, proves
that it is a proper name (cf. Skinner, op. cit., p. 17); and
its correspondence with _Tiamat_ makes the resemblance of
the versions far more significant than if their parallelism
were confined solely to ideas.
(3) Gen. i. 6-8.
In the case of the Deluge traditions, so conclusive a demonstration is
not possible, since we have no similar criterion to apply. And on one
point, as we saw, the Hebrew Versions preserve an original Sumerian
strand of the narrative that was not woven into the Gilgamesh Epic,
where there is no parallel to the piety of Noah. But from the detailed
description that was given in the second lecture, it will have been
noted that the Sumerian account is on the whole far simpler and more
primitive than the other versions. It is only in the Babylonian Epic,
for example, that the later Hebrew writer finds material from which to
construct the ark, while the sweet savour of Ut-napishtim's sacrifice,
and possibly his sending forth of the birds, though reproduced in the
earlier Hebrew Version, find no parallels in the Sumerian account.(1) As
to the general character of the Flood, there is no direct reference to
rain in the Sumerian Version, though its presence is probably implied in
the storm. The heavy rain of the Babylonian Epic has been increased
to forty days of rain in the earlier Hebrew Version, which would be
suitable to a country where local rain was the sole cause of flood. But
the later Hebrew writer's addition of "the fountains of the deep" to
"the windows of heaven" certainly suggests a more intimate knowledge of
Mesopotamia, where some contributary cause other than local rain must be
sought for the sudden and overwhelming catastrophes of which the rivers
are capable.
(1) For detailed lists of the points of agreement presented
by the Hebrew Versions J and P to the account in the
Gilgamesh Epic, see Skinner, op. cit., p. 177 f.; Driver,
_Genesis_, p. 106 f.; and Gordon, _Early Traditions of
Genesis_ (1907), pp. 38 ff.
Thus, viewed from a purely literary standpoint, we are now enabled to
trace back to a primitive age the ancestry of the traditions, which,
under a very different aspect, eventually found their way into Hebrew
literature. And in the process we may note the changes they underwent
as they passed from one race to another. The result of such literary
analysis and comparison, so far from discrediting the narratives in
Genesis, throws into still stronger relief the moral grandeur of the
Hebrew text.
We come then to the question, at what periods and by what process did
the Hebrews become acquainted with Babylonian ideas? The tendency of the
purely literary school of critics has been to explain the process by the
direct use of Babylonian documents wholly within exilic times. If the
Creation and Deluge narratives stood alone, a case might perhaps be made
out for confining Babylonian influence to this late period. It is
true that during the Captivity the Jews were directly exposed to
such influence. They had the life and civilization of their captors
immediately before their eyes, and it would have been only natural
for the more learned among the Hebrew scribes and priests to interest
themselves in the ancient literature of their new home. And any previous
familiarity with the myths of Babylonia would undoubtedly have been
increased by actual residence in the country. We may perhaps see
a result of such acquaintance with Babylonian literature, after
Jehoiachin's deportation, in an interesting literary parallel that has
been pointed out between Ezek. xiv. 12-20 and a speech in the Babylonian
account of the Deluge in the Gilgamesh Epic, XI, ii. 180-194.(1) The
passage in Ezekiel occurs within chaps. i-xxiv, which correspond to
the prophet's first period and consist in the main of his utterances in
exile before the fall of Jerusalem. It forms, in fact, the introduction
to the prophet's announcement of the coming of "four sore judgements
upon Jerusalem", from which there "shall be left a remnant that shall
be carried forth".(2) But in consequence, here and there, of traces of a
later point of view, it is generally admitted that many of the chapters
in this section may have been considerably amplified and altered by
Ezekiel himself in the course of writing. And if we may regard the
literary parallel that has been pointed out as anything more than
fortuitous, it is open to us to assume that chap. xiv may have been
worked up by Ezekiel many years after his prophetic call at Tel-abib.
(1) See Daiches, "Ezekiel and the Babylonian Account of the
Deluge", in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, April 1905. It
has of course long been recognized that Ezekiel, in
announcing the punishment of the king of Egypt in xxxii. 2
ff., uses imagery which strongly recalls the Babylonian
Creation myth. For he compares Pharaoh to a sea-monster over
whom Yahweh will throw his net (as Marduk had thrown his
over Tiamat); cf. Loisy, _Les mythes babyloniens et les
premiers chaptires de la Genèse_ (1901), p. 87.
(2) Ezek. xiv. 21 f.
In the passage of the Babylonian Epic, Enlil had already sent the Flood
and had destroyed the good with the wicked. Ea thereupon remonstrates
with him, and he urges that in future the sinner only should be made to
suffer for his sin; and, instead of again causing a flood, let there be
discrimination in the divine punishments sent on men or lands. While
the flood made the escape of the deserving impossible, other forms of
punishment would affect the guilty only. In Ezekiel the subject is the
same, but the point of view is different. The land the prophet has in
his mind in verse 13 is evidently Judah, and his desire is to explain
why it will suffer although not all its inhabitants deserved to share
its fate. The discrimination, which Ea urges, Ezekiel asserts will be
made; but the sinner must bear his own sin, and the righteous, however
eminent, can only save themselves by their righteousness. The general
principle propounded in the Epic is here applied to a special case.
But the parallelism between the passages lies not only in the general
principle but also in the literary setting. This will best be brought
out by printing the passages in parallel columns.