CHAPTER XXI.

THE COSMOLOGY OF THE BABYLONIANS.

Various traditions were current in Babylonia regarding the manner in

which the universe came into existence. The labors of the theologians to

systematize these traditions did not succeed in bringing about their

unification. Somewhat like in the Book of Genesis, where two versions of

the creation story have been combined by some editor,[680] so portions

of what were clearly two independent versions have been found among the

remains of Babylonian literature. But whereas in the Old Testament the

two versions are presented in combination so as to form a harmonic

whole, the two Babylonian versions continued to exist side by side.

There is no reason to suppose that the versions were limited to two. In

fact, a variant to an important episode in the creation story has been

discovered which points to a third version.[681]

The suggestion has been thrown out that these various versions arose in

the various religious centers of the Euphrates Valley. So far as the

editing of the versions is concerned, the suggestion is worthy of

consideration, for it is hardly reasonable to suppose that the

theological schools of one and the same place should have developed more

than one cosmological system. The traditions themselves, however, apart

from the literary form which they eventually assumed, need not have been

limited to certain districts nor have been peculiar to the place where

the systematization took place. Nothing is more common than the

interchange of myths and popular traditions. They travel from one place

to the other, and contradictory accounts of one and the same event may

be circulated, and find credence in one and the same place.

The two distinct Babylonian versions of the creation of the world that

have up to the present time been found, have come to us in a fragmentary

form. Of the one, indeed, only some forty lines exist, and these are

introduced incidentally in an incantation text;[682] of the other

version, portions of six tablets[683] have been recovered; while of two

fragments it is doubtful[684] whether they belong to this same version

or represent a third version, as does certainly a fragment containing a

variant account of the episode described in the fourth tablet of the

larger group. The fragments of the longer version--in all 23--enable us

to form a tolerably complete picture of the Babylonian cosmology, and

with the help of numerous allusions in historical, religious and

astronomical texts and in classical writers, we can furthermore fill out

some of the gaps.

Taking up the longer version, which must for the present serve as our

chief source for the cosmology of the Babylonians, it is important to

note at the outset that the series constitutes, in reality, a grand hymn

in honor of Marduk. The account of the beginning of things and of the

order of creation is but incidental to an episode which is intended to

illustrate the greatness of Marduk, the head of the Babylonian pantheon.

This episode is the conquest of a great monster known as Tiamat,--a

personification, as we shall see, of primaeval chaos. What follows upon

this episode, likewise turns upon the overshadowing personality of

Marduk. This prominence given to Marduk points of course to Babylon as

the place where the early traditions received their literary form.

Instead of designating the series as a 'Creation Epic' it would be quite

as appropriate to call it 'The Epic of Marduk.'

The god of Babylon is the hero of the story. To him the creation of the

heavenly bodies is ascribed. It is he who brings order and light into

the world. He supplants the roles originally belonging to other gods.

Bel and Ea give way to him. Anu and the other great gods cheerfully

acknowledge Marduk's power. The early traditions have all been colored

by the endeavor to glorify Marduk; and since Marduk is one of the latest

of the gods to come into prominence, we must descend some centuries

below Hammurabi before reaching a period when Marduk's position was so

generally recognized as to lead to a transformation of popular

traditions at the hands of the theologians.

The evident purpose of the 'epic' to glorify Marduk also accounts for

the imperfect manner in which the creation of the universe is recounted.

Only the general points are touched upon. Many details are omitted which

in a cosmological epic, composed for the specific purpose of setting

forth the order of creation, would hardly have been wanting. In this

respect, the Babylonian version again resembles the Biblical account of

creation, which is similarly marked by its brevity, and is as

significant for its omissions as for what it contains.

It but remains before passing on to an analysis of the 'epic' to note

the great care bestowed upon its literary form. This is evidenced not

only by the poetic diction, but by its metrical form,--a point to which

Budge was the first to direct attention[685] and which Zimmern[686]

clearly established. Each line consists of two divisions, and as a

general thing four or eight lines constitute a stanza. The principle of

parallelism, so characteristic of Biblical poetry, is also introduced,

though not consistently carried out.

The epic was known from its opening words as the series 'when above.'

Through this name we are certain of possessing a portion of the first

tablet--but alas! only a portion. A fragment of fifteen lines and these

imperfectly preserved is all that has as yet been found. So far as

decipherable, it reads:

There was a time when above the heaven was not named.[687]

Below, the earth bore no name.

Apsu was there, the original, their begettor,[2]

Mummu [and] Tiamat, the mother of them all.[688]

But their waters[689] were gathered together in a mass.

No field was marked off, no marsh[690] was seen.

When none of the gods was as yet produced,

No name mentioned, no fate determined,

Then were created the gods in their totality.

Lakhmu and Lakhamu, were created.

Days went by[5] ...

Anshar and Kishar were created.

Many days elapsed[691] ...

Anu [Bel and Ea were created].[692]

Anshar, Anu (?) ...

At this point the fragment breaks off.

Brief as it is, it affords a clear view of the manner in which the

Babylonians regarded the beginning of things. Water was the primaeval

element. 'Apsu' is the personified great 'ocean'--the 'Deep' that covers

everything. With Apsu there is associated Tiamat. Tiamat is the

equivalent of the Hebrew T'hom,[693] which occurs in the second verse of

the opening chapter of Genesis, and which is, like Apsu, the

personification of the 'watery deep.' Apsu and Tiamat are, accordingly,

synonymous. The combination of the two may be regarded as due to the

introduction of the theological doctrine which we have seen plays so

prominent a part in the systematized pantheon, namely, the association

of the male and female principle in everything connected with activity

or with the life of the universe. Apsu represents the male and Tiamat

the female principle of the primaeval universe. It does not follow from

this that the two conceptions are wholly dissociated from popular

traditions. Theological systems, it will be found, are always attached

at some point to popular and often to primitive beliefs.

Tiamat was popularly pictured as a huge monster of a forbidding aspect.

Traces of a similar conception connected with T'hom are to be met with

in the poetry of the Old and New Testament.[694] The 'Rahab' and

'Leviathan' and the 'Dragon' of the apocalypse belong to the same order

of ideas that produced Tiamat. All these monsters represent a popular

attempt to picture the chaotic condition that prevailed before the great

gods obtained control and established the order of heavenly and

terrestrial phenomena. The belief that water was the original element

existing in the universe and the 'source' of everything, may also have

had its rise in the popular mind. It was suggested in the Euphrates

Valley, in part, by the long-continued rainy season, as a result of

which the entire region was annually flooded. The dry land and

vegetation appeared, only after the waters had receded. The yearly

phenomenon brought home to the minds of the Babylonians, a picture of

primaeval chaos.

In the schools of theology that arose with the advance of culture, these

two notions--water as the first element and a general conception of

chaos--were worked out with the result that Apsu and Tiamat became

mythical beings whose dominion preceded that of the gods. Further than

this the questionings of the schoolmen did not go. They conceived of a

time when neither the upper firmament nor the dry land existed and when

the gods were not yet placed in control, but they could not conceive of

a time when there was 'nothing' at all. This cosmological theory which

we may deduce from the fragment of the first tablet of the creation

series is confirmed by the accounts that have come down to us--chiefly

through Damascius--of the treatment of the subject by Berosus.[695]

Damascius explicitly places the Babylonians among those nations who fail

to carry back the universe to an ultimate single source. There is

nothing earlier than the two beings--Apsu and Tiamat.[696]

The massing together of the primaeval waters completes the picture of

chaos in the cuneiform account. From the popular side, the commingling

corresponds to the _Tohu wa Bohu_ of the Book of Genesis, but for the

Babylonian theologians, this embrace of Apsu and Tiamat becomes a symbol

of 'sexual' union.[697] As the outcome of this union, the gods are

produced. This dependence of the gods upon Apsu and Tiamat is but

vaguely indicated. Another theory appears to have existed according to

which the gods were contemporaneous with primaeval chaos. The vagueness

may therefore be the result of a compromise between conflicting schools

of thought. However this may be, the moment that the gods appear, a

conflict ensues between them and Apsu-Tiamat. This conflict represents

the evolution from chaos to order. But before taking up this phase of

the epic, a few words must be said as to the names of the gods

mentioned, and as to the order in which they occur.

There are three classes of deities enumerated. The first two classes

consist, each, of a pair of deities while the third is the well-known

triad of the old Babylonian theology. Between the creation of each class

a long period elapses--a circumstance that may be regarded as an

evidence of the originally independent character of each class. Now it

has recently been shown[698] that Lakhamu is the feminine of Lakhmu. The

first class of deities is, therefore, an illustration again of the

conventional male and female principles introduced into the current

theology. While there are references to Lakhmu and Lakhamu in the

religious texts,[699] particularly in incantations, these two deities

play no part whatsoever in the active pantheon, as revealed by the

historical texts. In popular tradition,[700] Lakhmu survived as a name

of a mythical monster.

Alexander Polyhistor[701] quotes Berosus as saying in his book on

Babylonia that the first result of the mixture of water and

chaos--_i.e._, of Apsu and Tiamat--was the production of monsters partly

human, partly bestial. The winged bulls and lions that guarded the

approaches to temples and palaces are illustrations of this old notion,

and it is to this class of mythical beings that Lakhmu belongs. The

schools of theology, seizing hold of this popular tradition, add again

to Lakhmu a female mate and convert the tradition into a symbol of the

first step in the evolution of order out of the original chaos. Lakhmu

and Lakhamu are made to stand for an entire class of beings that are the

offspring of Apsu and Tiamat. This class does not differ essentially

from Apsu and Tiamat, nor from the 'Leviathan,' the 'Dragon,' the winged

serpents, and the winged bulls that are all emanations of the same order

of ideas. Accordingly, we find Lakhmu and Lakhamu associated with Tiamat

when the conflict with the gods begins. They are products of chaos and

yet at the same time contemporary with chaos,--monsters not so fierce as

Tiamat, but withal monsters who had to be subdued before the planets and

the stars, vegetation and man could appear.

The introduction of Anshar and Kishar as intermediate between the

monsters and the triad of gods appears to be due entirely to the attempt

at theological systematization that clearly stamps the creation epic as

the conscious work of schoolmen, though shaped, as must always be borne

in mind, out of the material furnished by popular tradition. In

connection with the etymology and original form of the chief of the

Assyrian pantheon,[702] the suggestion was made that the introduction of

Anshar into the creation epic is a concession made to the prominence

that Ashur acquired in the north. We are now able to put this suggestion

in a more definite form. The pantheon of the north, as we have seen, was

derived from the south. Not that all the gods of the south are

worshipped in the north, but those that are worshipped in the north are

also found in the south, and originate there. The distinctive features

of Ashur are due to the political conditions that were developed in

Assyria, but the unfolding of the conceptions connected with this god

which make him the characteristic deity of Assyria, indeed, the only

distinctive Assyrian figure in the Assyrian pantheon, does not preclude

the possibility, of the southern origin of Ashur.

If, as has been made plausible by Hommel, Nineveh, the later capital of

the Assyrian empire, represents a settlement made by inhabitants of a

Nineveh situated in the south, there is no reason why a southern deity

bearing the name Anshar should not have been transferred from the south

to the north. The attempt has been made[703] to explain the change from

Anshar to Ashur. The later name Ashur, because of its ominous character,

effectually effaced the earlier one in popular thought. The introduction

of the older form Anshar, not merely in the first tablet of the creation

series, but, as we shall presently see, elsewhere, confirms the view of

a southern origin for Ashur, and also points to the great antiquity of

the Anshar-Ashur cult. It is not uncommon to find colonies more

conservative in matters of religious thought and custom than the

motherland, and there is nothing improbable in the interesting

conclusion thus reached that Ashur, the head of an empire, so much later

in point of time than Babylonia, should turn out to be an older deity

than the chief personage in the Babylonian pantheon after the days of

Hammurabi.

But while Anshar-Ashur under this view is a figure surviving from an

ancient period, he is transformed by association with a complementary

deity Kishar into a symbol, just as we have found to be the case with

Lakhmu. By a play upon his name, resting upon an arbitrary division of

Anshar into _An_ and _Shar_, the deity becomes the 'one that embraces

all that is above.' The element _An_ is the same that we have in _Anu_,

and is the 'ideographic'[704] form for 'high' and 'heaven.' _Shar_

signifies 'totality' and has some connection with a well-known

Babylonian word for 'king.' The natural consort to an all-embracing

upper power is a power that 'embraces all that is below'; and since _Ki_

is the ideographic form for 'earth,' it is evident that Ki-Shar is a

creation of the theologians, introduced in order to supply Anshar with

an appropriate associate. The two in combination represent a pair like

Lakhmu and Lakhamu. As the latter pair embrace the world of monsters, so

Anshar and Kishar stand in the theological system for the older order of

gods, a class of deities antecedent to the series of which Anu, Bel, and

Ea are the representatives. Besides the antiquity of Anshar and the

factor involved in the play upon the name, the prominence of the Ashur

cult in the north also entered into play (as already suggested) in

securing for Anshar-Ashur, a place in the systematized cosmology. The

Babylonian priests, while always emphasizing the predominance of Marduk,

could not entirely resist the influences that came to them from the

north. Ashur was not accorded a place in the Babylonian cult, but he

could not be ignored altogether. Moreover, Assyria had her priests and

schools, and we are permitted to see in the introduction of Anshar in

the creation epic, a concession that reflects the influence, no doubt

indirect, and in part perhaps unconscious, but for all that, the decided

influence of the north over the south. The part played by Anshar in the

most important episode of the creation epic will be found to further

strengthen this view.[705]

Kishar, at all events, forms no part of either the Babylonian or of the

active Assyrian pantheon. She does not occur in historical or religious

texts. Her existence is purely theoretical--a creation of the schools

without any warrant in popular tradition, so far as we can see. A tablet

is fortunately preserved[706] (though only in part) which enables us to

come a step nearer towards determining the character of the series of

powers regarded as antecedent to the well-known deities. In this tablet,

no less than ten pairs of deities are enumerated that are expressly

noted as 'Father-mother of Anu,' that is, as antecedent to Anu.[707]

Among these we find Anshar and Kishar, and by their side, such pairs as

Anshar-gal, _i.e._, 'great totality of what is on high,' and Kishar-gal,

_i.e._, 'great totality of what is below,' Enshar and Ninshar, _i.e._,

'lord' and 'mistress,' respectively, of 'all there is,' Du'ar and Da'ur,

forms of a stem which may signify 'perpetuity,' Alala, _i.e._,

'strength,' and a consort Belili. Lakhmu and Lakhamu are also found in

the list. While some of the names are quite obscure, and the composition

of the list is due to the scholastic spirit emanating from the schools

of theology, the fact that some of the deities, as Alala, Belili, Lakhmu

and Lakhamu, occur in incantations shows that the theologians were

guided in part by dimmed traditions of some deities that were worshipped

prior to the ones whose cult became prominent in historic times. Anshar,

Alala, Belili, Lakhmu, and Du'ar were such deities. To each of these an

associate was given, in accord with the established doctrine of

'duality' that characterizes the more advanced of the ancient Semitic

cults in general. Others, like Anshar-gal and Enshar, seem to be pure

abstractions--perhaps only 'variants' of Anshar, and the number ten may

have some mystical significance that escapes us. So much, at all events,

seems certain that even the old Babylonian pantheon, as revealed by the

oldest historical texts, represents a comparatively advanced stage of

the religion when some still older gods had already yielded to others

and a system was already in part produced which left out of

consideration these older deities. This is indicated by the occurrence

of the triad Anu, Bel, and Ea as early as the days of Gudea,[708] and it

is this triad which in the creation epic follows upon the older series

symbolized by Anshar and Kishar. The later 'theology' found a solution

of the problem by assuming four series of deities represented by Apsu

and Tiamat, by Lakhmu and Lakhamu, by Anshar and Kishar, and by the

triad Anu, Bel, and Ea.

In a vague way, as we have seen, Apsu and Tiamat are the progenitors of

Lakhmu and Lakhamu. The priority, again, of Lakhmu and Lakhamu, as well

as of Anshar and Kishar, is expressed by making them 'ancestors' of Anu,

Bel and Ea. While in the list above referred to, Lakhmu and Lakhamu are

put in a class with Anshar and Kishar, in the creation epic they form a

separate class, and Delitzsch has justly recognized,[709] in this

separation, the intention of the compilers to emphasize an advance in

the evolution of chaos to order, which is the keynote of the Babylonian

cosmology. Lakhmu and Lakhamu represent the 'monster' world where

creatures are produced in strange confusion, whereas Anshar and Kishar

indicate a division of the universe into two _distinct_ and sharply

defined parts. The splitting of 'chaos' is the first step towards its

final disappearance.

The creation of Anshar and Kishar marks indeed the beginning of a severe

conquest which ends in the overthrow of Tiamat, and while in the present

form of the epic, the contest is not decided before Anu, Bel, and Ea and

the chief deities of the historic pantheon are created, one can see

traces of an earlier form of the tradition in which Anshar--perhaps with

some associates--is the chief figure in the strife.

Of the first tablet, we have two further fragments supplementing one

another, in which the beginnings of this terrible conflict are

described. With Apsu and Tiamat there are associated a variety of

monsters who prepare themselves for the fray. The existence of these

associates shows that the 'epic' does not aim to account for the real

origin of things, but only for the origin of the _order_ of the

universe. At the beginning there was chaos, but 'chaos,' so far from

representing emptiness (as came to be the case under a monotheistic

conception of the universe) was on the contrary marked by a

superabundant fullness.

Through Alexander Polyhistor,[710] as already mentioned, we obtain a

satisfactory description of this period of chaos as furnished by

Berosus. At the time when all was darkness and water, there flourished

strange monsters, human beings with wings, beings with two heads, male

and female, hybrid formations, half-man, half-animal, with horns of rams

and horses' hoofs, bulls with human faces, dogs with fourfold bodies

ending in fish tails, horses with heads of dogs, and various other

monstrosities.

This account of Berosus is now confirmed by the cuneiform records. The

associates of Tiamat are described in a manner that leaves no doubt as

to their being the monsters referred to. We are told that

Ummu-Khubur,[711] the creator of everything, added

Strong warriors, creating great serpents,

Sharp of tooth, merciless in attack.

With poison in place of blood, she filled their bodies.

Furious vipers she clothed with terror,

Fitted them out with awful splendor, made them high of stature(?)

That their countenance might inspire terror and arouse horror,

Their bodies inflated, their attack irresistible.

She set up basilisks (?) great serpents and monsters[712]

A great monster, a mad dog, a scorpion-man

A raging monster, a fish-man, a great bull,

Carrying merciless weapons, not dreading battle.

In all, eleven monstrous beings are created by Tiamat for the great

conquest. At their head she places a being Kingu, whom she raises to the

dignity of a consort.

The formal installation of Kingu is described as follows:

She raised Kingu among them to be their chief.

To march at the head of the forces, to lead the assembly.

To command the weapons to strike, to give the orders for the fray.

To be the first in war, supreme in triumph.

She ordained him and clothed him with authority (?).

Tiamat then addresses Kingu directly:

Through my word to thee, I have made thee the greatest among the gods.

The rule over all the gods I have placed in thy hand.

The greatest shalt thou be, thou, my consort, my only one.

Tiamat thereupon

Gives him the tablets of fate, hangs them on his breast, and

dismisses him.

'Thy command be invincible, thy order authoritative.'[713]

The plan of procedure, it would appear, is the result of a council of

war held by Apsu and Tiamat, who feel themselves powerless to carry on

the contest by themselves. The portion of the tablet[714] in which this

council is recounted is in so bad a condition that but little can be

made out of it. Associated with Apsu and Tiamat in council, is a being

Mummu, and since Damascius expressly notes on the direct authority of

Berosus that Apsu and Tiamat produced a son Moumis,[715] there is every

reason to believe that Mummu represents this offspring. In the

subsequent narrative, however, neither Apsu nor Mummu play any part.

Tiamat has transferred to Kingu and the eleven monsters all authority,

and it is only after they are defeated that Tiamat--but Tiamat

alone--enters the fray.

The rage of Tiamat is directed against Anshar, Kishar, and their

offspring. Anu, Bel, and Ea, while standing at the head of the latter,

are not the only gods introduced. When the contest begins, all the great

gods and also the minor ones are in existence.

The cause of Tiamat's rage is indicated, though vaguely, in the portions

preserved. In the opening lines of the epic there is a reference to the

time 'when fates were not yet decided.' The decision of fates is in the

Babylonian theology one of the chief functions of the gods. It

constitutes the mainspring of their power. To decide fates is

practically to control the arrangement of the universe--to establish

order. It is this function which arouses the natural opposition of

Tiamat and her brood, for Tiamat feels that once the gods are in

control, her sway must come to an end. On the part of the gods there is

great terror. They are anxious to conciliate Tiamat and are not actuated

by any motives of rivalry. Order is not aggressive. It is chaos which

manifests opposition to 'order.' In the second tablet of the series,

Anshar sends his son Anu with a message to Tiamat:

Go and step before Tiamat.

May her liver be pacified, her heart softened.

Anu obeys, but at the sight of Tiamat's awful visage takes flight. It is

unfortunate that the second tablet is so badly preserved. We are

dependent largely upon conjecture for what follows the failure of Anu's

mission. From references in subsequent tablets, it seems certain that

Anshar sends out Ea as a second messenger and that Ea also fails. Tiamat

is determined upon destroying the gods, or at least upon keeping from

them the 'decision of fates.' Anshar, it will be seen, stands at the

head of the pantheon, and it seems natural that he, and not one of his

offspring, should be the final victor. This indeed appears to have been

the original form of the myth or at least one form of it. In a second

form it was Bel to whom the victory was ascribed, and this Bel of the

triad, we have seen, was En-lil, the chief god of Nippur; but both

Anshar and Bel must give way to the patron deity of the city of

Babylon--Marduk. Anshar-Ashur, the head of the Assyrian pantheon, could

not be tolerated by the Babylonian priests as a power superior to

Marduk. On the other hand, Anshar could not be set aside, for he

survived in popular tradition. The result is a compromise. Marduk gains

the victory over Tiamat, but is commissioned to do so by the assembly of

the gods, including Anshar. As for the older Bel, he voluntarily

transfers to Marduk his name. In this way, the god Bel of the triad

becomes one with Marduk.

Perhaps in one religious center and at a time when Ea was the chief god,

still another version existed which assigned the triumph to Ea, for as

will be pointed out, traditions waver between assigning to Ea or to

Bel-Marduk so fundamental a function as the creation of mankind. In

short, the present form of the creation epic is 'eclectic' and embodies

what the Germans call a _tendenz_. To each of the great gods, Anshar,

Anu, Bel, and Ea, some part in the contest is assigned, but the greatest

role belongs to Marduk.

The second tablet closes with Anshar's decision to send his son Marduk

against Tiamat:

Marduk heard the word of his father.

His heart rejoiced and to his father he spoke.

With joyous heart he is ready to proceed to the contest, but he at once

makes good his claim to supreme control in case he is victorious. He

addresses the assembled gods:

When I shall have become your avenger,

Binding Tiamat and saving your life,

Then come in a body,

In Ubshu-kenna,[716] let yourselves down joyfully,

My authority instead of yours will assume control,

Unchangeable shall be whatever I do,

Irrevocable and irresistible, be the command of my lips.

The declaration foreshadows the result.

The third tablet is taken up with the preliminaries for the great

contest, and is interesting chiefly because of the insight it affords us

into Babylonian methods of literary composition. Anshar sends Gaga[717]

to the hostile camp with the formal announcement of Marduk's readiness

to take up the cause of the gods. Gaga does not face Tiamat directly,

but leaves the message with Lakhmu and Lakhamu:

Go Gaga, messenger (?) joy of my liver,

To Lakhmu and Lakhamu I will send thee.

The message proper begins as follows:

Anshar your son has sent me,

The desire of his heart he has entrusted to me.

Tiamat, our mother is full of hate towards us,

With all her might she is bitterly enraged.

The eleven associates that Tiamat has ranged on her side are again

enumerated, together with the appointment of Kingu as chief of the

terror-inspiring army. Gaga comes to Lakhmu and Lakhamu and delivers the

message verbatim, so that altogether this portion of the narrative is

repeated no less than four times.[718] The same tendency towards

repetition is met with in the Gilgamesh epic and in the best of the

literary productions of Babylonia. It may be ascribed to the influence

exerted by the religious hymns and incantations where repetition, as we

have seen, is also common, though serving a good purpose.

The message concludes:

I sent Anu, he could not endure her[719] presence.

Ea[720] was afraid and took to flight.

Marduk has stepped forward, the chief of the gods, your son,

To proceed against Tiamat, he has set his mind.

Marduk's declaration is then repeated.

Upon hearing the message Lakhmu and Lakhamu and "all the Igigi"[721] are

distressed, but are powerless to avert the coming disaster. The formal

declaration of war having been sent, the followers of Anshar assemble at

a meal which is realistically described:

They ate bread, they drank wine.

The sweet wine took away their senses.

They became drunk, and their bodies swelled up.

With this description the third tablet closes.

The meal symbolizes the solemn gathering of the gods. At its conclusion,

so it would seem, Marduk is formally installed as the leader to proceed

against Tiamat. The gods vie with one another in showering honors upon

Marduk. They encourage him for the fight by praising his unique powers:

Thou art honored among the great gods,

Thy destiny is unique, thy command is Anu.[722]

Marduk, thou art honored among the great gods,

Thy destiny is unique, thy command is Anu,

Henceforth thy order is absolute.

To elevate and to lower is in thy hands,

What issues from thee is fixed, thy order cannot be opposed,

None among the gods may trespass upon thy dominion.

...

Thy weapons will never be vanquished; they will shatter thy enemies.

O lord! grant life to him who trusts in thee,

But destroy the life of the god who plots evil.

As a proof of the power thus entrusted to Marduk, the gods give the

latter a 'sign.' Marduk performs a miracle. A garment is placed in the

midst of the gods.

Command that the dress disappear!

Then command that the dress return!

Marduk proceeds to the test.

As he gave the command, the dress disappeared.

He spoke again and the dress was there.

This 'sign,' which reminds one of Yahwe's signs to Moses as a proof of

the latter's power,[723] is to be regarded as an indication that

"destruction and creation" are in Marduk's hands. The gods rejoice at

the exhibition of Marduk's power. In chorus they exclaim, "Marduk is

king." The insignia of royalty, throne, sceptre, and authority are

conferred upon him.

Now go against Tiamat, cut off her life,

Let the winds carry her blood to hidden regions.[724]

Marduk thereupon fashions his weapons for the fray. Myth and realism are

strangely intertwined in the description of these weapons. Bow and

quiver, the lance and club are mentioned, together with the storm and

the lightning flash. In addition to this he

Constructs a net wherewith to enclose the life of Tiamat.

The four winds he grasped so that she could not escape.[725]

The south and north winds, the east and west winds

He brought to the net, which was the gift of his father Anu.

His outfit is not yet complete.

He creates a destructive wind, a storm, a hurricane,

Making of the four winds, seven[726] destructive and fatal ones;

Then he let loose the winds he created, the seven,

To destroy the life[727] of Tiamat, they followed after him.

Marduk, taking his most powerful weapon in his hand,[728] mounts his

chariot, which is driven by fiery steeds. The picture thus furnished of

the god, standing upright in his chariot, with his weapons hung about

him and the seven winds following in his wake, is most impressive.

He makes straight for the hostile camp. The sight of the god inspires

terror on all sides.

The lord comes nearer with his eye fixed upon Tiamat,

Piercing with his glance (?) Kingu her consort.

Kingu starts back in alarm. He cannot endure the 'majestic halo' which

surrounds Marduk. Kingu's associates--the monsters--are terrified at

their leader's discomfiture. Tiamat alone does not lose her courage.

Marduk, brandishing his great weapon, addresses Tiamat:

Why hast thou set thy mind upon stirring up destructive contest?

He reproaches her for the hatred she has shown towards the gods, and

boldly calls her out to the contest:

Stand up! I and thou, come let us fight.

Tiamat's rage at this challenge is superbly pictured:

When Tiamat heard these words

She acted as possessed, her senses left her;

Tiamat shrieked wild and loud,

Trembling and shaking down to her foundations.

She pronounced an incantation, uttered her sacred formula.

Marduk is undismayed:

Then Tiamat and Marduk, chief of the gods, advanced towards one

another.

They advanced to the contest, drew nigh for fight.

The fight and discomfiture of Tiamat are next described:

The lord spread out his net in order to enclose her.

The destructive wind, which was behind him, he sent forth into her

face.

As Tiamat opened her mouth full wide,

He[729] drove in the destructive wind, so that she could not close

her lips.

The strong winds inflated her stomach.

Her heart was beset,[730] she opened still wider her mouth,[731]

He seized the spear and plunged it into her stomach,

He pierced her entrails, he tore through her heart,

He seized hold of her and put an end to her life,

He threw down her carcass and stepped upon her.

The method employed by Marduk is so graphically described that no

comment is necessary. After having vanquished Tiamat, the valiant Marduk

attacks her associates. They try to flee, but he captures them

all--including Kingu--without much difficulty and puts them into his

great net. Most important of all, he tears the tablets of fate from

Kingu and places them on his breast. This act marks the final victory.

Henceforth, the gods with Marduk--and no longer Tiamat and her

brood--decree the fate of the universe. There is great rejoicing among

the gods, who heap presents and offerings upon Marduk. As the vanquisher

of chaos, Marduk is naturally singled out to be the establisher of the

fixed form and order of the universe. The close of the fourth tablet

describes this work of the god, and the subject is continued in the

following ones. Unfortunately, these tablets are badly preserved, so

that we are far from having a complete view of the various acts of

Marduk. He begins by taking the carcass of Tiamat and cutting it in

half.

He cuts her like one does a flattened fish into two halves.

Previous to this he had trampled upon her and smashed her skull, as we

are expressly told, so that the comparison of the monster, thus pressed

out, to a flattened fish is appropriate.

He splits her lengthwise.

The one half he fashioned as a covering for the heavens,

Attaching a bolt and placing there a guardian,

With orders not to permit the waters to come out.

It is evident that the canopy of heaven is meant. Such is the enormous

size of Tiamat that one-half of her body flattened out so as to serve as

a curtain, is stretched across the heavens to keep the 'upper

waters'--'the waters above the firmament' as the Book of Genesis puts

it--from coming down. To ensure the execution of this design, a bolt is

drawn in front of the canopy and a guardian placed there, like at a city

wall, to prevent any one or anything from coming out.

This act corresponds closely to the creation of a "firmament" in the

first chapter of Genesis. The interpretation is borne out by the

statement of Alexander Polyhistor who, quoting from Berosus, states that

out of one-half of Tiamat the heavens were made.[732] The further

statement that out of the other half the earth was fashioned is not

definitely stated in our version of the creation. The narrative proceeds

as follows:

He passed through the heavens, he inspected the expanse.[733]

To understand this phrase, we must consider the general character of the

"epic," which is, as we have already seen, a composite production,

formed of popular elements and of more advanced speculations. The

popular element is the interpretation of the storms and rains that

regularly visit the Euphrates Valley before the summer season sets in,

as a conflict between a monster and the solar deity Marduk. After a

struggle, winds at last drive the waters back; Tiamat is vanquished by

the entrance of the 'bad wind' into her body. The sun appears in the

heavens and runs across the expanse, passing in his course over the

entire vault. The conflict, which in the scholastic system of the

theologians is placed at the beginning of things, is in reality a

phenomenon of annual occurrence. The endeavor to make Marduk more than

what he originally was--a solar deity--leads to the introduction of a

variety of episodes that properly belong to a different class of

deities. For all that, the original role of Marduk is not obscured.

Marduk's passage across the heavens is a trace of the popular phases of

the nature myth, and while in one sense, it is appropriately introduced

after the fashioning of the expanse, it more properly follows

immediately upon the conflict with Tiamat. In short, we have reached a

point in the narrative where the nature myth symbolizing the annual

succession of the seasons blends with a cosmological system which is the

product of comparatively advanced schools of thought, in such a manner

as to render it difficult to draw the line where myth ends and

cosmological system begins. For the moment, the nature myth controls the

course of the narrative. The sun, upon running its course across the

heavens, appears to drop into the great ocean, which the Babylonians, in

common with many ancient nations, imagined to surround and to pass

underneath the earth.

Hence the next act undertaken by Marduk is the regulation of the course

of this subterranean sea. The name given to this sea was Apsu. Marduk

however does not create the Apsu. It is in existence at the beginning of

things, but he places it under the control of Ea.

In front of Apsu, he prepared the dwelling of Nu-dimmud.[734]

This Apsu, as we learn from other sources,[735] flows on all sides of

the earth, and since it also fills the hollow under the earth, the

latter in reality rests upon the Apsu. Ea is frequently called "the lord

of Apsu," but the creation epic, in assigning to Marduk the privilege of

preparing the dwelling of Ea, reverses the true order of things, which

may still be seen in the common belief that made Marduk the son of Ea.

Marduk, the sun rising up out of the ocean, becomes the offspring of Ea,

and even the political supremacy of Marduk could not set aside the

prerogatives of Ea in the popular mind. In the cosmological system,

however, as developed in the schools, such an attempt was made. While

recognizing the 'deep' as the domain of Ea, the theologians saved

Marduk's honor by having him take a part in fixing Ea's dwelling and in

determining its limitations.

With the carcass of Tiamat stretched across the upper firmament and

safely guarded, and with the Apsu under control, the way is clear for

the formation of the earth. This act in the drama of creation is

referred to in the following lines, though in a manner, that is not free

from obscurity. The earth is pictured as a great structure placed over

the Apsu and corresponding in dimension with it--at least in one

direction.

The lord measured out the structure of Apsu.

Corresponding to it, he fashioned a great structure[736] Esharra.

Esharra is a poetical designation of the earth and signifies, as Jensen

has satisfactorily shown, "house of fullness"[737] or "house of

fertility." The earth is regarded as a great structure, and placed as it

is over the Apsu, its size is dependent upon the latter. Its measurement

from one end to the other cannot exceed the width of the Apsu, nor can

it be any narrower. The ends of the earth span the great Apsu. The

following line specifies the shape given to Esharra:

The great structure Esharra, which he made as a heavenly vault.

The earth is not a sphere according to Babylonian ideas, but a hollow

hemisphere having an appearance exactly like the vault of heaven, but

placed in position beneath the heavenly canopy. As a hemisphere it

suggests the picture of a mountain, rising at one end, mounting to a

culminating point, and descending at the other end. Hence by the side of

Esharra, another name by which the earth was known was Ekur, that is,

'the mountain house.'

Diodorus Seculus, in speaking of the Babylonian cosmology, employs a

happy illustration. He says that according to Babylonian notions the

world is a "boat turned upside down." The kind of boat meant is, as

Lenormant recognized,[738] the deep-bottomed round skiff with curved

edges that is still used for carrying loads across and along the

Euphrates and Tigris, the same kind of boat that the compilers of

Genesis had in view when describing Noah's Ark. The appearance in

outline thus presented by the three divisions of the universe--the

heavens, the earth, and the waters--would be that of two heavy rainbows,

one beneath the other at some distance apart, resting upon a large body

of water that flows around the horizons of both rainbows, and also fills

the hollow of the second one.[739] The upper 'rainbow' is formed by

one-half of the carcass of Tiamat stretched across in semi-circular

shape; the lower one is the great structure Esharra made by Marduk,

while the Apsu underneath is the dwelling of Ea. The creation epic, it

may be noted once more, takes much for granted. Its chief aim being to

glorify Marduk, but little emphasis is laid upon details of interest to

us. The parcelling out of these three divisions among Anu, Bel, and Ea

is therefore merely alluded to in the closing line of the fourth tablet:

He established the districts[740] of Anu, Bel, and Ea.

The narrative assumes what we know from other sources, that the heavens

constitute the domain of Anu, Esharra belongs to Bel, while Apsu belongs

to Ea.

The mention of the triad takes us away from popular myth to the

scholastic system as devised by the theologians. The establishment of

the triad in full control marks the introduction of fixed order into the

universe. All traces of Tiamat have disappeared. Anu, Bel, and Ea

symbolize the eternal laws of the universe.

There are, as we have seen, two factors involved in the role assigned to

Marduk in the version of the creation epic under consideration,--one the

original character of the god as a solar deity, the other the later

position of the god as the head of the Babylonian pantheon. In the

'epic,' the fight of Marduk with Tiamat belongs to Marduk as a solar

deity. The myth is based, as was above suggested,[741] upon the annual

phenomenon witnessed in Babylonia when the whole valley is flooded and

storms sweep across the plains. The sun is obscured. A conflict is going

on between the waters and storms, on the one hand, and the sun, on the

other hand. The latter finally is victorious. Marduk subdues Tiamat,

fixes limitations to the 'upper and lower waters,' and triumphantly

marches across the heavens from one end to the other, as general

overseer.

This nature myth was admirably adapted to serve as the point of

departure for the enlargement of the role of Marduk, rendered necessary

by the advancement of the god to the head of the pantheon. Everything

had to be ascribed to Marduk. Not merely humanity, but the gods also had

to acknowledge, and acknowledge freely, the supremacy of Marduk.

The solar deity thus becomes a power at whose command the laws of the

universe are established, the earth created and all that is on it. In

thus making Marduk the single creator, the theologians were as much

under the influence of Marduk's political supremacy, as they helped to

confirm that supremacy by their system. With this object in view, the

annual phenomenon was transformed into an account of what happened 'once

upon a time.'

What impressed the thinkers most in the universe was the regular working

of the laws of nature. Ascribing these laws to Marduk, they naturally

pictured the beginnings of things as a lawless period. Into the old and

popular Marduk-Tiamat nature myth, certain touches were thus introduced

that changed its entire character. This once done, it was a

comparatively simple matter to follow up the conflict of Marduk and

Tiamat by a series of acts on Marduk's part, completing the work of

general creation. The old nature myth ended with the conquest of the

rains and storm and the establishment of the sun's regular course,

precisely as the deluge story in Genesis, which contains echoes of the

Marduk-Tiamat myth, ends with the promulgation of the fixed laws of the

universe.[742]

What follows upon this episode in the Babylonian epic is the elaboration

of the central theme, worked out in the schools of Babylonian thought

and intended, on the one hand, to illustrate Marduk's position as

creator and, on the other, to formulate the details of the cosmological

system.

With the fifth tablet, therefore, we leave the domain of popular myth

completely and pass into the domain of cosmological speculation.

Fragmentary as the fifth tablet is, enough is preserved to show that it

assumes the perfection of the zodiacal system of the Babylonian schools

and the complete regulation[743] of the calendar. In this zodiacal

system, as has been intimated and as will be more fully set forth in a

special chapter, the planets and stars are identified with the gods. The

gods have their 'stations' and their 'pictures' in the starry sky. The

stars are the 'drawings' or 'designs of heaven.' It is Marduk again who

is represented as arranging these stations:

He established the stations for the great gods.[744]

The stars, their likeness,[745] he set up as constellations.[746]

He fixed the year and marked the divisions.[747]

The twelve months he divided among three stars.

From the beginning of the year till the close (?)

He established the station of Nibir[748] to indicate their boundary.

So that there might be no deviation nor wandering away from the course

He established with him,[749] the stations of Bel and Ea.

An epitome of the astronomical science of the Babylonians is comprised

in these lines. The gods being identified with stars and each of the

latter having its place in the heavens 'to establish the stations for

the great gods' is equivalent to putting the stars in position. The

regulation of the year forms part of the astronomical science. The three

stars that constitute 'divisions' to aid in marking off the months are

Nibir, Bel, and Ea. That the Babylonians had such a system as is here

outlined is confirmed by Diodorus Seculus.[750] The position of Nibir,

or Jupiter, whose course keeps closer to the ecliptic than that of any

other planet, served as an important guide in calendrical calculations.

The stars are represented as clinging to their course through

maintaining their relationship to Nibir, while at the side of Nibir and

as additional guides, Bel is identified with the north pole of the

equator and Ea with a star in the extreme southern heavens, to be sought

for, perhaps, in the constellation Argo. The description concludes:

He attached large gates to both sides,

Made the bolt secure to the left and right.

The heavens are thus made firm by two gates, fastened with bolts and

placed at either end. Through one of these gates the sun passes out in

the morning, and at evening enters into the other. But the most

important body in the heavens is the moon. Its functions are described

in an interesting way:

In the midst[751] he made the zenith[752] (?)

Nannar[753] he caused to go forth and handed over to him[5] the night.

He fixed him[754] as the luminary of night to mark off the days.

The passage is made clear by a reference to the Book of Genesis, i. 16,

where we are told that the moon was created 'for the rule of night.' A

distinction between the Biblical and the cuneiform cosmology at this

point is no less significant. While according to Babylonian ideas, the

moon alone, or at most the moon with the stars, regulates the days, the

Hebrew version makes the moon and sun together the basis for the

regulation of the 'days and years.' The sun according to Babylonian

notions does not properly belong to the heavens, since it passes daily

beyond the limits of the latter. The sun, therefore, plays an

insignificant part in the calendrical system in comparison with the

moon.

Marduk addresses the moon, specifying its duties, what position it is to

occupy towards the sun at certain periods during the monthly course, and

the like. The tablet at this point becomes defective, and before the

address comes to an end, we are left entirely in the lurch. To speculate

as to the further contents of the fifth tablet and of the sixth (of

which nothing has as yet been found) seems idle. Zimmern supposes that

after the heavenly phenomena had been disposed of, the formation of the

dry land and of the seas was taken up, and Delitzsch is of the opinion

that in the sixth tablet the creation of plants and trees and animals

was also recounted. I venture to question whether the creation of the

'dry land and seas' was specifically mentioned. Esharra, the earth, is

in existence and the Apsu appears to include all waters, but that the

epic treated of the creation of plant and animal life and then of the

creation of man is eminently likely. We have indeed a fragment of a

tablet[755] in which the creation of the 'cattle of the field, beasts of

the field, and creeping things of the field' is referred to; but since

it is the 'gods who in unison' are there represented as having created

the animal kingdom, it is hardly likely that the fragment forms part of

our 'epic' in which all deeds are ascribed to Marduk. It belongs in all

probability to a different cosmological version, but so much can be

concluded from it, that the Babylonians ascribed the creation of animals

to some divine power or powers; and that therefore our 'epic' must have

contained a section in which this act was assigned to Marduk.

A similar variation exists with reference to the tradition of the

creation of mankind. There are distinct traces that the belief was

current in parts of Babylonia which made Ea the creation of

mankind.[756] Ea, it will be recalled, is the 'god of humanity' _par

excellence_, and yet in the seventh (and probably closing) tablet of the

series, Marduk is spoken of as the one "who created mankind."[757]

Variant traditions of this kind point to the existence of various

centers of culture and thought in rivalry with one another. The great

paean to Marduk would have been sadly incomplete had it not contained an

account of the creation of mankind--the crowning work of the

universe--by the head of the Babylonian pantheon. It is possible,

therefore, that a tablet containing the address of a deity to mankind

belongs to our series[758] and embodies orders and warnings given by

Marduk after the creation of man, just as he addresses the moon after

establishing it in the heavens. Purity of heart is enjoined as pleasing

to the deity. Prayer and supplication and prostration are also

commanded. It is said that

Fear of god begets mercy,

Sacrifice prolongs life,

And prayer dissolves sin.

The tablet continues in this strain. It is perhaps not the kind of

address that we would expect Marduk to make after the act of creation,

but for the present we must content ourselves with this conjecture, as

also with the supposition that the creation of mankind constituted the

final act in the great drama in which Marduk is the hero.

When Marduk's work is finished, the Igigi gather around him in

adoration. This scene is described in a tablet which for the present we

may regard[759] as the close of the series. No less than fifty names are

bestowed upon him by the gods, the number fifty corresponding according

to some traditions to the number of the Igigi. Marduk accordingly

absorbs the qualities of all the gods. Such is the purpose of this

tablet. The diction is at times exceedingly impressive.

God of pure life, they called [him] in the third place, the bearer of

purification.

God of favorable wind,[760] lord of response[761] and of mercy,

Creator of abundance and fullness, granter of blessings,

Who increases the things that were small,

Whose favorable wind we experienced in sore distress.

Thus let them[762] speak and glorify and be obedient to him.

The gods recall with gratitude Marduk's service in vanquishing Tiamat.

Marduk is also praised for the mercy he showed towards the associates of

Tiamat, whom he merely captured without putting them to death.

As the god of the shining crown in the fourth place, let them

[_i.e._, mankind] exalt him.

The lord of cleansing incantation, the restorer of the dead to life,

Who showed mercy towards the captured gods,

Removed the yoke from the gods who were hostile to him.

A later fancy identified the 'captured gods' with eleven of the heavenly

constellations.[763]

Mankind is enjoined not to forget Marduk

Who created mankind out of kindness towards them,

The merciful one, with whom is the power of giving life.

May his deeds remain and never be forgotten

By humanity, created by his hands.

Among other names assigned to him are 'the one who knows the heart of

the gods,' 'who gathers the gods together,' 'who rules in truth and

justice.' In allusion again to his contest with Tiamat, he is called

'the destroyer of the enemy and of all wicked ones,' 'who frustrates

their plans.'

With the help of a pun upon his having 'pierced' Tiamat; he is called

Nibir, _i.e._, the planet Jupiter.[764]

Nibir be his name, who took hold of the life of Tiamat.

The course of the stars of heaven may he direct.

May he pasture all of the gods like sheep.[765]

But the climax is reached when, upon hearing what the Igigi have done,

the great gods, father Bel and father Ea cheerfully bestow their own

names upon Marduk.

Because he created the heavens and formed the earth

'Lord of Lands'[766] father Bel called his name.

When he heard of all the names that the Igigi bestowed

Ea's liver rejoiced

That they had bestowed exalted names upon his son.

"He as I--Ea be his name.

The control of my commands be entrusted to him.

To him my orders shall be transmitted."

The historical background to this transference of the name of Bel has

been dwelt upon in a previous chapter.[767] This "Marduk hymn" is to

justify the transference of the role of the older Bel of Nippur to the

younger god Marduk. Throughout, the tablet describing the contest of

Marduk with Tiamat, Marduk is called Bel,[768] and while this name is

used in the generic sense of "lord," the transference of the name of Bel

to Marduk is evidently introduced to account for his assuming the

prerogatives belonging to another god. The original 'lord' was En-lil of

Nippur. The sacred significance of ancient Nippur made its patron deity

the most important rival of Marduk. Bel could not be disposed of as Ea,

who by virtue of his mythological relationships to Marduk--a solar

deity--could be retained as the father of Marduk. There was nothing left

but for Marduk to take the place of Bel. The constant introduction of

the epithet 'Bel' into the Tiamat story points to an older version in

which Bel was the hero. In popular traditions, Bel continued to be

pictured as armed with mighty weapons,[769] and, though ready to inflict

severe punishment for disobedience to his commands, he engages in

contests for the benefit of mankind. The earth being his special sphere

of action, what more natural than that he should have had a prominent

share in adapting it as a habitation for mankind. He would be directly

interested in fighting the powers of darkness.

In the weapons that Marduk employs, particularly the lightning and the

winds which belong to an atmospheric god rather than a solar deity, we

may discern traces of the older narrative which has been combined with

the Marduk-Tiamat nature myth.[770] It may be that Kingu represents

Bel's particular rival. In the narrative, it will be recalled, the

contest with Tiamat is sharply separated from that with Kingu and his

associates. The division that thus suggests itself between Marduk and

Tiamat, on the one hand, Bel and the monsters with Kingu at their head,

on the other, may certainly be termed a natural one. The solar deity

Marduk disposed of the storms and rains of the winter, whereas, a god of

"that which is below,"[771] _i.e._, the earth and the atmosphere

immediately above the earth, would appropriately be represented as

ridding the earth of the monsters in order to prepare it as a habitation

for mankind. Ea was not such a serious rival to Marduk as the older Bel.

Political rivalry between Nippur and Babylonia probably contributed

towards the disposition to have Marduk completely absorb the role of

Bel, whereas, this rivalry being absent in the case of Eridu (the

original seat of Ea worship) and Babylon, the mythological relations

between Ea and Marduk led, as already pointed out, in a perfectly

natural way to making Marduk the son of Ea. Still, while cheerfully

acknowledged by Ea as his equal, it is evident that in older traditions

Ea was far superior to Marduk, and the latter replaces Ea as he does

Bel. The real creator of mankind, according to certain traditions, is

Ea, just as in all probabilities a third tradition existed which arose

in Nippur giving to Bel that distinction. It is necessary, therefore,

for Ea to declare that Marduk's name (_i.e._, his power) is the same as

Ea. The alteration of the traditions is thus justified by a harmonistic

theology. Marduk has triumphed over Bel and Ea. The god of Babylon

reigns supreme, his sway acknowledged by those whom he supplants.

Marduk's declaration that in the event of his vanquishing Tiamat he will

assume authority over all the gods is thus formally confirmed. The epic

closes grandiloquently:

With fifty names, the great gods

According to their fifty names, proclaimed the supremacy of his

course.

The compiler has added to the epic what Delitzsch appropriately

designates an 'epilogue,'--a declaration of affection for Marduk. The

epilogue consists of three stanzas. All mankind--royalty and

subjects--are called upon to bear in mind Marduk's glorious deeds,

achieved for the benefit of the world.

Let the wise and intelligent together ponder over it.

Let the father relate it and teach it to his son.[772]

To leader and shepherd[773] be it told.

Let all rejoice in the lord of gods, Marduk

That he may cause his land to prosper and grant it peace.

His word is firm, his order irrevocable.

What issues from his mouth, no god can alter.

Marduk's anger, the poet says in closing, terrifies even the gods, but

he is a god upon whose mercy one may rely, though he punishes the

evil-doer.

Bearing in mind the general nature of the creation epic we have

discussed, we must of course in our conclusions distinguish between

those elements in it which reflect the intent of the compiler or

compilers to glorify Marduk at the expense of other gods and such parts

as bear the stamp of being generally accepted beliefs. Setting aside,

therefore, the special role assigned to Marduk, we find that the

Babylonians never developed a theory of real beginnings. The _creatio ex

nihilo_ was a thought beyond the grasp even of the schools. There was

always _something_, and indeed there was always a _great deal_--as much

perhaps at the beginning of things as at any other time. But there was

no cosmic order. Instead of a doctrine of creation, we have a doctrine

of evolution from chaos to the imposition of eternal laws. The

manifestation of these laws was seen first of all in the movements of

the heavenly bodies. There was a great expanse, presenting the

appearance of a stretched-out curtain or a covering to which the stars

and moon were attached. Along this expanse the wandering stars moved

with a certain regularity. The moon, too, had its course mapped out and

the sun appeared in this expanse daily, as an overseer, passing along

the whole of it. This wonderful system was the first to be perfected,

and to the solar deity,[774] which seemed to control everything, was

ascribed the distinction of having introduced the heavenly order. This

notion we may well believe was of popular origin, though elaborated in

the schools to conform to a developed astrological science.

The stars and moon never passed beyond certain limits, and, accordingly,

the view was developed which gave to the canopy of heaven fixed

boundaries. At each end of the canopy was a great gate, properly

guarded. Through one of these the sun passed in rising out of the ocean,

through the other it passed out when it had run its course. Learned

speculation could not improve upon this popular fancy. As the heavens

had their limitations, so also the great bodies of water were kept in

check by laws, which, though eternal, were yet not quite as inexorable

as those controlling the heavenly bodies. The yearly overflow of the

Euphrates and Tigris was too serious a matter to be overlooked, and we

shall see in a following chapter[775] how this phenomenon was

interpreted as a rivalry between Bel and Ea, deliberately caused by the

former in anger toward mankind. Still, as a general thing, the 'deep,'

presided over by Ea, kept within the limits assigned to it. The waters

above the canopy were under rigid control, and the lower waters flowed

around the earth and underneath it, and bordered the canopy of heaven at

its two ends.

The earth itself was a vast hollow structure, erected as a "place of

fertility" under the canopy of heaven and resting on the great 'deep.'

Its vegetation was the gift of the gods. 'Fertility' summed up the law

fixed for the earth. Much as in the Book of Genesis, "to multiply and

increase" was the order proclaimed for the life with which the earth was

filled.

The creation of mankind was the last act in the great drama. Assigned in

some traditions to Ea, in others as it would seem to Bel, the transfer

of the traditions to Marduk is the deliberate work of the schools of

theological thought. The essential point for us is that mankind,

according to all traditions, is the product of the gods. In some form or

other, this belief was popularly held everywhere. Its original form,

however, is obscured beyond recognition by the theory which it is made

to serve.

A second version of the course of creation[776] agrees in the main with

the first one, but adds some points of interest. In this version,

likewise, Marduk is assigned the most important role--an evidence that

it was produced under similar influences as the larger epic. So far as

preserved, the second version differs from the first in its brevity and

in the prominence given to such themes as the development of animal life

and the growth of civilization. It fills out to a certain degree the

gaps in the first version, due to the fragmentary condition of the fifth

tablet and the loss of the sixth. The brevity of the second version is

due in part to the fact that it is introduced into an incantation text,

and, what is more, incidentally introduced.

It begins as does the larger epic with the statement regarding the

period when the present phenomena of the universe were not yet in

existence, but it specifies the period in a manner which gives a

somewhat more definite character to the conception of this ancient time.

The bright house of the gods was not yet built on the bright place,

No reed grew and no tree was formed,

No brick was laid nor any brick edifice[777] reared,

No house erected, no city built,

No city reared, no conglomeration[778] formed.

Nippur was not reared, E-Kur[779] not erected.

Erech was not reared, E-Anna[780] not erected.

The deep[781] not formed, Eridu[782] not reared.

The bright house, the house of the gods not yet constructed as a

dwelling.

The world[783] was all a sea.

Again it will be observed that neither popular nor scholastic

speculation can picture the beginning of things in any other way than as

an absence of things characteristic of the _order_ of the universe.

The bright[784] house of the gods corresponds to Eshara and the canopy

of heaven in the first version. The gods are again identified with the

stars, and it is in the heavens--the bright place--that the gods

dwell.[785] The reference to the absence of vegetation agrees closely

with the corresponding passage in the larger creation epic. The

limitations of the cosmological speculations of the Babylonians find a

striking illustration in the manner in which the beginnings of human

culture are placed on a level with the beginnings of heavenly and

terrestrial phenomena. Nippur, Erech, and Eridu, which are thus shown to

be the oldest religious centers of the Euphrates Valley, were

indissolubly associated in the minds of the people with the beginning of

order in the universe. Such was the antiquity of those cities as seats

of the great gods, Bel, Ishtar, and Ea, that the time when they did not

exist was not differentiated from the creation of the heavens and of

plant life. This conception is more clearly emphasized by the

parallelism implied between Eridu and the 'deep.' The 'formation' of

Apsu corresponds to the 'structure' made by Marduk according to the

first version, as the seat of Ea. The waters were not created by Marduk,

but they were confined by him within a certain space. In a vague way,

the 'deep' itself rested in a vast tub. The waters flowed freely and yet

not without limitation.

The contest with Tiamat is not referred to in this second version, and

this may be taken as an indication that the 'nature' myth was not an

ingredient part of cosmological speculations, but only introduced into

the first version because of its associations with Marduk.

The appearance of dry land is described somewhat vaguely as follows:

There was a channel[786] within the sea.

At that time Eridu was erected, E-Sagila[787] was built,

E-Sagila in the midst of the 'deep,' where the god of the glorious

abode[788] dwells.

The mention of the channel appears to imply that the waters were

permitted to flow off in a certain direction.

The conception would then be similar to the view expressed in Genesis,

where the dry land appears in consequence of the waters being 'gathered'

into one place.[789] The temple at Eridu is regarded as synonymous with

the city, as the temples E-Kur and E-Anna are synonymous with Nippur and

Erech respectively. Eridu at the head of the Persian Gulf, which for the

Babylonians was the beginning of the great 'Okeanos' surrounding the

world,[790] is the first dry land to appear and hence the oldest place

in the world. At this point in the narrative a line is interpolated

which clearly betrays the lateness of the version. The mention of

E-Sagila suggests to a Babylonian, naturally, the great temple of Marduk

in the city of Babylon--'the lofty house.' Local pride and the desire to

connect Babylon with the beginning of things leads to the insertion:

Babylon was reared, E-Sagila built.

With this mention of Babylon, the connecting link is established which

leads easily to the glorification of Babylon and Marduk. The thought

once introduced is not abandoned. The rest of the narrative, so far as

preserved, is concerned with Marduk. Eridu alone is beyond his

jurisdiction. Everything else, vegetation, mankind, rivers, animals, and

all cities, including even Nippur and Erech, are Marduk's work.

The Anunnaki[791] he[792] created together

And bestowed glorious epithets upon the glorious city, the seat dear

to their heart.

The 'glorious city' is Eridu, though the compiler would have us apply it

to Babylon.

With the founding of Eridu, a limit was fixed for the 'deep.' The rest

of the dry land is formed according to the theory of the writer by the

extension of this place.

Marduk constructed an enclosure around the waters,

He made dust and heaped it up within the enclosure.[793]

The _naivete_ of the conception justifies us in regarding it as of

popular origin, incorporated by the theologians into their system.

But this land is created primarily for the benefit of the gods.

That the gods might dwell in the place dear to their heart.

Naturally not all of the gods are meant,--perhaps only the

Anunnaki,--for the great gods dwell in heaven. The creation of mankind

is next described, and is boldly ascribed to Marduk.

Mankind he created.[794]

In the following line, however, we come across a trace again of an older

tradition, which has been embodied in the narrative in a rather awkward

manner. Associated with Marduk in the creation of mankind is a goddess

Aruru.

The goddess Aruru created the seed of men together with him.[795]

We encounter this goddess Aruru in the Gilgamesh epic,[796] where she is

represented as creating a human being,--Eabani; and, curiously enough,

she creates him in agreement with the Biblical tradition, out of a lump

of clay. It has already been pointed out that according to one tradition

Ea is the creator of mankind,[797] and the conjecture has also been

advanced that at Nippur, Bel was so regarded. In Aruru we have evidently

a figure to whom another tradition, that arose in some district,

ascribed the honor of having created mankind. The Gilgamesh story is

connected with the city of Erech, and it is probable that the tale--at

least in part--originated there. It becomes plausible, therefore, to

trace the tradition ascribing the creation of man to Aruru to the same

place. A passage in the Deluge story, which forms an episode of the

Gilgamesh epic, adds some force to this conjecture. After the dreadful

deluge has come, Ishtar breaks out in wild lament that mankind, her

offspring, has perished: "What I created, where is it?"[798] She is

called 'the mistress of the gods,'[799] and if Jensen is correct in an

ingenious restoration of a defective text,[800] Aruru is given the same

epithet in a lexicographical tablet. The Ishtar occurring in the

Gilgamesh story is the old Ishtar of Erech. I venture to suggest,

therefore, that Aruru and Ishtar of Erech are one and the same

personage. Ishtar is, of course, as has been pointed out, merely a

generic name[801] for the 'great goddess' worshipped under many forms.

The more specific name by which Ishtar of Erech was known was Nana, but

Nana again is nothing but an epithet, meaning, as the Babylonians

themselves interpreted it, the 'lady' _par excellence_. Have we perhaps

in Aruru the real name of the old goddess of Erech? At all events, the

occurrence of Aruru in this second 'creation' story points to her as

belonging to the district of which Erech was the center. In this way,

each one of the three most ancient sacred towns of Babylonia would have

its 'creator,'--Bel in Nippur, Ea in Eridu, and Aruru in Erech. The

chief deity of Erech, it will be recalled, was always a goddess,--a

circumstance that supports the association of Aruru with that place.

Aruru being a goddess, it was not so easy to have Marduk take up her

role, as he supplanted Bel. Again, Erech and Babylon were not political

rivals to the degree that Nippur and Babylon were. Accordingly a

compromise was effected, as in the case of Marduk and Ea. Aruru is

associated with Marduk. She creates mankind with Marduk, and it would

seem to be a consequence of this association that the name of Marduk's

real consort, Sarpanitum, is playfully but with intent interpreted by

the Babylonian pedants as 'seed-producing.'[802]

Our second version thus turns out to be, like the first, an adaptation

of old traditions to new conditions. Babylon and Marduk are designedly

introduced. In the original form Nippur, Eridu, and Erech alone figured,

and presumably, therefore, only the deities of these three places. Among

them the work of creation was in some way parceled out. This

distribution may itself have been the result of a combination of

independent traditions. In any early combination, however, we may feel

certain that Marduk was not introduced.

After this incidental mention of Aruru, the narrative passes back

undisturbed to Marduk.

The animals of the field, the living creatures of the field he

created,

The Tigris and Euphrates he formed in their places, gave them good

names,

Soil (?), grass, the marsh, reed, and forest he created,

The verdure of the field he produced,

The lands, the marsh, and thicket,

The wild cow with her young, the young wild ox,

The ewe with her young, the sheep of the fold,

Parks and forests,

The goat and wild goat he brought forth.

The text at this point becomes defective, but we can still make out that

the clay as building material is created by Marduk, and that he

constructs houses and rears cities. Corresponding to the opening lines,

we may supply several lines as follows:

Houses he erected, cities he built,

Cities he built, dwellings he prepared,

Nippur he built, E-Kur he erected,

Erech he built, E-Anna he erected.

Here the break in the tablet begins.

The new points derived from this second version are, (_a_) the details

in the creation of the animal and plant world, (_b_) the mention of

Aruru as the mother of mankind, and (_c_) the inclusion of human culture

in the story of the 'beginnings.'

Before leaving the subject, a brief comparison of these two versions

with the opening chapters of Genesis is called for. That the Hebrew and

Babylonian traditions spring from a common source is so evident as to

require no further proof. The agreements are too close to be accidental.

At the same time, the variations in detail point to independent

elaboration of the traditions on the part of the Hebrews and

Babylonians.

A direct borrowing from the Babylonians has not taken place, and while

the Babylonian records are in all probabilities much older than the

Hebrew, the latter again contain elements, as Gunkel has shown, of a

more primitive character than the Babylonian production. This

relationship can only be satisfactorily explained on the assumption that

the Hebrews possessed the traditions upon which the Genesis narrative

rests long before the period of the Babylonian exile, when the story

appears, indeed, to have received its final and present shape. The

essential features of the Babylonian cosmology formed part of a stock of

traditions that Hebrews and Babylonians (and probably others) received

from some common source or, to put it more vaguely, held in common from

a period, the limits of which can no longer be determined. While the two

Babylonian versions agree in the main, embodying the same general

traditions regarding the creation of the heavenly bodies and containing

the same general conception of an evolution in the world from confusion

and caprice to order, and the establishment of law, the variations in

regard to the terrestrial phenomena must not be overlooked. According to

the first version, mankind appears as the last episode of creation; in

the second, mankind precedes vegetation and animal life.

If we now take up the two versions of creation found in Genesis, we will

see that the same differences may be observed. According to the first,

the so-called Elohistic version,[803] mankind is not created until the

last day of creation; according to the second,[804] the so-called

Yahwistic version, mankind is first created, then a garden is made and

trees are planted. After that, the beasts of the field and the birds of

heaven are called into existence.

The resemblance of the second Babylonian version to the Yahwistic

version extends even to certain phrases which they have in common. The

opening words of the Yahwist--

And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of

the field had yet sprung up--

might serve almost as a translation of the second line of the Babylonian

counterpart. The reference to the Tigris and Euphrates in the second

Babylonian version reminds one of the four streams mentioned in the

Yahwistic version, two of which are likewise the Tigris and Euphrates.

Again, Tiamat is mentioned only in the first Babylonian version, and

T'hom similarly only in the Elohistic version; while, on the other hand,

the building of cities is included in the Yahwistic version,[805] as it

forms part of the second Babylonian version. The points mentioned

suffice to show that the Elohistic version is closely related to the

larger creation epic of the Babylonians, while the Yahwistic

version--more concise, too, than the Elohistic--agrees to an astonishing

degree with the second and more concise Babylonian record.

The conclusion, therefore, is justified that the variations between the

Babylonian versions rest upon varying traditions that must have arisen

in different places. The attempt was made to combine these traditions by

the Babylonians, and among the Hebrews we may see the result of a

similar attempt in the first two or, more strictly speaking, in the

first three chapters of Genesis. At the same time, the manner in which

both traditions have been worked over by the Hebrew compilers of Genesis

precludes, as has been pointed out, the theory of a direct borrowing

from cuneiform documents. The climatic conditions involved in the Hebrew

versions are those peculiar to Babylonia. It is in Babylonia that the

thought would naturally arise of making the world begin with the close

of the storms and rains in the spring. The Terahites must therefore have

brought these cosmological traditions with them upon migrating from the

Euphrates Valley to the Jordan district.

The traditions retained their hold through all the vicissitudes that the

people underwent. The intercourse, political and commercial, between

Palestine and Mesopotamia was uninterrupted, as we now know, from at

least the fifteenth century before our era down to the taking of

Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and this constant intercourse was no doubt

an important factor in maintaining the life of the old traditions that

bound the two peoples together. The so-called Babylonian exile brought

Hebrews and Babylonians once more side by side. Under the stimulus of

this direct contact, the final shape was given by Hebrew writers to

their cosmological speculations. Yahwe is assigned the role of

Bel-Marduk, the division of the work of creation into six days is

definitely made,[806] and some further modifications introduced. While,

as emphasized, this final shape is due to the independent elaboration of

the common traditions, and, what is even more to the point, shows an

independent _interpretation_ of the traditions, it is by no means

impossible, but on the contrary quite probable, that the final compilers

of the Hebrew versions had before them the cuneiform tablets, embodying

the literary form given to the traditions by Babylonian writers.[807]

Such a circumstance, while not implying direct borrowing, would account

for the close parallels existing between the two Hebrew and the two

Babylonian versions, and would also furnish a motive to the Hebrew

writers for embodying _two_ versions in their narrative.

FOOTNOTES:

[680] The so-called Elohistic version, Gen. i. 1-ii. 4; the Yahwistic

version, Gen. ii. 5-24. Traces have been found in various portions of

the Old Testament of other popular versions regarding creation. See

Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 29-114, 119-121.

[681] Gunkel, _ib._ pp. 28, 29. What Sayce (_e.g._, _Rec. of the Past_,

N. S., I. 147, 148) calls the 'Cuthaean legend of the creation'

contains, similarly, a variant description of Tiamat and her brood.

[682] Published by Pinches, _Journal Royal Asiat. Soc._, 1891, pp.

393-408.

[683] Complete publication by Delitzsch, _Das Babylonische

Weltschoepfungsepos_ (Leipzig, 1896) with elaborate commentary.

[684] See Zimmern in Gunkel's _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 415, 416, and

on the other side, Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 20.

Zimmern's doubts are justified.

[685] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ vi. 7.

[686] _Zeits. f. Assyr._ viii. 121-124. Delitzsch, in his _Babylonische

Weltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 61-68, has elaborately set forth the principles

of the poetic composition. See also D. H. Mueller, _Die Propheten in

ihrer urspruenglichen Form_, pp. 5-14.

[687] _I.e._, did not exist. To be 'called' or to 'bear a name' meant to

be called into existence.

[688] _I.e._, of the waters.

[689] _I.e._, of heaven and earth.

[690] The word used is obscure. Jensen and Zimmern render "reed."

Delitzsch, I think, comes nearer the real meaning with "marsh." See

Haupt's translation, _Proc. Amer. Oriental Soc._, 1896, p. 161.

[691] Delitzsch supplies a parallel phrase like "periods elapsed."

[692] Supplied from Damascius' extract of the work of Berosus on

Babylonia. See Cory, _Ancient Fragments_, p. 92; Delitzsch,

_Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 94.

[693] The _o_ is represented in Babylonian by _a_, and the ending _at_

in Tiamat is an affix which stamps the Babylonian name as feminine.

T'hom in Hebrew is likewise a feminine noun, but it should be noted that

at a certain stage in the development of the Semitic languages, the

feminine is hardly distinguishable from the plural and collective.

[694] Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 29-82, 379-398.

[695] For our purposes it is sufficient to refer for the relations

existing between Damascius and the cuneiform records to Smith's

_Chaldaeische Genesis_, pp. 63-66, to Lenormant's _Essai de Commentaire

sur les fragments Cosmogoniques de Berose_, pp. 67 _seq._, and to

Jensen's _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 270-272.

[696] The names are given by Damascius as _Apason_ and _Tauthe_.

[697] Suggested by Professor Haupt (Schrader, _Cuneiform Inscriptions

and the Old Testament_, p. 7).

[698] Hommel, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, xviii. 19.

[699] See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 224, 225.

[700] Agumkakrimi Inscription (VR. 33, iv. 50); Nabonnedos (Cylinder,

VR. 64, ll. 16, 17).

[701] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 58.

[702] See above, pp. 198, 199.

[703] See above, pp. 198, 199.

[704] I avoid the term "Sumerian" here, because I feel convinced that

the play on Anshar is of an entirely artificial character and has no

philological basis.

[705] See below, pp. 421-423.

[706] IIR. 54, no. 3.

[707] For a different interpretation of the phrase, see Jensen,

_Kosmologie_, pp. 273, 274.

[708] See p. 107.

[709] _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 94.

[710] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 58.

[711] An epithet descriptive of Tiamat. "Ummu" is "mother" and "khubur"

signifies "hollow"; "mother of the hollow" would be a poetic expression

for "source of the deep," and an appropriate term to apply to Tiamat. It

has nothing to do with Omoroka. The latter, as Wright has shown, is a

corruption of "O Marduk" (_Zeits. f. Assyr_. x. 71-74).

[712] The word used is Lakhami, the plural of Lakhamu.

[713] This scene, the description of the monsters and the installation

of Kingu, occurs four times in the 'Epic.' See p. 424.

[714] Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 25.

[715] Cory, _ib._ p. 92.

[716] "The chamber of fates" where Marduk sits on New Year's Day and

decides the fate of mankind for the ensuing year. Jensen and Zimmern

read _upshugina_, but see Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos,_

p. 135.

[717] The deity is mentioned by Sennacherib (Meissner-Host,

_Bauinschriften_, p. 108). See above, p. 238.

[718] In the first tablet, in the second in connection with the mission

of Anu, and twice in the third in connection with Marduk's visit.

[719] Tiamat's presence.

[720] Called Nudimmud. Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p.

99, questions the identity with Ea, but his skepticism is unwarranted,

though the title is also used of Bel.

[721] Here used to comprise the army of Tiamat.

[722] _I.e._, thy power is equal to that of Anu.

[723] Exod. iv. 2-8; other parallels might be adduced.

[724] _I.e._, far off.

[725] _I.e._, that a wind might not carry her off.

[726] Adding three to the ordinary winds from the four directions.

[727] For the explanation of the term used in the

original--_kirbish_--see Delitzsch's excellent remarks, _Babylonische

Weltschoepfungsepos._ pp. 132-134.

[728] Lit., 'storm,'--perhaps the thunderbolt, as Delitzsch suggests.

[729] Marduk.

[730] She lost her reason.

[731] Gasping, as it were, for breath.

[732] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 49.

[733] Lit., 'places,' here used as a synonym for 'heavens,' as an

Assyrian commentator expressly states. See Delitzsch's remarks

(_Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 147) against Jensen's and

Zimmern's interpretation.

[734] _I.e._, Ea. See above, p. 424, note 3.

[735] The complete proof is brought by Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp.

246-253.

[736] To render the word used as "Palace" (so Delitzsch), while not

incorrect, is somewhat misleading.

[737] _Kosmologie_, p. 199.

[738] _Magie und Wahrsagekunst der Chaldaer_, p. 163.

[739] See the illustration in Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pl. 3.

[740] The word used also means "cities." A Babylonian district is naught

but an extended city.

[741] See p. 429.

[742] Gen. viii. 22.

[743] See above, p. 370, and chapter xxii.

[744] _I.e._, for each of the great gods.

[745] _I.e._, of the gods.

[746] A particular group of stars--the _mashi_ stars--is mentioned, but

the term seems to be used in a rather general sense. I cannot share

Delitzsch's extreme skepticism with regard to the interpretation of the

fifth tablet. Jensen seems to have solved the chief difficulties.

[747] Jensen and Zimmern interpret "he drew the pictures," referring the

phrase to the contours of the stars; but the parallelism speaks in favor

of connecting the words with the "year." The divisions of the year or

seasons seem to be meant.

[748] _I.e._, the planet Marduk, or Jupiter.

[749] _I.e._, with Nibir.

[750] See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 354. George Smith already interpreted

the passage in this way.

[751] _I.e._, of the heavens. Delitzsch renders "Schwerpunkt."

[752] Text _elati_. Jensen, Zimmern, and Halevy translate "zenith," but

Delitzsch questions this.

[753] The moon-god.

[754] _I.e._, the moon.

[755] Published by Delitzsch, _Assyrische Lesestuecke_ (3d edition), p.

94.

[756] See the proof as put together by Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 293,

294.

[757] Line 15.

[758] So Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 19, 20.

[759] Following Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 20,

21. I pass over two fragments which Delitzsch adds to our 'epic.' They

are not sufficiently clear to be utilized for our purposes. Delitzsch

may be right with regard to no. 20, but if so, it forms part or another

version of the Marduk-Tiamat episode. No. 19, treating of the bow of

Marduk (?), does not seem to belong to our series.

[760] A standing phrase for "favor" in general.

[761] To prayer.

[762] The gods or the Igigi.

[763] See p. 486 and Gunkel's note, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 26.

[764] See above, p. 434. The play is between Nibir (as though from the

stem _eberu_) and _itebbiru_ ("he pierced"), a form of _eberu_, and

meaning 'to pass through.'

[765] This metaphor is carried over into astronomical science. The

planets are known as "wandering sheep." See p. 459.

[766] _Bel matate_.

[767] See p. 118.

[768] Similarly in another version of the contest published by

Delitzsch, _Assyr. Woerterbuch_, p. 390.

[769] See p. 54.

[770] Tiele (_Gesch. der Religion im Alterthum_, I. 176) assigns to

Marduk a double character, making him both a god of light and a god of

storms, but I venture to think that the latter attribute represents the

transference of En-lil's power to Marduk.

[771] So Bel is called in contrast to Anu. See p. 53.

[772] One is reminded of the Biblical injunction with regard to the Laws

of Yahwe, Deut. vi. 7: "Thou shall teach them to thy sons and speak

constantly of them."

[773] _I.e._, to the kings who are frequently called 'shepherds' in the

historical texts.

[774] Or, according to the earlier view, to an atmospheric god.

[775] "The Gilgamesh Epic."

[776] First published by Pinches, _Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Society_, 1891, pp. 393-408.

[777] Clay, it will be recalled, was the building material in Babylonia.

[778] The word in the text is generally applied to "a mass" of animals,

but also to human productions. See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_,

p. 467.

[779] Bel's temple at Nippur.

[780] Temple of Ishtar at Erech or Uruk.

[781] _I.e._, Apsu.

[782] City sacred to Ea at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

[783] Lit., 'totality of lands.'

[784] Zimmern's rendering (Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 419)

"sacred" (instead of 'bright') misses the point.

[785] _Cf._ S. A. Smith, Miscellaneous, K. 2866, l. 8, "the great gods

dwelling in the heaven of Anu." The reference, therefore, cannot be to

"the gathering place of the gods," where the fates of mankind are

decided.

[786] The original has _ratum_. Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_, p.

663, compares Hebrew _rahat_, "trough." Zimmern (Gunkel, _Schoepfung und

Chaos_, p. 419) translates "Bewegung," but on what grounds I do not

know. The passage is obscure; the text possibly defective.

[787] If the reading E-Sagila is original. It is here used as the name

of Ea's temple in Eridu, but it is of course possible that E-Sagila has

been deliberately introduced to enhance the glory of Marduk's temple in

Babylon.

[788] Ea.

[789] Gen. i. 9.

[790] See Haupt, _Wo lag das Paradies_, p. 7 (_Ueber Land und Meer_,

1894-95, no. 15, Sonderabdruck), who furnishes numerous illustrations of

the indefinite geographical notions of the ancients.

[791] The group of celestial beings.

[792] _I.e._, Marduk.

[793] Read _a-ma-mi_.

[794] Zimmern purposes to connect this line with the preceding, but the

sense in that case is not at all clear.

[795] _I.e._, with Marduk.

[796] Haupt's edition, p. 8, l. 34.

[797] See above, p. 437.

[798] Haupt, _ib._ p. 139, l. 116.

[799] _Ib._ l. 111.

[800] _Kosmologie_, p. 294, note 1.

[801] See p. 82.

[802] _Zerbanitum_, as though compounded of _zer_ (seed), and _bani_

(create). See p. 121.

[803] Gen. i. 1-ii. 4, embodied in the "Priestly Code."

[804] Gen. ii. 4 and extending in reality as far as iv. 25.

[805] Gen. iii. 17.

[806] See Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 13.

[807] On the acquaintance of Hebrew writers of the Babylonian exile with

cuneiform literature and on the influence exercised by the latter, see

D. H. Mueller, _Ezechielstudien_.