Legends Of Babylon And Egypt

L >> Leonard W. King >> Legends Of Babylon And Egypt


(2) Obv., ll. 5-12.

(3) Sum. _nigin-kur-kur-ra-ge_, Sem. _nap-har ma-ta-a-tu_,
lit. "all lands", i.e. Sumerian and Babylonian expressions
for "the world".

(4) Sum. _a-ab-ba_, "sea", is here rendered by _tamtum_, not
by its personified equivalent Tiamat.

(5) The suggestion has been made that _amu_, the word in the
Semitic version here translated "reeds", should be connected
with _ammatu_, the word used for "earth" or "dry land" in
the Babylonian Creation Series, Tabl. I, l. 2, and given
some such meaning as "expanse". The couplet is thus
explained to mean that the god made an expanse on the face
of the waters, and then poured out dust "on the expanse".
But the Semitic version in l. 18 reads _itti ami_, "beside
the _a._", not _ina ami_, "on the _a._"; and in any case
there does not seem much significance in the act of pouring
out specially created dust on or beside land already formed.
The Sumerian word translated by _amu_ is written _gi-dir_,
with the element _gi_, "reed", in l. 17, and though in the
following line it is written under its variant form _a-dir_
without _gi_, the equation _gi-a-dir_ = _amu_ is elsewhere
attested (cf. Delitzsch, _Handwoerterbuch_, p. 77). In favour
of regarding _amu_ as some sort of reed, here used
collectively, it may be pointed out that the Sumerian verb
in l. 17 is _kesda_, "to bind", accurately rendered by
_rakasu_ in the Semitic version. Assuming that l. 34 belongs
to the same account, the creation of reeds in general beside
trees, after dry land is formed, would not of course be at
variance with the god's use of some sort of reed in his
first act of creation. He creates the reed-bundles, as he
creates the soil, both of which go to form the first dike;
the reed-beds, like the other vegetation, spring up from the
ground when it appears.

(6) The Semitic version here reads "the lord Marduk"; the
corresponding name in the Sumerian text is not preserved.

(7) The line is restored from l. 2 o the obverse of the
text.

Here the Sumerian Creator is pictured as forming dry land from the
primaeval water in much the same way as the early cultivator in the
Euphrates Valley procured the rich fields for his crops. The existence
of the earth is here not really presupposed. All the world was sea until
the god created land out of the waters by the only practical method that
was possible in Mesopotamia.

In another Sumerian myth, which has been recovered on one of the early
tablets from Nippur, we have a rather different picture of beginnings.
For there, though water is the source of life, the existence of the
land is presupposed. But it is bare and desolate, as in the Mesopotamian
season of "low water". The underlying idea is suggestive of a period
when some progress in systematic irrigation had already been made, and
the filling of the dry canals and subsequent irrigation of the parched
ground by the rising flood of Enki was not dreaded but eagerly desired.
The myth is only one of several that have been combined to form the
introductory sections of an incantation; but in all of them Enki, the
god of the deep water, plays the leading part, though associated with
different consorts.(1) The incantation is directed against various
diseases, and the recitation of the closing mythical section was
evidently intended to enlist the aid of special gods in combating them.
The creation of these deities is recited under set formulae in a sort of
refrain, and the divine name assigned to each bears a magical connexion
with the sickness he or she is intended to dispel.(2)

(1) See Langdon, Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sect.,
Vol. X, No. 1 (1915), pl. i f., pp. 69 ff.; _Journ. Amer.
Or. Soc._, Vol. XXXVI (1916), pp. 140 ff.; cf. Prince,
_Journ. Amer. Or. Soc._, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 90 ff.; Jastrow,
_Journ. Amer. Or. Soc._, Vol. XXXVI, pp. 122 ff., and in
particular his detailed study of the text in _Amer. Journ.
Semit. Lang._, Vol. XXXIII, pp. 91 ff. Dr. Langdon's first
description of the text, in _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, Vol.
XXXVI (1914), pp. 188 ff., was based on a comparatively
small fragment only; and on his completion of the text from
other fragments in Pennsylvania. Professor Sayce at once
realized that the preliminary diagnosis of a Deluge myth
could not be sustained (cf. _Expos. Times_, Nov., 1915, pp.
88 ff.). He, Professor Prince, and Professor Jastrow
independently showed that the action of Enki in the myth in
sending water on the land was not punitive but beneficent;
and the preceding section, in which animals are described as
not performing their usual activities, was shown
independently by Professor Prince and Professor Jastrow to
have reference, not to their different nature in an ideal
existence in Paradise, but, on familiar lines, to their non-
existence in a desolate land. It may be added that Professor
Barton and Dr. Peters agree generally with Professor Prince
and Professor Jastrow in their interpretation of the text,
which excludes the suggested biblical parallels; and I
understand from Dr. Langdon that he very rightly recognizes
that the text is not a Deluge myth. It is a subject for
congratulation that the discussion has materially increased
our knowledge of this difficult composition.

(2) Cf. Col. VI, ll. 24 ff.; thus _Ab_-u was created for the
sickness of the cow (_ab_); Nin-_tul_ for that of the flock
(u-_tul_); Nin-_ka_-u-tu and Nin-_ka_-si for that of the
mouth (_ka_); Na-zi for that of the _na-zi_ (meaning
uncertain); _Da zi_-ma for that of the _da-zi_ (meaning
uncertain); Nin-_til_ for that of _til_ (life); the name of
the eighth and last deity is imperfectly preserved.

We have already noted examples of a similar use of myth in magic, which
was common to both Egypt and Babylonia; and to illustrate its employment
against disease, as in the Nippur document, it will suffice to cite
a well-known magical cure for the toothache which was adopted in
Babylon.(1) There toothache was believed to be caused by the gnawing of
a worm in the gum, and a myth was used in the incantation to relieve
it. The worm's origin is traced from Anu, the god of heaven, through
a descending scale of creation; Anu, the heavens, the earth, rivers,
canals and marshes are represented as each giving rise to the next in
order, until finally the marshes produce the worm. The myth then relates
how the worm, on being offered tempting food by Ea in answer to her
prayer, asked to be allowed to drink the blood of the teeth, and the
incantation closes by invoking the curse of Ea because of the worm's
misguided choice. It is clear that power over the worm was obtained by a
recital of her creation and of her subsequent ingratitude, which led to
her present occupation and the curse under which she laboured. When the
myth and invocation had been recited three times over the proper mixture
of beer, a plant, and oil, and the mixture had been applied to the
offending tooth, the worm would fall under the spell of the curse and
the patient would at once gain relief. The example is instructive,
as the connexion of ideas is quite clear. In the Nippur document the
recital of the creation of the eight deities evidently ensured their
presence, and a demonstration of the mystic bond between their names
and the corresponding diseases rendered the working of their powers
effective. Our knowledge of a good many other myths is due solely to
their magical employment.

(1) See Thompson, _Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia_,
Vol. II, pp. 160 ff.; for a number of other examples, see
Jastrow, _J.A.O.S._, Vol. XXXVI, p. 279, n. 7.

Perhaps the most interesting section of the new text is one in which
divine instructions are given in the use of plants, the fruit or roots
of which may be eaten. Here Usmu, a messenger from Enki, God of the
Deep, names eight such plants by Enki's orders, thereby determining the
character of each. As Professor Jastrow has pointed out, the passage
forcibly recalls the story from Berossus, concerning the mythical
creature Oannes, who came up from the Erythraean Sea, where it borders
upon Babylonia, to instruct mankind in all things, including "seeds and
the gathering of fruits".(1) But the only part of the text that concerns
us here is the introductory section, where the life-giving flood, by
which the dry fields are irrigated, is pictured as following the union
of the water-deities, Enki and Ninella.(2) Professor Jastrow is right in
emphasizing the complete absence of any conflict in this Sumerian
myth of beginnings; but, as with the other Sumerian Versions we have
examined, it seems to me there is no need to seek its origin elsewhere
than in the Euphrates Valley.

(1) Cf. Jastrow, _J.A.O.S._, Vol. XXXVI, p. 127, and
_A.J.S.L._, Vol. XXXIII, p. 134 f. It may be added that the
divine naming of the plants also presents a faint parallel
to the naming of the beasts and birds by man himself in Gen.
ii. 19 f.

(2) Professor Jastrow (_A.J.S.L._, Vol. XXXIII, p. 115)
compares similar myths collected by Sir James Frazer (_Magic
Art_, Vol. II, chap. xi and chap. xii, Sec. 2). He also notes
the parallel the irrigation myth presents to the mist (or
flood) of the earlier Hebrew Version (Gen. ii. 5 f). But
Enki, like Ea, was no rain-god; he had his dwellings in the
Euphrates and the Deep.

Even in later periods, when the Sumerian myths of Creation had been
superseded by that of Babylon, the Euphrates never ceased to be regarded
as the source of life and the creator of all things. And this is
well brought out in the following introductory lines of a Semitic
incantation, of which we possess two Neo-Babylonian copies:(1)

O thou River, who didst create all things,
When the great gods dug thee out,
They set prosperity upon thy banks,
Within thee Ea, King of the Deep, created his dwelling.
The Flood they sent not before thou wert!

Here the river as creator is sharply distinguished from the Flood; and
we may conclude that the water of the Euphrates Valley impressed the
early Sumerians, as later the Semites, with its creative as well as with
its destructive power. The reappearance of the fertile soil, after the
receding inundation, doubtless suggested the idea of creation out of
water, and the stream's slow but automatic fall would furnish a model
for the age-long evolution of primaeval deities. When a god's active and
artificial creation of the earth must be portrayed, it would have been
natural for the primitive Sumerian to picture the Creator working as
he himself would work when he reclaimed a field from flood. We are thus
shown the old Sumerian god Gilimma piling reed-bundles in the water and
heaping up soil beside them, till the ground within his dikes dries off
and produces luxuriant vegetation. But here there is a hint of struggle
in the process, and we perceive in it the myth-redactor's opportunity
to weave in the Dragon _motif_. No such excuse is afforded by the other
Sumerian myth, which pictures the life-producing inundation as the gift
of the two deities of the Deep and the product of their union.

But in their other aspect the rivers of Mesopotamia could be terrible;
and the Dragon _motif_ itself, on the Tigris and Euphrates, drew its
imagery as much from flood as from storm. When therefore a single deity
must be made to appear, not only as Creator, but also as the champion
of his divine allies and the conqueror of other gods, it was inevitable
that the myths attaching to the waters under their two aspects should be
combined. This may already have taken place at Nippur, when Enlil
became the head of the pantheon; but the existence of his myth is
conjectural.(1) In a later age we can trace the process in the light of
history and of existing texts. There Marduk, identified wholly as the
Sun-god, conquers the once featureless primaeval water, which in the
process of redaction has now become the Dragon of flood and storm.

(1) The aspect of Enlil as the Creator of Vegetation is
emphasized in Tablet VII of the Babylonian poem of Creation.
It is significant that his first title, Asara, should be
interpreted as "Bestower of planting", "Founder of sowing",
"Creator of grain and plants", "He who caused the green herb
to spring up" (cf. _Seven Tablets_, Vol. I, p. 92 f.). These
opening phrases, by which the god is hailed, strike the key-
note of the whole composition. It is true that, as Sukh-kur,
he is "Destroyer of the foe"; but the great majority of the
titles and their Semitic glosses refer to creative
activities, not to the Dragon myth.

Thus the dualism which is so characteristic a feature of the
Semitic-Babylonian system, though absent from the earliest Sumerian
ideas of Creation, was inherent in the nature of the local rivers, whose
varied aspects gave rise to or coloured separate myths. Its presence
in the later mythology may be traced as a reflection of political
development, at first probably among the warring cities of Sumer, but
certainly later in the Semitic triumph at Babylon. It was but to
be expected that the conqueror, whether Sumerian or Semite, should
represent his own god's victory as the establishment of order out of
chaos. But this would be particularly in harmony with the character of
the Semitic Babylonians of the First Dynasty, whose genius for method
and organization produced alike Hammurabi's Code of Laws and the
straight streets of the capital.

We have thus been able to trace the various strands of the
Semitic-Babylonian poem of Creation to Sumerian origins; and in the
second lecture we arrived at a very similar conclusion with regard to
the Semitic-Babylonian Version of the Deluge preserved in the Epic of
Gilgamesh. We there saw that the literary structure of the Sumerian
Version, in which Creation and Deluge are combined, must have survived
under some form into the Neo-Babylonian period, since it was reproduced
by Berossus. And we noted the fact that the same arrangement in Genesis
did not therefore prove that the Hebrew accounts go back directly to
early Sumerian originals. In fact, the structural resemblance presented
by Genesis can only be regarded as an additional proof that the
Sumerian originals continued to be studied and translated by the Semitic
priesthood, although they had long been superseded officially by their
later descendants, the Semitic epics. A detailed comparison of the
Creation and Deluge narratives in the various versions at once discloses
the fact that the connexion between those of the Semitic Babylonians
and the Hebrews is far closer and more striking than that which can be
traced when the latter are placed beside the Sumerian originals. We may
therefore regard it as certain that the Hebrews derived their knowledge
of Sumerian tradition, not directly from the Sumerians themselves, but
through Semitic channels from Babylon.

It will be unnecessary here to go in detail through the points of
resemblance that are admitted to exist between the Hebrew account of
Creation in the first chapter of Genesis and that preserved in the
"Seven Tablets".(1) It will suffice to emphasize two of them, which gain
in significance through our newly acquired knowledge of early Sumerian
beliefs. It must be admitted that, on first reading the poem, one is
struck more by the differences than by the parallels; but that is due
to the polytheistic basis of the poem, which attracts attention when
compared with the severe and dignified monotheism of the Hebrew writer.
And if allowance be made for the change in theological standpoint, the
material points of resemblance are seen to be very marked. The outline
or general course of events is the same. In both we have an abyss of
waters at the beginning denoted by almost the same Semitic word, the
Hebrew _tehom_, translated "the deep" in Gen. i. 2, being the equivalent
of the Semitic-Babylonian _Tiamat_, the monster of storm and flood who
presents so striking a contrast to the Sumerian primaeval water.(2) The
second act of Creation in the Hebrew narrative is that of a "firmament",
which divided the waters under it from those above.(3) But this, as we
have seen, has no parallel in the early Sumerian conception until it was
combined with the Dragon combat in the form in which we find it in the
Babylonian poem. There the body of Tiamat is divided by Marduk, and from
one half of her he constructs a covering or dome for heaven, that is to
say a "firmament", to keep her upper waters in place. These will suffice
as text passages, since they serve to point out quite clearly the
Semitic source to which all the other detailed points of Hebrew
resemblance may be traced.

(1) See _Seven Tablets_, Vol. I, pp. lxxxi ff., and Skinner,
_Genesis_, pp. 45 ff.

(2) The invariable use of the Hebrew word _tehom_ without
the article, except in two passages in the plural, proves
that it is a proper name (cf. Skinner, op. cit., p. 17); and
its correspondence with _Tiamat_ makes the resemblance of
the versions far more significant than if their parallelism
were confined solely to ideas.

(3) Gen. i. 6-8.

In the case of the Deluge traditions, so conclusive a demonstration is
not possible, since we have no similar criterion to apply. And on one
point, as we saw, the Hebrew Versions preserve an original Sumerian
strand of the narrative that was not woven into the Gilgamesh Epic,
where there is no parallel to the piety of Noah. But from the detailed
description that was given in the second lecture, it will have been
noted that the Sumerian account is on the whole far simpler and more
primitive than the other versions. It is only in the Babylonian Epic,
for example, that the later Hebrew writer finds material from which to
construct the ark, while the sweet savour of Ut-napishtim's sacrifice,
and possibly his sending forth of the birds, though reproduced in the
earlier Hebrew Version, find no parallels in the Sumerian account.(1) As
to the general character of the Flood, there is no direct reference to
rain in the Sumerian Version, though its presence is probably implied in
the storm. The heavy rain of the Babylonian Epic has been increased
to forty days of rain in the earlier Hebrew Version, which would be
suitable to a country where local rain was the sole cause of flood. But
the later Hebrew writer's addition of "the fountains of the deep" to
"the windows of heaven" certainly suggests a more intimate knowledge of
Mesopotamia, where some contributary cause other than local rain must be
sought for the sudden and overwhelming catastrophes of which the rivers
are capable.

(1) For detailed lists of the points of agreement presented
by the Hebrew Versions J and P to the account in the
Gilgamesh Epic, see Skinner, op. cit., p. 177 f.; Driver,
_Genesis_, p. 106 f.; and Gordon, _Early Traditions of
Genesis_ (1907), pp. 38 ff.

Thus, viewed from a purely literary standpoint, we are now enabled to
trace back to a primitive age the ancestry of the traditions, which,
under a very different aspect, eventually found their way into Hebrew
literature. And in the process we may note the changes they underwent
as they passed from one race to another. The result of such literary
analysis and comparison, so far from discrediting the narratives in
Genesis, throws into still stronger relief the moral grandeur of the
Hebrew text.

We come then to the question, at what periods and by what process did
the Hebrews become acquainted with Babylonian ideas? The tendency of the
purely literary school of critics has been to explain the process by the
direct use of Babylonian documents wholly within exilic times. If the
Creation and Deluge narratives stood alone, a case might perhaps be made
out for confining Babylonian influence to this late period. It is
true that during the Captivity the Jews were directly exposed to
such influence. They had the life and civilization of their captors
immediately before their eyes, and it would have been only natural
for the more learned among the Hebrew scribes and priests to interest
themselves in the ancient literature of their new home. And any previous
familiarity with the myths of Babylonia would undoubtedly have been
increased by actual residence in the country. We may perhaps see
a result of such acquaintance with Babylonian literature, after
Jehoiachin's deportation, in an interesting literary parallel that has
been pointed out between Ezek. xiv. 12-20 and a speech in the Babylonian
account of the Deluge in the Gilgamesh Epic, XI, ii. 180-194.(1) The
passage in Ezekiel occurs within chaps. i-xxiv, which correspond to
the prophet's first period and consist in the main of his utterances in
exile before the fall of Jerusalem. It forms, in fact, the introduction
to the prophet's announcement of the coming of "four sore judgements
upon Jerusalem", from which there "shall be left a remnant that shall
be carried forth".(2) But in consequence, here and there, of traces of a
later point of view, it is generally admitted that many of the chapters
in this section may have been considerably amplified and altered by
Ezekiel himself in the course of writing. And if we may regard the
literary parallel that has been pointed out as anything more than
fortuitous, it is open to us to assume that chap. xiv may have been
worked up by Ezekiel many years after his prophetic call at Tel-abib.

(1) See Daiches, "Ezekiel and the Babylonian Account of the
Deluge", in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, April 1905. It
has of course long been recognized that Ezekiel, in
announcing the punishment of the king of Egypt in xxxii. 2
ff., uses imagery which strongly recalls the Babylonian
Creation myth. For he compares Pharaoh to a sea-monster over
whom Yahweh will throw his net (as Marduk had thrown his
over Tiamat); cf. Loisy, _Les mythes babyloniens et les
premiers chaptires de la Genese_ (1901), p. 87.

(2) Ezek. xiv. 21 f.

In the passage of the Babylonian Epic, Enlil had already sent the Flood
and had destroyed the good with the wicked. Ea thereupon remonstrates
with him, and he urges that in future the sinner only should be made to
suffer for his sin; and, instead of again causing a flood, let there be
discrimination in the divine punishments sent on men or lands. While
the flood made the escape of the deserving impossible, other forms of
punishment would affect the guilty only. In Ezekiel the subject is the
same, but the point of view is different. The land the prophet has in
his mind in verse 13 is evidently Judah, and his desire is to explain
why it will suffer although not all its inhabitants deserved to share
its fate. The discrimination, which Ea urges, Ezekiel asserts will be
made; but the sinner must bear his own sin, and the righteous, however
eminent, can only save themselves by their righteousness. The general
principle propounded in the Epic is here applied to a special case.
But the parallelism between the passages lies not only in the general
principle but also in the literary setting. This will best be brought
out by printing the passages in parallel columns.

Gilg. Epic, XI, 180-194 Ezek. xiv. 12-20

Ea opened his mouth and spake, And the word of the Lord came
He said to the warrior Enlil; unto me, saying,
Thou director of the gods! O Son of man, when a land sinneth
warrior! against me by committing a
Why didst thou not take counsel trespass, and I stretch out
but didst cause a flood? mine hand upon it, and break
On the transgressor lay his the staff of the bread
transgression! thereof, and send _famine_
Be merciful, so that (all) be not upon it, and cut off from it
destroyed! Have patience, so man and beast; though these
that (all) be not (cut off)! three men, Noah, Daniel, and
Instead of causing a flood, Job, were in it, they should
Let _lions_(1) come and diminish deliver but their own souls by
mankind! their righteousness, saith the
Instead of causing a flood, Lord God.
Let _leopards_(1) come and If I cause _noisome beasts_ to
diminish mankind! pass through the land, and
Instead of causing a flood, they spoil it, so that it be
Let _famine_ be caused and let it desolate, that no man may pass
smite the land! through because of the beasts;
Instead of causing a flood, though these three men were in
Let the _Plague-god_ come and it, as I live, saith the Lord
(slay) mankind! God, they shall deliver
neither sons nor daughters;
they only shall be delivered,
but the land shall be
desolate.
Or if I bring a _sword_ upon
that land, and say, Sword, go
through the land; so that I
cut off from it man and beast;
though these three men were in
it, as I live, saith the Lord
God, they shall deliver
neither sons nor daughters,
but they only shall be
delivered themselves.
Or if I send a _pestilence_ into
that land, and pour out my
fury upon it in blood, to cut
off from it man and beast;
though Noah, Daniel, and Job,
were in it, as I live, saith
the Lord God, they shall
deliver neither son nor
daughter; they shall but
deliver their own souls by
their righteousness.