The Creation-Story of Genesis I 9781607242451, 1607242451

Citation preview

The Creation-Story of Genesis I

J J

V

,

i ill

V V

Analecta Gorgiana

174 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

The Creation-Story of Genesis I

Sumerian Theogony and Cosmogony

Hugo Radau

1 gorgias press 2010

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2010 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1902 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2010

c

^

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-245-1

ISSN 1935-6854

This is a facsimile reprint of the book of the same title published by The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago, 1902.

Printed in the United States of America

TO

MISS NELLIE I. MADER AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED BY T H E AUTHOR

PREFACE. H P H E Right Rev. D. S. Tuttle, Bishop of Missouri, in delivering a sermon before a body of theological students on " How to make the people contribute liberally towards the support of the Church," remarked: "You must milk the cows! The more and the oftener you milk them, the more milk they will give." Although somewhat vulgar, yet the simile fits the case exactly. The same is true of the study of the Bible. The more we study it, the more we draw from it, the more it will yield: milk of life,—both for the soul and the brain! The same idea was also expressed by Dr. Martin Luther who compared the Bible to a beautiful and fruitful tree. The more and the oftener we pluck its fruit, the more it will give us. But not everybody knows " how to milk," nor does everybody know "how to pluck the fruits." If done carelessly and thoughtlessly, the "milking" as well as the "plucking of the f r u i t " may become dangerous,—we may fall from the tree ! If there are some who thus fell from the tree while trying to pluck its fruit, who will dare to say that it was the tree's fault that " t h e plucker" fell down? Was it not, on the contrary, the plucker's own carelessness, his own fault ? Exactly so it is with the " Higher Criticism." Higher criticism, if thoughtlessly and carelessly applied to the Bible, will and must be hurtful: not for the Bible, however,—for it will remain undaunted,—but for him who aspires to be a " higher critic." And how many there are who want to be what they cannot be: higher critics! A true higher critic's aim is not to destroy the Bible, but to U N D E R S T A N D it,—understand it historically. Thus he will apply the higher c r i t ical methods as given by "history." In history the divine will is carried out. The Bible when thus " r e a d in the light of history" will yield fruits of which nobody ever dreamed,—fruits ripened in ages past and saved for our present times to gather. Indeed, the Bible is a wonderful tree with manifold fruits: tiny shoots have been engrafted on it from time to time by different gardeners,—sljoots taken from other trees raised on foreign soil. These gardeners belonged to a people that was not surrounded by a "Chinese Wall," nor were they blind, deaf, or dumb. They had eyes and saw, ears and heard, mouths and spoke. And what they saw and

2

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

Babylonian Tiamat, a monster which was overcome by the

god

M a r d u k , the g o d of l i g h t , a n d w h i c h w a s l i k e w i s e d i v i d e d in t w a i n . F u r t h e r the

fight

o r i g i n a l of t h e

of M a r d u k w i t h T i a m a t w a s r e c o g n i s e d as t h e

fight

of J a h v e h w i t h T e h o m : a

against the darkness.

fight

of t h e

light

T h e darkness having been overcome by the

light, the creation b e c a m e possible.

T h e f o l l o w i n g s t r i k i n g sim-

ilarities were f o u n d to exist b e t w e e n the Biblical and B a b y l o n i a n myths1: A c c o r d i n g to b o t h t r a d i t i o n s t h e r e w a s in t h e b e g i n n i n g n o t h i n g b u t t h e c h a o s u n d e r t h e f o r m of t h e p r i m e v a l o c e a n — i t w a s eternal, not h a v i n g

been

created.

This ocean, when

w a s t h o u g h t to b e a t e r r i b l e m o n s t e r .

personified

T h e B a b y l o n i a n n a m e of

t h a t m o n s t e r w a s T i a m a t , t h e B i b l i c a l T e h o m or L e v i a t h a n - R a h a b . 2 T h a t in G e n . i. t h i s T e h o m w a s c o n s i d e r e d a m y t h i c a l b e i n g is still e v i d e n t f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t t h e w o r d is t r e a t e d as a " p r o p e r n a m e " — i t is s i m p l y c a l l e d T e h o m

and not h a - T e h o m .

I n b'oth m y t h s

t h i s T e h o m is r e p r e s e n t e d as a d r a g o n or s e r p e n t , e i t h e r w i t h o n e or s e v e r a l h e a d s , p r e s u m a b l y s e v e n as in R e v e l a t i o n , c h a p t e r s xii. a n d xiii. B e s i d e s t h e c h i e f m o n s t e r t h e r e a p p e a r in b o t h t r a d i t i o n s its helpers.

others:

In t h e B a b y l o n i a n c r e a t i o n - s t o r y t h e r e a r e o p p o s e d t o

these monsters the " g r e a t first a n d f o r e m o s t p l a c e .

g o d s " among whom Marduk takes

the

A l s o in t h e B i b l i c a l a c c o u n t t h e r e s e e m

to h a v e b e e n , b e s i d e s J a h v e h , o t h e r d i v i n e b e i n g s , as is still e v i d e n t f r o m G e n . i. 2 6 : " L e t us m a k e m a n . " it is M a r d u k w h o t a k e s u p t h e

fight

In the B a b y l o n i a n account w i t h T i a m a t ; in t h e B i b l i c a l

a c c o u n t the s a m e r o l e is p l a y e d b y J a h v e h . a sword.

Marduk

Leviathan-Tehom.

B o t h are armed with

kills with his sword T i a m a t , J a h v e h The

"helpers"

of T i a m a t

k i n d l y b y M a r d u k , p r e c i s e l y as is d o n e w i t h t h e h e l p e r s of by Jahveh.

Rahab-

are t r e a t e d

more Rahab

A c c o r d i n g to b o t h m y t h s t h e m o n s t e r is d i v i d e d — a c -

c o r d i n g to the B a b y l o n i a n a c c o u n t : i n t o t h e u p p e r w a t e r s a n d i n t o the lower waters.

T h e u p p e r w a t e r s are k e p t b a c k b y a k i n d of

' S e e Zimmern, I. c., p. 15. nist, April, 1901, p. 428. 2i>

Ixxxix. 9 ff.

Gunkel, Commentary, p. 83 f.

Carus, The Mo-

f lxxiv. 13 ff. Is. li. 9 ff. Job xxvi. 12 ff.; ix. 13 ff.

3

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

barrier and by watchmen, who are " n o t to let out the waters." According to the Biblical account Jahveh divides the T e h o m , the primeval ocean, also into two parts, by putting a tween them.

firmament

be-

T h u s the Tehom came to be a heavenly and a ter-

restrial ocean, or as it is said in the Bible, " w a t e r s which were above the ament."

firmament"

and " w a t e r s which were below the

firm-

E v e n the watchmen who are to guard the waters of heaven

are still preserved in Job vii. 12 : " A m I a sea or sea-monster that thou settest a watch over me ? "

B y thus dividing the primeval ocean there is created according to both myths the visible heaven.

In the Bible as well as in the

Babylonian account this fight with the dragon is closely connected with the creation of the world, in such wise that the former precedes the latter. In both accounts we have the following sequence : Tehom—Fight—Division—Heaven ! T h e above is a résumé of what scholars have arrived at in their investigations, and I think their conclusions may be accepted as true.

But, far as they have gone, they have by no means as yet

exhausted the subject.

There are still left certain difficulties in

the Biblical as well as in the Babylonian account which are not yet satisfactorily explained.

And with these unsolved problems we

are concerned here. Before we consider these problems it would seem necessary to say a few words about the structure of Gen. i. T h e first chapter of Genesis is ascribed by all scholars to the Priestly school (commonly abbreviated P . ) — a n d is hence late. T h e word o v r x (Elohim) is used throughout for " G o d " and the account is built up according to a certain formula.

This formula

runs : ' 'And E l o h i m said : let there be . . . and there was. . . . A n d E l o h i m saw . that it was good.

A n d there was evening and there was morning the . . . d a y . "

According to this skeleton the creation of the world is described as having taken place within a space of seven days.

T h i s system

of seven days is not original, it is not found in the Babylonian account

It was inserted by P.

This follows from the fact that on

4

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

the third and sixth day two tasks were done, and that on the seventh day, which w a s intended to be a day of rest, E l o h i m had to finish the work of the sixth day: n t o "lifiX

'iTDSri DT2 ETON •>DV11

— a n d if he finished it, he had to work on it, it w a s not at an end, not yet done on the sixth d a y !

B u t , as we shall shortly see, there

is still another reason w h y the system of seven days cannot h a v e belonged originally to the account of the creation. Furthermore,

I should like to point out here the difficulty

w h i c h we encounter w h e n trying to translate the word "pxnused in three different senses in the first ten verses.

It is

In the ex-

pression, y i x n nxi DUtin nx, it is used to express our idea of " c o s m o s , " for " h e a v e n and e a r t h " is s i m p l y the H e b r e w term for our word " c o s m o s . "

In the expression, nrvn yiNHV of v. 2, y-|X

stands for the chaotic m a s s ; it is the cosmos as it existed before the first day.

A n d v. 10 y i x is explained by

" t h e dry g r o u n d " ;

here therefore it is the same as that w h i c h w e should understand b y "earth."

B e a r i n g this in mind, w e o u g h t to translate verses 1 — 3

as f o l l o w s : " I n the beginning of the Elohim's creating 2 heaven and earth (i. e., the cosmos)—the chaotic mass existed, 3 namely, 4 as a tohu vabohu, and darkness was upon Tehom and the spirit of Elohim rffimti upon the waters—then Elohim said : " etc.

W i t h this translation, of course, falls also the theory of a creatio ex nihilo.

Indeed, a creation out of nothing is not implied in

t h e first chapter of Genesis.

N o t a single word indicates s u c h a

t h e o r y — n o t even the word X1D—for w e h a v e instead of X"0 in v e r s e s 25, 26, the v e r b nto-

It w a s the chaotic mass coeternal with the

Creator out of w h i c h everything w a s created, made, d e v e l o p e d , evolutionised.

A f t e r the primeval ocean has been divided into the

waters above and b e l o w the

firmament,

the earth or dry land is

m a d e to " a p p e a r out of the waters under the

firmament":

1

Gen. ii. 2.

2

Or, " I n the beginning when Elohim was about to create."

3nrrn 4Sc.

= "existed," not "\T1 or " b e c a m e . "

at that time, i. e., " i n the beginning."

¡"IN"!®

5

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

"tt^Y!!

E v e n the birds are developed or take their origin from out

of this terrestrial ocean : ¡ p i rrn tic; y-it a ^ n W i f r " L e t the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures and with b i r d s . "

1

W e see then, that one thing takes its origin out of the other, one is the parent of the o t h e r ; there is, so to speak, a continual giving birth of one thing to a n o t h e r , — a genealogy.2 H a v i n g thus cleared our way, we must now consider the differences between the Biblical and the Babylonian account of the creation,—differences that are certainly strange and m a r k e d .

If it be

true t h a t Gen. i originally made use of the fight of J a h v e h with T e h o m , we must be able to account not only for its omission, but also for its differences from the B a b y l o n i a n M a r d u k - T i a m a t myth. And just these differences are, for our consideration, of the highest importance! According to the Babylonian account, the creator M a r d u k was himself

borne by T i a m a t , — h e therefore was not coeternal with Tia-

mat, h e was, so to speak, her c h i l d !

T h e Creator of Gen. i, on

the other hand, exists from all eternity like T o h o m herself !

The

first act of the Babylonian creator is the " d i v i s i o n of the T i a m a t , " i. e., the creation of " t h e u p p e r w a t e r s " and " t h e lower w a t e r s " ! T h e first act of Elohim of Gen. i is the creation of the lix or light. Now, what is the significance of this nix in Gen. i ?

It is

1

Gen. i. 20.

2

T h e writer of P s a l m civ. 24 ff. was, no doubt, later than P . , since f o r him

the eternity of T e h o m - L e v i a t h a n seemed to have been impossible.

J a h v e h alone

could be e t e r n a l , — h e n c e L e v i a t h a n had to b e c o m e a creature, for w e read (R. V . ) : '' O L o r d , how manifold are thy w o r k s ! I n wisdom, thou hast made them a l l : T h e earth is full of thy creatures. Y o n d e r is the sea, great and wide, W h e r e i n are things creeping innumerable, B o t h small and great beasts. T h e r e go the ships, T h e r e is Leviathan,

whom thou hast formed

to take his pastime t h e r e i n ! " T h e original significance of L e v i a t h a n is lost h e r e , — h e has b e c o m e a mere creature of J a h v e h ! creatures

H e n c e also the succession: creation of the earth with its

and the sea with its creatures, among them L e v i a t h a n !

6

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

neither the sun nor the moon nor any of the stars,—for they were all created later: on the fourth day!

And yet it is said in v. 4 that

Elohim by thus creating the " l i g h t " divided the " l i g h t from the darkness"; the former he called " d a y , " the latter he called " n i g h t . " Now this is in direct contradiction to v. 14 and v. 18, where we are expressly told that Elohim created the " t w o great luminaries," i. e., the sun and the moon, " t o rule over the day and over the night and to divide the light from the darkness " !

According to our

daily experience and observation, it is the sun which conditions " t h e light and the darkness" or " t h e day and the night."

If this

be true, then it follows that the statement in v. 4 about the " l i g h t " of the first day is wrong.

And so it is!

We saw above that the

system of seven days does not originally belong to the creation story.

The writer of Gen. 1, however, in order to fabricate his

nights and days or simply " d a y s " before the sun was created, had to add some such expressions as those found in v. 4 : " t o divide the light from the darkness."

In doing this, he manufactured the first

three days,— the days, namely, which preceded the creation of the sun on the fourth day.

And because it was added, it follows that

v. 4 and all of v. 5 does not belong to this account. sideration does not yet explain the "light"

But this con-

itself, created by God

on the first day. In vain have I looked in the various commentaries for an explanation,—the explanations given, if they may be called such, do not explain ! Here again the Babylonian account helps us. According to that account Tiamat brings forth " t h e great gods," among whom th& god of light, Marduk, was the chief one, and this latter overcomes Tiamat and thus creates the heavens.

In Gen. 1 the

monotheistic idea predominates; the conception of divinity that the writer had, did not suffer the Creater himself to be created,— hence what did the writer do ? Well, " t h e great g o d s " were eliminated, the creator Marduk was called Elohim (or Jahveh) and was made coeternal with Tiamat and placed with her at the' beginning, —but only the

NAME,

the nomen proprium of the creator was removed,

his attribute was kept: the attribute " l i g h t " ! because the writer

NEEDED

it to make out his

And it was kept DAYS !

Hence the

7

T H E CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

"light"

of Gen. i , 4, because it is neither the sun nor the moon

nor any of the stars, can be only the attribute of Marduk, as the god of light and the foremost of all gods.

T h e "light,"

then, must

be another, and the most important, mythological element taken from the Babylonian account by the writer of Gen. 1.

Marduk,

the " g o d of light," is the "conditio sine qua non" without which the creation would have been impossible,—the writer thought.

The

name Marduk had to be given up, but his attribute could be kept and was kept and made the first work of Elohim. From these considerations we get the following sequence: (a) Babylonian : T i a m a t — " t h e great g o d s , " and Marduk, the god of light —fight—division—heaven. (b) Biblical: Tehom—light—fight—division—heaven. In the Babylonian account the primeval ocean is a monster of double s e x : a masculine and a feminine in one person, a kind of androgyn, for we read: ' 1 E - n u - m a e-lish la na-bu-u sha-ma-mu shap-lish ma-turn shu-ma la zak-rat apsfi-ma rSsh-tu-u za-ru-shu-un mu-um-mu ti-amat mu-al-li-da-at gim-ri-shu-un me-shu-nu ish-ti-nish i-chi-qu-u-ma."

T h a t is : 1'

W h e n above [ the heavens were not yet n a m e d B e l o w the earth | no name as y e t bore W h e n the ocean, Tidmat,

the primeval | their

the deep, [ the mother

begetter

of them all

T h e i r waters in one | had joined together T h e n the great gods were c r e a t e d . "

According to this the primeval waters consisted of the apsA, the begetter, ox zaru, 1 and the Tiamat, the mother or muallidat.

As

a resiilt of the " j o i n i n g their waters in one," i. e., of cohabitation, the gods were created.

T h e primeval ocean, then, was considered

to be the first parent who brought forth the gods. 1

F r o m the root iHf " s e e d " !

W h a t does the

8

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

B i b l e say to this?

T h e verse w h i c h s p e a k s a b o u t the

primeval

w a t e r s consists of three c l a u s e s — t h e first clause g i v e s the description of the p r i m e v a l w a t e r s or c h a o t i c mass and the other t w o c l a u s e s stand in t h e so-called p a r a l l e l i s m u s m e m b r o r u m .

It reads

m

inn nn-n y i x m • i n n •'iETw D"ttn " ¡ r ' ? » n s m u o w x n n i

:

T h a t is, " t h e chaotic mass (or p r i m e v a l waters, o c e a n see a b o v e ! ) e x i s t e d as a t o h u - v a b o h u ; it w a s ' a d a r k n e s s ' u p o n the Tehom as w e l l as a ' spirit of g o d ' that r f f i m t t u p o n the

waters."

If the H e b r e w T e h o m is equal to the B a b y l o n i a n T i a m a t , then " t h e w a t e r s " must be t h e " a p s u . "

B u t if " t h e w a t e r s " are t h e

" a p s u , " then " t h e spirit of G o d " m u s t be it t o o ! f r o m the parallelism.

This follows

H e n c e " t h e spirit of G o d " of G e n . i. p l a y s

e x a c t l y the s a m e role as the apsu of the B a b y l o n i a n s , i. e., h e PBrPW the T e h o m .

T h e w o r d r f f l m t t is declared b y the n e w e s t com-

m e n t a t o r s to m e a n " t o b r o o d o v e r " — b u t I do not think that that translation exhausts its f u l l m e a n i n g ; nemii m e a n s and stands for the s a m e " i d e a " e x p r e s s e d b y the G r e e k imo-KtvdZav, i. e., " t o overs h a d o w . " T h u s w e g e t here a striking p a r a l l e l to " t h e H o l y G h o s t overshadowing Mary."

nEmtt, then, e x p r e s s e s the s a m e t h i n g as

d o e s the B a b y l o n i a n " j o i n i n g their w a t e r s in o n e . " 1 If this be true t h e n e v e n in G e n . i. w e find the t h o u g h t e x p r e s s e d that the prim e v a l waters or o c e a n are parents,

w h o b e g e t and w o u l d

bring

forth! T h u s here w e h a v e another s t r i k i n g

similarity—notwithstand-

i n g its great d i f f e r e n c e — b e t w e e n the B i b l i c a l and B a b y l o n i a n acc o u n t s of the c r e a t i o n !

In both a c c o u n t s t h e p r i m e v a l w a t e r s w e r e

t h o u g h t to be a k i n d of a n d r o g y n , m a l e and f e m a l e in one p e r s o n , w h o thus b e c a m e the first p a r e n t s . T h e writer of G e n . i. w h o a p p a r e n t l y did not b e l i e v e in an and r o g y n o u s monster, retained the T i a m a t or T e h o m , but s u b s t i t u t e d f o r the apsu " t h e S p i r i t of E l o h i m " 2 as the l i f e - g i v i n g p o w e r of 1 From this it also follows, of course, that the expression has nothing to do with the world-egg theory, which some scholars want to find here. 2The

expression " spirit of E l o h i m " seems to stand in P. for the same idea as

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S

everything.

9

I.

He wanted, it is true, to eliminate the androgynous

character of the primeval ocean—the result we know. Again if the Tehom is == Tiamat, then

(the darkness) must

be = Tiamat too. Thus it was rightly said that the fight of with Tiamat the

Marduk

is nothing more or less than a fight of the light against

darkness. But we have seen above that the god Marduk was called Elo-

him and made coeternal with Tehom, and that simply his

attribute

was retained by the writer of Gen. i. in order to help him to fabricating his days.

W e also have seen that the functions of the Hx

are in contradiction to those of the sun, and thus must be spurious, i. e., fix does not belong to the original account of Genesis; 1 it must be left out, if we would restore Gen. i. to its original text. Bearing this in mind the account of Genesis i. contains a well connected genealogy, which is as follows: Tohn-vabohu ' ' waters " — T e h o m " s p i r i t of Elohim " — d a r k n e s s

" w a t e r s which are above the firmament " '

" t h e firmament of heaven " or " heaven "

" waters which are below the firmament "

" the dry ground "

" the waters "

or " earth "

the two great lights, i. e., " t h e sun " and " the moon " and " the stars "

" grass," " h e r b s , " " fruitt r e e s , " " a n i m a l s , " and "beasts"

" s w a r m s of living creatures," " f o w l s , " "fishes"

"man"

I would draw the reader's attention here to the fact that " t h e waters above and below the firmament" are said to come from the Tehom, or the darkness, 2 a peculiarity which will be explained later on. the

of t h e T a r g u m s !

I t w a s u s e d in o r d e r t o a v o i d a s m u c h a s p o s s i b l e t h e

" a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c i d e a " of G o d . I f it did it o u g h t to b e m a d e c o e t e r n a l w i t h J a h v e h - E l o h i m , a s M a r d u k w a s .

1

B u t t h i s w o u l d a g a i n b e f a t a l — f o r in t h a t c a s e it w o u l d n o t b e t h e first a c t o f E l o him !

(o ijtinn p i iixn p o w x

2

w i

IO

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y O F G E N E S I S I.

F r o m t h e a n a l o g y a b o v e g i v e n it w i l l b e s e e n t h a t " m a n " o r t h e " c r e a t i o n of m a n , " if we t a k e our s t a n d o n t h e a c c o u n t of G e n . i., c a n n o t b e r e f e r r e d e i t h e r to o n e or to t h e o t h e r s i d e , i. e . , w e d o n o t k n o w w h e t h e r h e w a s a d e s c e n d a n t of t h e " w a t e r s a b o v e

the

f i r m a m e n t " or of " t h e w a t e r s b e l o w t h e f i r m a m e n t , " f r o m w h i c h latter the " e a r t h " and its " c r e a t u r e s " took their origin. l e a r n is t h i s :

All we

" m a n w a s c r e a t e d in t h e i m a g e a n d l i k e n e s s of E l o -

h i m " — a %v Sia Stolv, w h i c h t e l l s us t h a t m a n l o o k s e x a c t l y l i k e E l o him.1

T h e B a b y l o n i a n a c c o u n t t e l l s us t h a t m a n w a s m a d e o u t of

divine blood mixed with earth.

T h e w r i t e r of G e n . i. w i t h

his

m o n o t h e i s t i c i d e a c o u l d , of c o u r s e , n e v e r a d m i t t h a t t h e " b l o o d of a n o t h e r g o d " was s p i l t — b e c a u s e there existed no other god.

But

h e a p p a r e n t l y a c c e p t e d t h e i d e a t h a t m a n w a s in s o m e w a y o r ano t h e r c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e g o d s , h e n c e h e m a d e h i m to b e c r e a t e d in t h e i m a g e a n d l i k e n e s s of E l o h i m .

T h e a c c o u n t g i v e n in t h e

s e c o n d c h a p t e r of G e n e s i s h a s , h o w e v e r , for " i m a g e a n d l i k e n e s s " t h e " b r e a t h i n g i n t o m a n ' s n o s t r i l s t h e b r e a t h of l i f e , " w h i c h w a s done by J a h v e h .

I n b l o o d t h e r e is life, a n d life is a b r e a t h , — w a s

t h e f a i t h of t h e J a h v i s t i c w r i t e r . A c c o r d i n g l y h e s u b s t i t u t e d f o r t h e b l o o d of G o d t h e " b r e a t h of G o d , " t h u s c o n n e c t i n g " m a n " a g a i n with his creator. W e h a v e s e e n t h e n t h a t t h e fight of t h e l i g h t a g a i n s t t h e d a r k n e s s does n o t b e l o n g o r i g i n a l l y to t h e a c c o u n t of G e n . I .

B u t , one

m a y r i g h t f u l l y a s k , if it d o e s n o t , h o w a r e t h e a p p a r e n t i n d i c a t i o n s of s u c h a fight to b e f o u n d in G e n . i t o b e e x p l a i n e d ?

T o answer

t h i s q u e s t i o n it w i l l b e n e c e s s a r y f o r us t o e x a m i n e t h e B a b y l o n i a n a c c o u n t of t h e c r e a t i o n a n d s e e w h e t h e r t h e o r i g i n a l f o r m of t h a t a c c o u n t c o n t a i n e d t h e f i g h t of M a r d u k w i t h T i a m a t or n o t . T h a t t h e B a b y l o n i a n c r e a t i o n s t o r y h a d its d e v e l o p m e n t a n d r e q u i r e d t i m e t o a s s u m e t h e s h a p e in w h i c h we n o w k n o w it, is of course self-evident.

I f we a r e a b l e t o t r a c e t h e different

threads

in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e H e b r e w l i t e r a t u r e b y e m p l o y i n g c r i t i c a l iComp. here Gudea's dream where din s !r Nin-Gir-su is said " t o be a man," i, e., where a god is said to look " l i k e a man."—This, no doubt, is the older conception : gods always look like the men to whose tribe or nation they belong. See below.

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF GENESIS I.

II

m e t h o d s , I t h i n k w e o u g h t to be a b l e also to trace the threads,-— d e l i c a t e and

flimsy

t h o u g h t h e y a r e , — w h i c h the inscriptions of

e a r l y B a b y l o n i a p u t into our hands.

In the f o l l o w i n g then I shall

try to show that e v e n the B a b y l o n i a n c r e a t i o n story did not originally c o n t a i n s u c h a m y t h as the fight of M a r d u k w i t h T i a m a t . *

*

*

W e h a v e n o w to c r a v e the reader's i n d u l g e n c e for a rather t e c h n i c a l discussion of a f e w p o i n t s w h i c h at first sight m a y s e e m i n d i f f e r e n t ; but this course of p r o c e d u r e is i n d i s p e n s a b l e for an analysis of the c r e a t i o n - s t o r y of G e n e s i s .

H a v i n g established the

g e n e a l o g i c a l order of the B a b y l o n i a n divinities, w e shall be better a b l e to u n d e r s t a n d the k i n s h i p b e t w e e n the H e b r e w G e n e s i s and the S u m e r i a n c o s m o g o n y . B e f o r e entering on our i n v e s t i g a t i o n , it is necessary to say a f e w w o r d s a b o u t the m e a n i n g of N I N , E N , L U G A L , and

DIN-

GIR. I n the " t r i l i n g u a l list of g o d s , " I I R 59, w e read in C o l I, 1. 48 : tl2

The lon.

" M U L DIN-TIR-ki | ,iingirNIN-DIN-TIR-ki | "»-"AMAR-UD

din?irAMAR-UD

is M a r d u k .

M a r d u k w a s the city g o d of B a b y -

B u t — a n d this is i m p o r t a n t — h e is not called in the " S u m e -

rian " c o l u m n E N

but N I N .

T h i s N I N is rightly t r a n s c r i b e d in

the E M E - S A L c o l u m n b y ' U , i. e., M U L or U M U N = lord. N I N m u s t m e a n here = belu or " l o r d . "

Hence

T h i s d o e s not p r o v e that

M a r d u k as the c i t y - g o d of B a b y l o n b e c a m e a " f e m i n i n e . "

H e re-

tained his g e n d e r and remained a m a l e deity, for in the s a m e list, Col. II, 1. 17, w e r e a d : dtagir M U L ( f e m . ! ) D I N - T I R - k i | d i "® i r NIN-DIN-TIR- k i |

I l u Be-lit

a l u Bab-ilu- k i !

N I N , then, in this c o n n e c t i o n , i. e., w h e n used w i t h the n a m e of a c i t y , 1 m a y stand either for bSlu or beltu, i. e., for his lordship,

1 Forming with the name of the city a " p r o p e r n a m e " as in d i n s i r Nin-Gir-su or standing in apposition as in K. B. I l l 1 , pp. 24, 46. din s ir Dumu-zi-zu-ab, nin Kinu-nir- k i !!

12

T H E CREATION-STORY OF G E N E S I S I.

or her lordship.

In most cases we will be able to determine ex-

actly the gender either from the syllabaries or from the " a p p o s i t i o n " that may follow such a name, as for instance, LIL-

ki

dingir

NIN-EN-

is explained in the very same list by " t h e wife of N i n i b . "

The

di gir

"

NIN-GIR-SU is called in the oldest Babylonian in-

scriptions the ur-sag or ur-sag lig-ga, " t h e mighty prime m i n i s t e r " of Bel,—hence the city-god of Gir-su must h a v e been a male divinity.

It is indeed strange that male gods, when becoming gods of

certain cities, should be called N I N ; we should expect of course for N I N either E N or L U G A L .

E N — a s far as I know—is never

used in this connection, but only L U G A L , see, e. g., the n a m e diI ir

« LUGAL-ERIM-ki.

T h e E M E - S A L texts distinguish clearly

between the gender by using two different signs, but not so t h e Sumerian of the lists or bilingual inscriptions,—and also not the old Sumerian.

T h i s latter, when intending to make the gender

absolutely certain, uses for N I N the word L U G A L .

LUGAL

then always denotes a male, while N I N may stand either for a male or a female divinity.

W h a t may possibly be the reason for the use

of this N I N ? W e know that in Babylonia every city h a d its special god.

As

long as the city was in possession of her patron she enjoyed independence.

B u t in case t h e " g o d left the city," or " w e n t out of

the city," i. e., when the god was carried away captive by a victorious king, the city lost her independence.

T h e city-god, then, was

something which had to be defended and protected, which had to be fostered and cared for, but which could also be " t a k e n , " either by force, inclination, or otherwise, which could be chosen, betrayed or given away, which could be sold,—all characteristics of a woman !

E v e n we are in the habit of personifying our nations as

f e m i n i n e ; note, for e x a m p l e : Helvetia, Bavaria, Borussia, Germania, Britannia, and Columbia! F r o m this also follows t h a t a n a m e like

dingir

Nin-Gir-su is no

proper name but a surname or attribute. T h i s is even grammatically indicated in the oldest inscription, for we find very often after the name

dingir

Nin-Gir-su the double postposition K A - G E .

In this re-

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

13

s p e c t G a l e t A of E a n n a t u m 1 is e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g .

Compare,

e. g . , s u c h e x p r e s s i o n s as t h e s e : " E a n n a t u m . . . .a-sum-ma

d i n s i r Nin-Gir-su-ka-ge,

power was given by (ge) the lord of (ka) G i r s u . "

i. e., E a n n a t u m . . . .to w h o m

2

S u c h s u r n a m e s or a t t r i b u t e s of g o d s a r e v e r y c o m m o n , y e s , w e m a y r i g h t l y s a y t h a t a l l t h e n a m e s of t h e g o d s w e k n o w a r e r e a l l y n o t p r o p e r n a m e s at all, b u t a t t r i b u t e s or a p p e l l a t i v e s . T o e s t a b l i s h t h i s , I m a y b e a l l o w e d to c i t e a f e w m o r e

ex-

amples. T h e name

dinsrir

Innanna cannot be a proper name, for w e

t h e double p o s t p o s i t i o n a f t e r it.

find

If it w e r e a p r o p e r n a m e , o n l y one

p o s t p o s i t i o n w o u l d be e x p e c t e d . " E a n n a t u m . . . . m u - s h a g - s a - a "^""Innanna-ka-ge."3 E a n n a t u m . . . .dam ki-ag

dill 2 ir

Innanna-ka-ge. 4 "

H e n c e w e c a n n o t t r a n s l a t e t h e i n s c r i p t i o n of L u g a l t a r s i o t h e r w i s e t h a n h a s b e e n d o n e in E . B . H . p. 1253, v i z . : F o r the k i n g of t h e l a n d s ( = B e l ) a n d f o r I n n a n n a , t h e m i s t r e s s of t h e d i v i n e I n n a n n a , etc. A m o n g o t h e r n a m e s for " g o d s " w h i c h a r e u s e d w i t h a d o u b l e postposition may be mentioned: z u - a b , 6 dingir

Pa-sag,7

d i n g i r N i n - c h a r - s a g , 6 dinfrir

gal + C g a ^ u - f - ^ E r i m ,

8

and even

Dumu-zi-

d i n ^ i r En-ki, 3

e t c . , etc. 1

See my Early Babylonian History (afterwards to be referred to as E. B. H.),

p. 83 ff. 2

F o r other examples see ibid.,

col. V I I , 9 ; V, 1 ; V I , 1 6 ; V I I , 16 C o n e of

Entemena = E. B. H. p. 97 ff., col. V, 5 E . B . H . p. 84: E a n n a t u m Innanna. 4Dec

et¿assim.

who was called by the heart of the goddess of

3

3 B 1 , col. II, 9 : " E a n n a t u m

the beloved husband of the goddess of

Innanna. T h u s it has to be translated! In this passage it is preceded b y : E a n n a t u m ku-li ki-ag

din £ ir

G a l + g a l u - E r i m , — b o t h sentences h a v e to be separated on

account of the parallelism. If we do not, then L u g a l - E r i m would become the damki-ag of Innanna. T h a t kings o f t e n . d o call themselves a " d a m " or h u s b a n d of a certain goddess is evident from E . B. H . pp. 230, 231, and notes. 5Galet

A = E . B . H . p. 84, col. II. 3 ; comp. Dec. X L I V . , col. I V . 10.

6L.

c., col. II, 9.

9Z.

c., p. 84, 1. 7.

7Z. d i l l s i r En-ki

c., p. 85,

1.

11.

« i . c.,

becomes thus the divine E N of K I .

1.

13.

According

to this analogy we ought to expect also, I. c. Col. I. 1. 6, for mu-pad-da

d i n £ l r En-

I

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

4

Not only, however, before the names of cities may N I N stand for belu. There are quite a good many " names of g o d s " composed with N I N , which can signify male gods only.

In the composition

of these names the N I N seems to mean as much as " p o s s e s s o r o f " = Arabic dhu, dhat.

T o this class belong, among others, the fol-

lowing : dlni;ir Nin-a-gal, 1 dingir Nin-gir, 4

dingir

Nin-dar-a lugal-en, 2 dingir Nin-gish-zi-da, 3

Nin-dub lugal-en, s

din£ir

Nin-sar gir-lal

dinglr

Nin-Gir-su. 6

If in this way N I N may stand for belu as well as for beltu, we have, in order to determine the gender of the gods, whose names are compounded with N I N , to pay great attention to the titles or other attributes which may or may not follow.

T h e y will show

us in most cases whether the god in question is either a male or a female. T h e titles or attributes stand almost always in apposition, i. e., they follow7

the name of the god.

In these appositions we

have to distinguish between : (1) L U L A L or E N and N I N on the one hand a n d ; (2) L U G A L and N I N on the other. W i t h regard to ( i ) as well as (2) the following examples may suffice: U r - G u r s dedicates an inscription to

dingir

En-lil, lugal-kur-kur-ra

lugal-a-ni, i. e., to Bel, king of the lands, his king. lil-ge =

d i n £' r En-lil-ka-ge.

" T h e king of

En-lil, however, X h a v e not yet f o u n d with a double

postposition. 1

K . B . I l l 1 , p. 20 : " the possessor of great p o w e r , " w h o m Jensen, I. c., p. 21,

note *, takes according to II. R . 58, 58, to be " E a als Gott der S c h m i e d a k u n s t . " K . B . I l l 1 , p. 24.

E . B . H . 182, 185.

2

K. B. Ill 1 , pp. 24, 28, 46, and E. B. H. 182^ et fassim.

3

K . B . I l l 1 , pp. 28, 46, " t h e possessor of the tree of life."

4

'' T h e possessor of the g i r , " see below.

51. 6

R . 5. X X I I I .

G u d e a C y l . A V I . 5, " the possessor of the t a b l e t . "

E . B . H. pp. 52, 54 (corrected! see below, p. 23, 6).

7 Exceptions where the attributes precede the names are rare, but they occur. C o m p . , e. g., en din £ ir Nin-Gir-su " t h e lord k i n - G i r - s u in G u d e a C y l . A. and B . pass. " A m Shir-pur-la- k i azag d i n g i r G a - t u m - d u g " " t h e mother of Shirpurla, the glorious G a t u m d u g , " Gudea, S t a t u e B . V I I I , 56, K . B. I l l 1 , p. 46. dingir ra-mu dingir Nin-gish-zi-da " my god N . " I. c., col. I X . , 4, and p r o b a b l y a f e w more. 8

E . B . H. p. 222.

p. 74-78.

For other examples, see E . B . H . passim

and K . B . I I I . 1

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

15

the l a n d s " and Ur-Gur's " k i n g " is Bel by virtue of his being a god.

T h e former is his attribute, the latter expresses his relation

to Ur-Gur. R i m - S i n 1 dedicates an inscription to gal-lal . . . . lugal-a-ni-ir.

dingir

Nin-shach en-

T h e " e n - g a l - l a l " expresses that which

Nin-shach is by virtue of his being a god, the lugal-a-ni-ir expresses the relation in which he stands to Rim-Sin. From these two observations we may draw the following rule: E v e r y male god when brought into relation to men (kings, or others who dedicate) is

ALWAYS

a L U G A L or " k i n g , " but by virtue

of his being a god, he may be either a " L U G A L or k i n g " or an " E N or lord." a

goddess 2

E v e r y goddess, however, is by virtue of her being

as well as when brought into relation to men always a

N I N 3 or " m i s t r e s s . "

No. (1) expresses the titles of gods as gods.

No. (2) expresses the relation of gods to men! If this observation be true we may lay down another rule: N I N when in apposition indicates

a female god, or goddess. 4

ALWAYS

Thus there ought to correspond, e. g., to a L U G A L - E N a N I N EN.

Indeed we find this to be true ! T h e

LUGAL-EN6,

while

dingir Nina

dinf;ir

Nin-dar-a 5 is called

has the apposition N I N - E N 7

or

NIN-EN-NA.8 W e have seen above that even the name

d i n s r i r EN-KI

must be

composed of two separate names on account of the double postposition which it may suffer behind it.

The

dIngfir

E N - K I is as the

E N indicates a male god, hence is followed also by L U G A L 9 in 1 1 . R. 3 No. X = K. B. Ill 1 , p. 94, 3. = K. B. I l l 1 , p. 96, 6. 2

For a similar case see IV. R. 35 No. 6

See below the attributes of the wife of En-lil.

3 E.

B. H. p. 125. 222 et fassim. when N I N stands before the name of a

C I T Y or place ! See p. 11, 1. Ki-nu-nir- ki , in this case N I N may be doubtful! Further attributes or the name itself of the god must explain the gender in this case ! 1

EXCEPT

DINGIR Dumu-zi-zu-ab NIN 5

Also read

din s ir Nin-si-a.

6 E . B. H. p. 193. K. B. Ill 1 , p. 24. priests," i. e., " the highpriest."

Lugal-en probably = the "lord of the

7 E. B. H. pp. 193, 224, note4, Nin-en probably = " the mistress of the priests," i. e.. " t h e highpriestess." 8

E. B. H. p. 87 note.

9

See, e. g., lugal zu-ab, Dec. 4 B 2 , col. IV, 3.

L6

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

apposition.

T h e counterpart of

d i n £ i r EN-KI

is

iinsk

N I N - K I , which

name is also to be found in the Earliest Babylonian Inscriptions. 1 Here, then, we have another

peculiarity.

W e do not find L U -

G A L + X for the male god, as we might expect, but d i n g i r EN-KI

" E N " in such names as

" N I N " indicates the feminine for

THIS

peculiarity?

ALWAYS

indicates the masculine,

gender.

EN.

while

W h a t m a y b e the reason

T h e answer is : male or masculine gods are

L U G A L = king from the standpoint of men to whom kings, of course, also belong, but E N , when compared with their equals, their wives, i. e., " t h e husband-god" and the " w i f e - g o d , " are on the same, level considered by themselves, but when brought into relation with men the " h u s b a n d - g o d " seems to enjoy a greater prerogative; nay, the kings considered themselves equal to a goddess, hence they sometimes called themselves the " d a m " or husband of this or that goddess. 2 T o the same class with din"ir

EN-LIL,

d[ngir

EN-ZU,3

d i n g i r EN-KI

dìngir

belong among others also

EN-GUR,4

dinirir

E N - B a - u , 4 etc., etc.

In all these names the " E N " corresponds to our " h u s b a n d , " or "Mr."

If N I N were substituted for E N , we should have the

" w i f e " or " M r s . " — h e n c e would be

dlnf;ir

the real proper name of

d i n g i r EN-KI

K I ; the E N or N I N having been put before the K I

in order to distinguish the " h u s b a n d " from the "wife," " M r . " from the " M r s . " 5 be looked upon as real

or the

In course of time these names came to

proper names, and only now and then does

their grammatical construction betray to us the true fact, i. e., that

>E. B . H. p. 81, note i . 2

See above, p. 13, 4.

T h i s f a c t also probably contributed somewhat to the

" d i v i n e c h a r a c t e r " of the kings. 3

See E . B . H . Index, gods, p. 443 sub E .

4

S o far not found in the oldest inscriptions.

T h u r e a u - D a n g i n in C. R . 1902,

Janvier, p. 82, note 2, proposes to read the sign G U R = Engur, referring to C. T . X I I . 38128, R e v . 1. 18 compared with II. R . 58, 53a. 5

T h u s it happened that in course of time the deity was differentiated,

i. e.,

the deity was originally a self-perpetuating being, a kind of androgyn, and later on was separated or thought to exist as " h u s b a n d " and " w i f e . " C o m p . the dmgir E N - G U R ,

dInsirNIN-GUR

di,,sirGUR,

and also Gen. ii. 21, where E v e is said to h a v e been

made " f r o m one of the r i b s , " i. e., better " s i d e s " of Adam.

T H E CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

17

they are n a m e s composed out of E N resp. N I N -f the real name of the god. T h e last point which we have to discuss is the use of the n a m e D I N G I R or " g o d . " T h e oldest Babylonian inscriptions are always very careful to put the

dhlBir

-sign before the , n a m e of a god. 1

The

2

n a m e s for god A n u and Gu-la 3 are probably the only ones which generally occur without the dingir-sign, 4 T h e negligence in omitting the sign dingir before the n a m e s of gods begins at the time of the first dynasty of Babylon. have seen that every city h a d its god.

Above we

Not only the cities, how-

ever, but also the different kings and patesis (priest-kings) h a d their favored deities w h o m they t e r m e d dingir,— while the others were either L U G A L or N I N . 5

T h e god of U r u k a g i n a was

6

lil, that of E a n n a t u m , a n d E n t e m e n a : dingir D u n . g u r s di

r

?s' Nin-a-gal

o r a i s o wr;tten 10

dins;lr

dinstir

Nin-shul-

7

D u n - g u r - a n ;9

is the god of U r - B a - u ;

dingir Nin-gish-zi-da 1 1 that of G u d e a ; din!iir

Lugal-banda 1 2 that of Sin-gashid, etc., etc.

If cities and kings and patesis had their special gods, it is more than probable t h a t also the " l a n d s " and " c o u n t r i e s , " the " f a m i l i e s " and " t r i b e s , " in fact, every " p e r s o n , " had his own 1 Except when the name of a god occurs in a name of a city: e. g., E N - L I L - k i = Nippur, for '1,;"nir E N - L I L - k i . But see E. B. H., Index, Gods. 2 In the Old Babylonian inscriptions the god Anu is mostly written AN-NA, but also A N - E (Gudea, Statue B, VIII. 45 = K. B. Ill 1 , p. 46), An-nu-um, i l u Annu-um, and dingir AN occur, see E. B. H, Index, Gods, p. 442. Here also belongs, of course, his wife An-nat.

See E. B. H. p. 443. * dingir g a . U i when in proper names and written " Ba-bi," has never the sign of 3

dingir. 5E. 7

9E. 11

B. H. p. 51.

E. B. H. p. 108.

6E.

K. B. Ill 1 , p. 72.

B. H. pp. 115, 116, 118.

E. B. H. pp. 196, 199, 207.

IX. 4). 1 2 K.

Cyl. A. XVIII. 15 B. Ill 1 , p. 84.

8 10

K. B.

B. H. p. 92.

E. B. H. p. 92. Ur-Ba-u V. 4, 5 = K. B. I l l 1 , p. 24.

Ill 1 ,

pp. 28, 46 ( = Statue B, III. 4, 5.

et-passim.

Lugal-banda is the husband of Nin-sun, who again is the

mother of Nin-gish-zi-da (Cyl. B. 23, 5", 6"), and this latter is said to be a dumu-ka An-na-kam (Cyl. B. I. c.). For dumu-ka = " descendant," see E. B. H. pp. 14, 15-

i8

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I .

special god.

T h e inscriptions so far accessible to scholars do not

shed much light u p o n this question, yet there are at least one or two examples that countries had their special g o d s : " t h e god of the W e s t l a n d , " i. e., of the A m m o r i t e s .

1

diniiir

Mar-tu,

In the old

Babylonian inscriptions, Babylonia, when spoken of in its totality, i. e., when South and N o r t h Babylonia are meant, is c a l l e d : Ki-en-gi-ki-Urdu ( B U R - B U R ) . A

dingir

Urdu ( B U R - B U R ) - z i occurs in an inscription of N i n k a g i n a 2

and in Cyl. B of Gudea. 8

T h e Z I in the n a m e of this god is, no

doubt, the same as that in the n a m e

din!iir

n a m e is explained by n u - b a n d a (?)

ilu

servant of B e l . " U r d u , " and as is

dingir

The

dingir

dingir

E N - L I L - Z I , which latter

Bel ( E N - L I L ) / i. e., " t h e

Urdu-zi then is the " s e r v a n t " of " g o d

E N - L I L is the city-god of N i p p u r , so probably

U r d u the country-god of U r d u ( B U R - B U R ) , which latter

again with " K I " o r " p l a c e " sign'before or after it, signifies the country " A k k a d . " In like manner, we might explain Ki-en-gi as the land ( K I ) of E N - G I — a n d E N - G I being = " h u s b a n d " or " M r . " G I — w e should have here another god of a country, viz., that of Shumer. 6 T h e results of our investigation so far would be as follows: N I N before or in composition with the n a m e s of cities and deified attributes may stand either for a male or female god,—the context or syllabaries or other texts must be t a k e n in to decide the gender of each respective god. L U G A L before or in composition with the n a m e s of cities or deified attributes stands always for a male divinity. N I N in apposition or as attribute of a divinity always shows that that divinity is feminine;

if it be masculine the word

L U G A L or E N is used. 1 E. B . H . p. 411. Here belong, of course, the deified attributes kur-kur-ra, din£'r Nin-char-sag, etc. 2

E . B. H. p. 186.

3

Cyl. B. IX. 13.

4II.

din£ir

Lugal-

R. 59 col. I. 20.

If my explanation of Shumer = Gir-su (see E . B. H. p. 216 ff.) be correct, the din£ir Nin-Gir-su, the surname, would stand for the god G I or better for dil « ir E N - G I . Such a din s ir E N - G I seems to occur in IV. R. 35 No. 6 = K. B . I l l 1 , p. 96. 6. 5

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

19

N I N and E N in proper names for gods correspond to our " M r . " and " M r s . "

T h e real name of the god

being

always expressed by the sign that follows the Nin or E N respectively. Bearing this in mind, we may now consider the names of the different gods themselves. 1. T h e god L I L . Mr. L I L , according to our rules laid down above, would have to be called

d i n ^ i r EN-LIL

in the oldest

and Mrs. L I L ,

inscriptions. 1

dingir

d i n i J i r EN-LIL

N I N - L I L — b o t h occur

is called lugal-kur-kur. 2

T h i s attribute has become in course of time even a proper name, to which the sign dingir was prefixed :

dingir

Lugal-kur-kur. 3

If E N -

L I L was a lugal-kur-kur, then his wife must have been a nin-kurkur ; this would follow from the analogy of the case ! S o far I have not yet seen an inscription where N I N - L I L is called nin-kur-kur, but E N - L I L is called also lugal-an-ki, 4 and N I N - L I L nin-an-ki. 5 Not only N I N - L I L is the " m i s t r e s s of heaven and e a r t h " but also dmgir Nin-char-sag. 6

This latter goddess is also called am dingir-

ri-ne 7 and am tur-tur-ne, 8 while

dingir En-lil

gir-dingir-ru-ne, 9 and is the same as the

has the title: ab-ba din-

dinsiir

Lugal-dingir-e-ne. 1 0

Am dingir-ri-ne is also the attribute of (var.

NIN)-in-si-na 1 2

dinirir

Nin-tu. 1 1

dinsrir Sal

is called am kalam-ma zi-gal kalam gim-

1 For the different writings and for references see E . B . H. Index, gods, sub. E . and N., pp. 443 and 445. 2

" King of the lands," E. B. H. pp. 131, 134, 151

3E.

etpassim.

B . H. p. 125, note 3 ; p. 132, 1. 14.

4

" King of heaven and earth," Stele of Vultures, London 23580, col. II. 10.

5

" M i s t r e s s of heaven and earth," E . B . H. p. 125, note 1.

6E.

B . H. p. 199 and note 5.

7

" Mother of the gods," Ur-Ba-u III. 8 = K. B . I l l 1 , p. 22.

8

" Mother of the children," E . B. H. p. 198 and note I, 3.

9E.

B . H. p. 97, " f a t h e r of the gods," cp. the a-bu ilani banu in Shalm. II. Obelisk 1. 4. 10IV. 11E. 12

R. 35J = K. B . I l l 1 , p. 78, " t h e king of the gods." B . H. p. 199, and note 5.

See also

d i n ^ r Innanna di"itir

Nin-an (sic ! not dingir)-si-an-na E . B . H . p. 273.

20

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

gim-me 1 and dumu-sag an-azag-ga. 2 common with

dingir

dumu-sag A N - N A 6 , but also azag-gi tu-da. 6 am

d i n g i r Ba-u 7

Shir-pur-la- ki ,

This latter title she has in

Ba-u, 3 who again is called dumu A N - N A 4 or dinErlr

Ga-tum-dug is called dumu an-

as well as

din|iir

Ga-tum-dug 8 are called

i. e., " m o t h e r of L a g a s h , " the former is also

known under the name Nin-an-da-gal-ki, 9 as such again she is identical with

ding:ir Nin-char-sag

and the nin-kur-kur is dingir j n n a n n a

nin-c

dingir

! 10

E N - L I L was called lugal-kur-kur,

Innanna. 1 1

har-sag12—this

latter attribute being made later

on a proper name, thus becoming butes of

dingir

Innanna are: nin

Sometimes

Especially interesting is the

me 1 3

dingir

Nin-char-sag !

Other attri-

and nin azag-nun-na. 14

dins;ir Nin-lil, 16

or dh,E;ir Innanna, 16 or

dingir En-lil.

F r o m all this it follows that the above

is coupled with

dinglr

Nin-char-sag 1 7

given goddesses were originally the same as " M r s . " L i l or N I N -

" M o t h e r of t h e w o r l d (or p e o p l e ) , w h o c r e a t e d t h e c r e a t u r e s of t h e w o r l d , "

I

E . B . H . p. 202, n o t e I. i . 2

E . B . H . p. 202, n o t e I . i : " t h e

firstborn

of A n - a z a g - g a , i. e . , t h e

glorious

AN." 3

E . E . H . p. 209 : G u d e a , S t a t u e H . c o l . I . 6.

* E . B . H . I. c. c o l . I. 3.

Gudea,

Statue G.

col. II.

5 = K.B.

Ill1,

p. 58,

5

G u d e a , S t . B . V I I I . 59 = K . B . I l l 1 , p. 46, C y l . A . X X . 19.

6

G u d e a , C y l . A . I I . 27 = T h u r e a u - D a n g i n , L e s o n g e de G o u d e a , p. 6,

"child

" c h i l d of A N - N A . "

b o r n of t h e g l o r i o u s A N . 7

E . B . H . p. 2 1 .

B u t s e e a l s o D e c . p. X X X I I I . a n d R e v u e

archeol,

1886,

p i . V I I . N o . 1. 8

G u d e a , S t a t u e B . V I I I . 56, 57 = K . B . I l l 1 , p. 46.

9

" M i s t r e s s of t h e w i d e h e a v e n a n d e a r t h , " E . B . H . 206, a n d n o t e 12.

10

S e e a b o v e , p . 19, 6.

II

" M i s t r e s s of t h e l a n d s , " E . B . H . p. i g g = G u d e a , S t a t u e C . c o l . I I . 2, a n d

p. 201, c o l . I V . 10. 12

P . S . B . A . X I I I . I 5 9 = K . B . I l l 1 , p. 98 ( R i m - S i n ) : " I n n a n n a t h e m i s t r e s s

of t h e m o u n t a i n . " 13

" M i s t r e s s of b a t t l e , " G u d e a , S t . B . V I I I . 6 1 .

14l"/The 15E. 16

g l o r i o u s e x a l t e d m i s t r e s s , " U r - B a - u I V . 8.

B . H . p. 125, n o t e 1.

E . B . H . p. 125, n o t e 2 : h e r e a f t e r

s h o w n a b o v e , p. 19, 3, a n a m e f o r 17

J e n s e n , K . B . I l l 1 , p . 22.

din K' r

L u g a l - k u r - k u r , w h i c h is h e r e , a s w a s

EN-LIL.

G u d e a , S t a t u e B . V I I I . 47 = K . B . I l l 1 , p. 46.

21

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

L I L , w h o is e x p r e s s l y c a l l e d t h e d a m " " " ^ E n - l i l . 1 NIN-LIL

T h e y represent

in h e r d i f f e r e n t c a p a c i t i e s a n d are " d e i f i e d " a t t r i b u t e s

of t h e w i f e of L I L .

S u c h a " d e i f i c a t i o n " of a t t r i b u t e s s e e m s to

h a v e b e e n a l m o s t e n d l e s s a n d b e g a n at t h e v e r y e a r l i e s t t i m e s of Babylonian history. N o t o n l y , h o w e v e r , t h e a t t r i b u t e s c o n t r i b u t e d g r e a t l y to t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y of a s i n g l e g o d or g o d d e s s , b u t also t h e p l a c e s w h e r e s u c h a g o d or g o d d e s s m i g h t b e w o r s h i p p e d . Innanna-edin,2

dingir

a

dinffir

Innanna-Erin-ki

Thus we have a

( = t h e g o d d e s s of

Susa),

a n d in l a t e r t i m e s t h e I s h t a r of A r b a - i l u , of N i n a , a n d K i d m u r i . T h e r e s e e m to h a v e b e e n e v e n d i f f e r e n t E N - L I L s , as is a p p a r e n t from

such

expressions

as

d i n g i r En-lil

En-lil-ki-a3

E n l i l or B è i " in c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n to another o t h e r n a m e 4 for sometimes

Bel.

Nippurian

di"BirBa-u,

N i n - l i l , t h e w i f e of E N - L I L , is t h e d u m u

a l s o t h e d u m u - s a g of A N - N A ,

" f i r s t b o r n c h i l d " of

"the

i. e . , the " c h i l d "

anor or

AN-NA.6

W h a t w a s t h e n a m e of t h e f a t h e r of E N - L I L ?

T h e old B a b y -

lonian inscriptions do not give an answer to this question, but f r o m Assyrian inscriptions w e k n o w that B è i

(the Semitic

Babylonian

for E N - L I L ) w a s c a l l e d the m a r rèshtu s h a m è , i. e . , " t h e c h i l d of h e a v e n . "

A N or A N - N A , h e n c e it f o l l o w s also E N - L I L w a s t h e AN.

T h i s is i m p o r t a n t :

BORN ;

firstborn

T h e Assyrian shamè translates the S u m e r i a n

d

* ' B a - u as w e l l as

dinsirEn-lil

firstborn are a

of

FIRST-

b o t h are brother a n d sister b u t at t h e s a m e t i m e husband

and

wife ! ( 2 ) T h e c h i l d r e n of E N - L I L . (a) T h e god Z U . " T h e wife of Enlil," E. B. H. p. 125^ See E. B. H. Index, gods. 3 E . B. H. p. 272 et passim. 4 On account of the writing "Ba-bi," see the proper name Ur-Ba-bi and the E-Ba-bi in E. B. H. pp. 237, 326, and 365. I consider "Ba-u " to be a Semitic name. In later inscriptions occurs also the writing din£ir Ba-bur. Ba-bi = genitive, and Ba-bur = dative (sic !) is in Sumerian impossible. Ba-bur is formed in Semitic and Sumerian fashion, as the r ( = ra or ru) shows. In good Sumerian the postposition " ra " is shortened to r only after i as in ni, cp : dingir-ra-ni-ir, lugal-a-ni-ir ! This dill2irBa-u has of course nothing to do with the VT2 in Gen. i. 2. 5 See above, p. 20, 4. 5. 1

2

22

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

Mr. Z U is E N - Z U 1 and Mrs. Z U is N I N - Z U .

T h e latter is

k n o w n to me only from the p r o p e r n a m e Ur- d i n g i r Nin-zu, " t h e serv a n t of N I N - Z U . " 2 4

Another, later, n a m e 3 for E N - Z U was

Uru, or mostly written dinitir

This

dillsrir

Uru-ki.

Uru-ki is the dumu-sag

dln|i!r

En-lil-lal. 6

dinsir

' En-zu h e is k n o w n also as t h e a m a r - b a n d a

and as

dingir

Uru-ki as the a m a r - b a n d a An-na. d ngir

ki is also called '

Nin-gal.

8

^

U n d e r the

din£r r

name

di ir

4

7

En-lil 6

din?Ir

T h e wife of

Uru-

Uru-ki or E n - z u h a d several chil-

dren : a. dinsrir

dingir

A-A of /3.

UD, 9 who is called " s i b tu-da

dingh

dingir

Uru-ki." 1 0

T h e wife

U D is so far not found in Old Babylonian texts.

I n n a n n a nin char-sag . . . T U R - S A L

dingir

With

dingir

di, !r

« EN-ZU-NA.11

U D probably is closely connected the

U D , i. e., " t h e ox of U D , "

12

Or " t h e child of U D . "

does not 1 4 occur in the oldest inscription.

dins:ir 18

AMAR-

T h i s god

H e is k n o w n to us

F o r the inscriptions in which he occurs see E . B . H . , Index, gods, p. 443

1

sub E . 2 E . B . H . 412, j . T o read Nin-a-zu for N i n - z u is not necessary, f o r we know f r o m later inscriptions that E N - Z U had a wife, and if he had, her real or original name must have been din£'r Nin-zu. 3

W h i c h was originally an attribute of E N - Z U .

See E . B . H . , Index, gods, p. 445 sub U. T h e ki at the end p r o b a b l y is only the prolongation syllable. Comp. also Uru-nung- k i -ma, not Uru-ki-nung- k i ma. 4

" T h e firstborn of E n l i l . "

5

No. I. 5 (K. B . I l l 1 , p. 78. 4 ). 6Déc. 7

1 R . 1 No. I. 4 ( K . B . I l l 1 , p. 76 N o . 3),

1 R. 1

1 R . 5 N o . X X (K. B . I l l 1 , p. 92, 1. 21).

4 B 2 . V . 1, " t h e strong ox = puru iqdu, rému iqdu of En-lil.

1 R . 1 N o . I. 4 = K . B . I l l 1 , p. 76,

3.

" T h e great mistress," 1 R . 2, No. V I , 1 (K. B . I l l 1 , p. 86, t ) ; 1 R 2, N o . I V

8

( K . B . I l l 1 , p. 90, d ) . 9

G e n e r a l l y read

dinglr

Utu.

10 " T h e shepherd, born b y U r u - k i . " 1 R . 2, N o . V I . 1 (K. B . I l l 1 , p. 86, 11

" I n n a n n a , the mistress of the mountain . . . . the daughter of

P . S . B . A. X I I I . 159 (K. B . I I I 1 . 98). (K. B . V I . 81):

ilu

Ishtar T U R - S A L

Z U , see also E . B . H . p. 317. i= 12Comp. 13

Comp.

dfasir

En-zu,

Comp. also Ishtar's descent, I V . R . 31, ¡¡

iluSin.

F o r the writing E N - Z U - N A for E N -

< I m g l r Ur- d i '>s"En-zu-na.

the " a m a r b a n d a " above, note 6. the proper name

E . B . H. p. 266, note 2.

dingir

AMAR

dingir

E N - Z U = B u r - S i n I I . , K i n g of U t ,

A c c o r d i n g to the analogy of this name A M A R - U D might

also be translated b y " a n ox is U D or S h a m a s h . " 14The

cities Tu-tu- k ¡ (E. B . H . p. 174), Su-kur-ru- k i (E. B . H . p. 302. xi) do not

prove anything.

O B I No. 87. I. 30 is

d

^ ' U M U and not

din»irSHID

(E. B . H. p.

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

23

only since the time of the first dynasty of Babylon, about 2400 B. C. In this line somewhere belongs also Nin-gish-zi-da,

Lugal-

banda, and Nin-sun, see above p. 584, 12. b. Another child of of Girsu.

diI«ir

En-lil is

dingir

Nin-Gir-su, 1 the city-god

H o w this god was originally called, or what his real

name was, we do not know as yet. 2

H e is a male divinity. 8

wife of

A sister of

dingir

ainBir Nina. 6

Nin-Gir-su was

dins;ir

T h e dumu-ush-7

Ba-u. 4

dingir

dins;ir

Ba-u-me banda en

The

Nin-Gir-su is

dingir

Nin-Gir-su-

ka-me 6 are hardly the sons of En-lil and Ba-u but of Nin-Gir-su

133). Su-kur-ru- k i should be read according to B r . Mus. 82-8-16, 1. 45 : S h u ru-up-pak. Tu-tu- k i had probably also another pronunciation. Strange, very strange, is that B u r - S i n I I . , whose name is written dinsr'r A M A R d i n s ' r E N - Z U , should be worshipped after his death as the M U L - A M A R - U D (E. B . H . p. 316). H e , being while alive a " c h i l d of S i n , " becomes sometime after his death a " c h i l d of Shamash " ! 1 C y l . A of Gudea, col. V I I . 5 : d ! n s i r Nin-gir-su dumu d i n s i r En-lil-lal-ka. V I I I . 2 1 : dumu d i n fi i r En-lil-lal en d f a !i i r Nin-Gir-su, cp. also ibid. I X . 3. 2

See, however, above, p. 18.

4 d i n fi i r Nm-Gir-su-ge d i l « i r B a - u

col. II. 3 ff. ( K . B . I l l 1 , p. 58). B a - u the wife of din e ir En-lil. 6

3

Ibid.,

See above, p. 12.

dumu An-na dam ki-ag-ga-ni. Gudea, Statue G , T h i s dil >g ir Ba-u is of course the same as the d i n s i r

See below sub " god K I . "

" T h e 7 sons of B a - u the banda of lord N i n - G i r - s u . " Gudea, C y l . B . X I . u , 12. T h e sign ush a f t e r dumu is not quite clear. T h e 7 is plainly written. According to my transcription w h i c h I made f r o m Price's text, there seem to be mentioned only 6 sons. W h e r e is the seventh ? T h e six mentioned are the following (1. 1. 4-10): 1. 4. d i n 2' r Za-za-ru. 6

5. din £ ir Im-pa-ud-du. 6. ur ( = ishdu)-kalam-ta-ud-du-a. 7. 8. g.

din s ir

10.

din £ ir

Ghe(GAN)-gir-nun-na.

d i n ? i r Ghe(GAN)-shag-ga. ding'rKa-ur(=ishdu)-mu.

Za-ar-mu.

Uru-ka-gi-na in his B a r r e l - C y l i n d e r , E . B . H . p. 53, mentions also the following g o d s : II. 10. d i n £ i r Za-za-ru, 11. d i n s i r Im-pa-ud-du, 12. d i n « i r Gim-nun-ta-ud-du-a. 14. dingirNin-sar gir-lal d i "i i r Nin-Gir-su (so read also E . B . H , p. 52, 1. 23, w h e r e Nin-sar is mentioned too, and comp. for this reading Dec. p. X L I X , copie de F . T h u r e a u - D a n g i n ) . T h e r e can hardly be any doubt that din s ir Gim-nun-ta-ud-du-a is = ur-kalam-ta-ud-du-a, hence w e ought to read above 1. 6 = d i n s i r Ur-kalam-taud-du-a. F o r the formation of the name comp. d i n £ i r E - S H I T - L A M - t a - u d - d u - a = Nergal.

24

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF GENESIS I.

and Ba-u. A child of ga. 1

dingir

Nin-Gir-su was also called

dins!lr

Dun-shag-

H e must be a male god, because Gudea dedicates the inscrip-

tion to him as his

H e probably is the same as the

"KING."2

Ghe(GAN)-shag-ga. 3

Another child of Nin-Gir-su was

alim dumu ki-ag-ga-ni en

dingir

dingir

dingir G&l-

Nin-Gir-su. 4

3. T h e god A N . According to our principle laid down above, " M r . " A N 6 would be called E N - A N and Mrs. A N N I N - A N .

T h e E N - A N occurs so

far only in proper names, as e. g., E N - A N - N A - t u m . 6

N I N - A N is

not found at all. T h a t there indeed existed a " M r . " and a " M r s . " A N is evident from the Semitic Inscription of An-nu-ba-ni-ni, where they are called An-nu-um and An-nat respectively. 7

At the time

of the fourth dynasty of Ur the eleventh month was sacred to him, which month was therefore called " t h e month of the festival of An-na. " 8 H e was the father of E N - L I L . 9 of A N ?

But who was the father

Before we answer this question, we shall have to consider

the god K I . 4. T h e god K I . Mr. K I again is E N - K I and Mrs. K I N I N - K I . occur already in the oldest K I was

d i n g i r Dam-gal-nun-na, u

1 E . B . H. p. 195, 196 : a-ni Gudea. 2

inscriptions. 10

See above, p. 18.

din « ir

B o t h names

Another name of Mrs.

i. e., " t h e great wife of N u n . " F r o m

Dun-shag-ga dumu ki-ag 3

dill fr ir Nin-Gir-su-ka

lugal-

See preceding page, note 6.

4Gudea

Cyl. B. VI. 2 2 : " Gal-alim his beloved child of Nin-Gir-su." See also Statue B . II. 18, 19 (K. B . I l l 1 , p. 28), and E . B . H . pp. 49, 51. He is mentioned by Uru-ka-gi-na in the same inscriptions in which the other sons of NinGir-su occur! 6

For the different writings see above, p. 17, 2.

6See

E . B. H., Index, proper names, p. 436 sub E .

? E . B . H. p. 177. 8E. 9

B . H. pp. 296, 299, 302 : Itu Ezen An-na.

See above, p. 81.

10 For E N - K I see E . B . H. Index, gods, p. 443 sub. E., and for N I N - K I E . B . H. p. 81, note 1. T h e later writing d i n s i r EN-KI-ga with an unknown pronunciation (Jensen, K . B . I l l 1 , p. 21, note f) I have not yet found in the oldest texts. Comp. here, however, the name : N U N - k i = Urudug- k i or Eridug- k i = Eridu. 1 1 E . B . H. p 224. In the later Assyrian texts d l n g i r Dam-gal-nun-na became Damkina. II. R. 55, 53. 54d (comp. 1. 16) : (Ea) Dam-ki-na ashshati-shu.

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y O F G E N E S I S I.

25

this it follows, that E N - K I had also the name N U N , or else N I N K I could not have been called " t h e great wife of N U N . " is called lugal zu-ab. 1

EN-KI

T h i s would p r e s u p p o s e a title " n i n z u - a b "

for N I N - K I ; I h a v e , however, not yet found this latter title for Mrs. K I . that the

A n d because E N - K I is the l u g a l zu-ab it is p r o b a b l e dinEir

Dumu-zi-zu-ab, 2 also shortened to

a son of E N - K I .

Of the

dingir

doubt a simple contraction. 3

dingir

D u m u - z i the later

To

dingir

ilu

D u m u - z i , 2 was T a m m u z is no

D u m u - z i was dedicated at the

time of S a r g o n I. and later on also at the time of the fourth dynasty of U r , the sixth4 dingir

Dumu-zi."6

month, which was called " t h e festival of

A daughter of E N - K I (hence also a brother of

dmgir Dumu-zi-zu-ab) was she is called " a child of

dingir

Nina. 6

NUN-ki,"7

nin-en nin-me

In the old B a b y l o n i a n texts i. e., E r i d u .

d f a s i r KAL din£ir

G u d e a calls h e r :

KAL-LA

nin din s ir En-lil-gim nam-tar-tar-ri.8

T h e epithet nin-en of Nina is found also in other inscriptions 9 — b u t a l w a y s after N i n a !

T o the nin-en must correspond, as w e

h a v e seen, a lugal-en, and this is the epithet of 1

" The king of the zu-ab, i. e., the apsu or abyss."

2

For references see E. B. H. Index, gods, p. 442, sub. D.

3 See

dingir

Nin-dar-a, 1

Dec. 4 B 2 . col. IV. 3.

E. B . H. p. 298.

Thus we ought to number and not as it was done in E. B. H. pp. 287 and 306 (List of months, the first two columns). The itu Ezen She-il-la, instead of being the first, ought to be the last (12th or 13th) month ! See Thureau-Dangin's review of my E. B. H. in Z. A. XV. p. 409. The festival of Tammuz was celebrated in Phoenicia and Palestine, likewise originally in the 6th month, see Ezekiel viii. 1. (Masoretic Text). In later times, beginning with the first dynasty of Babylon about 2400 B. C., the month of sowing SHU-KUL-NA became the month Du-'-uzu, i. e., Tammuz or the 4th month. E. B. H. p. 306 (list of months). 4

5

Itu Ezen

dfa£ir Dumu-zi,

E. B. H. p. 288, 306 (list).

6IV.

R. 1, col. II. 38. 7 dingirNjna dumu NUN- k i , Gudea, Cyl. A. XX. 16. NUN- k i is the city of NUN or E N - K I !

Comp. ibid. col. II. 15,

8 Mistress of the priests, mistress of the decrees (? ME or better divinations then = shib for me!) of the di "£ ir KAL, mistress who like En-lil decrees the fates. Gudea, Cyl. A. IV. 8, 9. Comp. also Thureau-Dangin, Songe de Goudfe, C. R. 1901, p. 119, and the other epithet: en-me-li (=enshi), Cyl. A. II. 1, 16, III. 26; IV. 12 et passim. 9 E. 10

B. H. pp. 193, 224 note 4, 87 note. E. B. H. p. 193. Ur-Ba-u, col. V. 2 (K. B. Ill 1 , p. 24).

26

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

w h o b e c o m e s t h u s the h u s b a n d of

dingir

Nina.

Of h i m w e k n o w in

other respects nothing. A second n a m e of the h u s b a n d of N i n a w a s

d i n g i r Nin-dub,

"the

lord of the tablet ( w r i t i n g ) , " w h o t o g e t h e r w i t h N i n - G i r - s u and N i d a b a a p p e a r e d unto G u d e a in his d r e a m , and w h o unto G u d e a the " p l a n of the t e m p l e E - n i n n u .

presented

In a n o t h e r p l a c e 2

h e is called " l u g a l - e n " and has therefore e x a c t l y the s a m e title as dmgfc Nin-dar-a, and is t h u s i d e n t i c a l w i t h the latter. A third n a m e of N i n - d a r - a w a s

dingir

Lugal-Erim-ki.3

Ur-Ba-u

c a l l s himself the nitagh ki-ag, " t h e b e l o v e d s e r v a n t " of this g o d . 4 M y reason for i d e n t i f y i n g dingirNin-dub

d I n B i 'Lugal-Erim- k i

=din£irUd-ma-Nina-ki-shurit-ta

with

Nin-dar-a =

dinffir

(see b e l o w ) is t h i s :

g a s h or S h i r p u r l a consisted of f o u r s u b u r b s , e a c h s u b u r b

Labeing

called after the name of a g o d , or better, b e i n g d e d i c a t e d to a god. T h e s e suburbs w e r e : 1. Gir-su- k i , w i t h

dingir

N i n - G i r - s u as its god.

2. U r u - a z a g - g a w i t h the w i f e of N i n - G i r - s u :

d i n g i r Ba-u

as its

patroness. 3. Nina- k i w i t h Erim- k i

4.

with

dini;ir dingir

N i n a , and Lugal-Erim-ki.

It s e e m s p r o b a b l e that Nina- k i ( dinsir N i n a ) stands in the relation to Erim- k i ( dingir L u g a l - E r i m - k i ) B a - u ) to Gir-su- k i ( din?ir N i n - G i r - s u ) .

In this case, w e w o u l d

here " t w o c o u p l e s , " each c o u p l e consisting of husband T h e s e c o u p l e s are also " b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s " — f o r p r e s s l y calls true, then

dinsrir

dingir

N i n - G i r - s u my brother.5

Lugal-Erim-ki

same

as does U r u - a z a g - g a ( dingir have

and wife.

din£fir Nina

If this o b s e r v a t i o n

exbe

would be

( 1 ) the h u s b a n d of N i n a and

1See

Gudea, Cylinder A. col. V I . 5 and V. 2 (where he is not mentioned with

name) and Thureau-Dangin, Songe de Goudea, p. 121. 2 I. R. 5, X X I I I . = Winckler, 3E.

B. H. p. 113.

Altbabyloriische Keilschrifitexte,

p. 4, No, n a .

Jensen, K. B . I l l 1 , p. 20 (Ur-Ba-u col. II. 1. 2).

4

Jensen, I. c.

6

Gudea, Cyl. A. V. 17 and 11.

See below, p. 27, 5.

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I. (2) the

brother

d e s c e n d a n t s of

god

of

KI

Nin-Gir-su,

and

thus

i. e . , h e

be

a

son

of

27

would dingir

belong

EN-KI.

O t h e r a t t r i b u t e s of N i n a a r e : e n - m e - l i - a z a g 2 o r e n - m e - l i ri-ne;3 nin-in-dub-ba.4 Nidaba " m y

dingirNina

and

di"gir

sister."6

dingir

Ud-ma-Nina-ki-shurit-ta.7

dingirUd-ma-Nina-ki-shurit-ta

calls

dingirNin-Gir-su

dingirNina

It

may

is a l s o c a l l e d

not

b e a fourth

"my

be

to

dingir-

brother,"5

the N I N

impossible that

n a m e of

her

the

1

husband

of this

8 dingir

Nin-dar-a. The

firstborn

of N i n a w a s

dingir

Nin-Mar-ki.9

T o K I ' s line belongs, no doubt also From Old Babylonian

dingir

Gal-dim-zu-ab.10

inscriptions w e c a n n o t as yet

make

out

t h e f a t h e r or t h e m o t h e r of E N - K I h i m s e l f , b u t a l a t e r t e x t tells u s that " d i n g i r G U R this

dingir

was

the

mother

of

god E a . "

W h o or w h a t

1 1

is

GUR?

1 It should be observed here, that the h u s b a n d of a wife is at the same time always her b r o t h e r ! C o m p . d i n B i r E N - L I L and d i n 2' r Ba-u. See also W i n c k l e r , M. V . A . G. 1901, 4, p. 14 if. 2 Gudea, C y l . A. I I . 1 I I I . 16. F o r en-me-li to be pronounced enshi, see B r . 2918. B r . Mus. 82-8-16, 1 ( = A. W . p. 54 f. = Hom. S. L . p. 97) 1. 21. T h u r e a u D a n g i n translates it b y " divineresse," Songe de Goudea, p. 116. 3Gudea, 4

C y l . A. I I . 16, I V . 12.

" M i s t r e s s of tablet writing," Gudea, S t a t u e B . V I I I . 53.

E . B . H . 193.

Shesh-mu d t o s i r Nin-Gir-su, Gudea, C y l . A. V . 17, comp. with 1. n . S e e also Gudea, Statue D . I V . 2 - 3 (K. B . I l l 1 , p. 52), w h e r e Ning. and Nin-Gir-su are coupled together. 5

6

G u d e a , C y l . A. V . 25 : nin (notice the sign f o r nin)-mu

din s ir

Nidaba.

* Gudea, C y l . A . II. 1, 17, III. 27, I V . 5 ( E Kisal d i n ff I r Ud-ma-Nini- k i -shurit-ta). N i n here = sister? (notice the sign!). E . B . H . p. 193 (where instead of tag = shurit must be read on account of the prolongation syllable. F o r T A G = shurit see S c 292). 8 I n this case N I N = " M r s . " or " w i f e o f " ; see above, p. 16. T h e temple of N i n a was called E-Ud-ma-Nina- k i -shurit and was situated in Nin&- k i , a suburb of S h i r p u r l a - L a g a s h , E . B . H . p. 193. 9Ur-Ba-u

V . 10 (K. B . I l l 1 , p. 24): d t a g i ' N i n - M a r - k i sal-shag-ga dumu-sag i. e., Nin-Mar- k i (the mistress of Mar, a city), the gracious lady, the firstborn of Nina. See also Gudea, Statue B . I X . 1 (K. B . I l l 1 , p. 46). d i n 2 i r Nind,

10

E . B . H. p. 106.

" I V . R . x, col. I I . 36. T h e god E a is " E N - K I . " T h e sign G U R is = NIG I N - f inserted G H A L , the same as in U r - G u r , king of Ur. F o r the reading E N G U R instead of G U R see above, p. 16, note 4

T H E CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

28 Hommel

1

identified ^ ' G U R

with

dingirBa-u.

able

to

for his

T h e very fact

that

he

" r e a s o n s " w a s at o n c e a b a d o m e n .

He

brought

i n j u s t seven

supposition.

He was

adduce seven " r e a s o n s "

introduces his s e v e n reasons t h u s (p.

220):

' 1 D a B e l , wie der E i g e n n a m e 2 E - K U R - d u m u 2 - n u n n a (d. i., I g u r S o h n Nunna's) beweist, als Sohn des Himmelsoceans von den B a b y l o n i e r n aufgefasst wurde (vgl. auch noch U r s p . , S . 37, Z . 6 v. u. B e i mär rishtü shami), so ist es n a c h der stereotypen F o l g e A n u , Bei, E a , mehr als wahrscheinlich., Sohn

Bel's

betrachteten3

dass

sie auch

den

Ea

als

und dass in der R e i h e A n u m (Nun, anna), B e i (Gun-

lilla), E a (Gun-kia oder Dugga), Merodach, die älteste babylonische Göttergenealogie vorliegt." His

argument

a c c o u n t of probable

the

about

the

stereotyped

B u t let us g o on.

fact He

of

E a , then,

is t h i s :

" O n

s e q u e n c e A n u , B e l , E a , i t i s more

that E a was the son

this unquestionable

sonship

of

of

Bel!"

Upon

than

t h i s p i l l a r of

truth,

proof, his w h o l e a r g u m e n t is built up.

says:

" A n u m hat keine G e m a h l i n

das F e m . A n a t u der lexicalischen L i s t e n (ist)

erst eine spätere Abstraction, w e l c h e in den alten bilinguen T e x t e n wie in den Inschriften von T e l l o noch nirgends v o r k o m m t . " This, I suppose, he probably will no longer maintain now, c a u s e t h e " A n - n a t " of A n n u - b ä n i n i w i l l b e k n o w n t o h i m . b ä n i n i l i v e d e v e n b e f o r e S a r g o n I . , i. e . , b e f o r e 3 8 0 0 B .

of t h e w i v e s

Nin-ghar-sagga and

of E n l i l

Annu-

C.,—hence

" A n - n a t " o r t h e w i f e of A n u w a s k n o w n a s e a r l y a s t h a t . speaks

be-

He

then

and enumerates the Nin-lilla and

the

says:

" E i n anderer (viz., name of the wives of Enlil) war

4din£irGUR,4

eine ausge-

sprochene Himmelsoceansgöttin, welche in den bilinguen T e x t e n als " M u t t e r des G o t t e s E a " (also

demnach

als Gemahlin

des Vaters

des Ea,

eben des Bel)b

be-

zeichnet wird (4 R . i. 36 b ) . " B e c a u s e E a w a s declared Anu 1

Bel

E a , to

be

the

son

on account of

Bel,

and

of

the

stereotyped

because

di,,iir

sequence-. GUR

is

the

" Die Identität der ältesten babylonischen und ägyptischen Göttergenealogie

und der babylonische U r s p r u n g der ägyptischen Kultur, in Transactions Miernational

Congress

of Orientalists."

Von Prof. Dr. Fritz Hommel.

don, 1893. 3

G i v e n in cuneiform signs.

3

Italics are mine.

4

G i v e n in cuneiform signs.

5

Italics are mine.

of

the Lon-

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

m o t h e r of E a , h e n c e h e f o l l o w s Bel!

dingir

29

G U R must b e also the w i f e of

T h i s a r g u m e n t , then, is again built u p o n the sequence m e r e l y .

H e goes on: " A l s Göttin aber scheint^

d i n s' 1 'GUR 1

nicht die Aussprache G U R gehabt zu

haben, sondern B a ' u . . . .das geht aus folgenden. . . . G r ü n d e n hervor : " 1 . D i e Göttin B a - u heisst in den Gudea-Inschriften stets ' T o c h t e r des H i m m e l s , ' ist also eine Schwester, resp. (was in der babylonischen M y t h o logie oft dasselbe ist) G e m a h l i n des Gottes Bei, demnach identisch mit der Göttin Nin-lilla oder der " w ' G U R ,

1

w e l c h e letztere j a M u t t e r des

Gottes E a heisst."

B a - u is the w i f e of B e l , h e n c e the s a m e as Nin-lil or w h o is the mother E a .

dinfrirGUR,

H o m m e l w i s h e s to p r o v e that B a - u =

G U R , but takes it for granted that

Ääi

dingir

' G U R is = Nin-lil, w i t h o u t

any a r g u m e n t s of h i s , — a fair exhibition of H o m m e l ' s a r g u m e n t a tion !

H e continues: " 2 . In einer Z a u b e r f o r m e l (4 R . 29, No. 4) ist die ' ^ ' G U R

1

die H e l f e r i n

der K r a n k e n , besonders solcher an A u g e n w e h l e i d e n d e n . . . .in einem

ähnlichen

. . . . T e x t , K 2378 + 224, wird sie unmittelbar nach der Göttin Nin-agha-kuddu (der Schwester Ea's) erwähnt als ' H e r r i n der reinen Gewässer,' nin a-gub-ba il-la. A u c h die B a - u wird (in H . , K . T . n . xxvi) gegen Kopf-, Herz-, und A u g e n w e h zugleich mit Nin-agha-kuddu und G u l a a n g e r u f e n . " dineirGUR

and B a - u are i n v o k e d in case of s i c k n e s s ;

especially

w h e n , the e y e s are diseased, twice t h e y are c o u p l e d t o g e t h e r w i t h Nin-agha-kuddu,—hence

dInsIr

G U R = Ba-u,—a

strong

argument,

i n d e e d ! F o r the s a m e reason H o m m e l m i g h t h a v e argued that G u la, a later n a m e for B a - u , is = N i n - a g h a - k u d d u = he m i g h t h a v e substituted for B a - u the G u - l a !

diniiir

GUR,—for

B y such a r g u m e n -

tations w e can p r o v e nothing, absolutely nothing, and everything / " 3 . Die

1 di "B ir

G U R 1 trägt den B e i n a m e n ' mit reinen (azagga) H ä n d e n ' ; die

speciell der B a - u heilige Stadt ist U R U ' - a z a g g a , d. i., 'reine S t a d t ' (wol gleich N i p u r ) . "

B e c a u s e the word " a z a g g a , p u r e , " occurs in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h " h a n d s " in case of " ^ ' G U R " c i t y " in case of B a - u , — h e n c e ment is u n n e c e s s a r y .

G U R = Ba-u !

or

F u r t h e r com-

U r u - a z a g g a is not N i p p u r , but a s u b u r b of

Shirpurla. 1

and in c o n n e c t i o n with U R U

G i v e n in cuneiform signs.

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

3°

" 4 . D a s Ideogramm G U R 1

wird von den babylonischen Gelehrten aus-

drücklich als ' H i m m e l ' (ziku = shamti) erklärt (2 R . 50, 27), und die B a - u heisst stets (siehe schon oben unter N o . 1) ' T o c h t e r des H i m m e l s . ' "

T h e sign G U R (notice, not

din^GUR)

is = heaven, Ba-u is =

daughter of heaven, hence G U R = Ba-u or heaven = daughter of heaven!

And I may add

dingir

GUR =

god

of heaven = heaven =

daughter of heaven, one follows from the other! comes his own daughter ! " 5 . W i e es einen Gott GUR,1

T h e heaven be-

Splendid argumentation ! 1 dln £ ir

EN-GUR1

( = E a , dann als Sohn der

1 di "£ ir

urspr. aber wol = B e l ) gibt (Jens. Kosmol., S . 245), so gab es a u c h

einen Gott ^ ' " » P ' E N ' - B a - u [here H o m m e l refers to a note ; vgl. a u c h 3 R . 67, 57

ldineirGUR1-ra,

N I N - 1 G U R ^ - r a , woraus zugleich hervorgeht,

dass man später allerdings ' ^ G U R

1

G u r r a las, was aber natürlich f ü r

die alte Zeit nichts beweist] Urspr., S. 19, A n m . 1). babylonischen Königsnamen U r - l d i n £ ' r G U R 1 g a b

W i e es einen altso g a b es a u G h . . . .

einen Ur- din ® irl B a - u . "

T h e nonsense that follows is too great to be reproduced here, and has, I suppose, been given up by Hommel himself.

H i s argu-

ment is this: G U R = Ba-u (which he wants to prove, mark ye !), " G l e i c h e s zu Gleichem zugesetzt giebt Gleiches, und Gleiches von Gleichem abgezogen giebt Gleiches." If we add to G U R and Ba-u a dingirEN and

w e

get the same, and if we abstract from

dinsirEN-Ba-u,

dinsirEN-GUR

a ¿¡ngirEN we get again the s a m e — b u t this pre-

supposes that G U R is already = Ba-u, which Hommel wishes to prove by this No. 5 ! "6.

1 din 2' r

G U R 1 ist bei den A e g y p t e r n die Morgendämmerung (siehe unten)

wie bei den B a b y l o n i e r n die B a u - u (3 R . 55, 49b)."

Here Hommel takes something as proven, which he has not yet p r o v e d ! " 7 . E n d l i c h wird die G ö t t i n 1

dinser

G U R 1 . . . .in späterer Zeit in ganz gleicher

W e i s e zur Gemahlin Nirgal's (4 R . 3$, col. 3, 30; vgl. 2, 46, die G u l a als G e m a h l i n N i n d a r ' s ) wie andererseits . . . die Ba-u, zur G e m a h l i n des Ningirsu ( = N i r g a l ) wird (Statue G . 2. 6), während doch sonst die Göttin 1 d i n g i r N j n i 1 (Ghanna) die Schwester (Gudea, C y l . A . 5, 17) und G e m a h l i n des Ningirsu-Nirgal ist."

1

G i v e n in cuneiform signs.

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

31

H o m m e l p r e s u p p o s e s or t a k e s for g r a n t e d without any f u r t h e r a r g u m e n t of his t h a t N i n g i r s u is = N i r g a l . this, t h e n we shall w a n t to answer him.

H e first m u s t p r o v e

J e n s e n , e. g., t a k e s Nin-

girsu to be = Ninib, see K. B. I I P . p. 23, note *f. k n o w as yet who this N i n g i r s u is !

W e do not

B u t see below !

T h e best, however, follows : " A u s all diesen Aniiihrungen, " says Hommel, "geht GUR2

and

din s ir 2

bezeichnen,1 von

Ba-u reine

Synonyma1

sind, ganz

wahrscheinlich1

und dass höchst

dieselbe

dass 2 d i n s i r

hervor,

Göttin von Haus

aus

auch die gewöhnliche Aussprache

2dingirQUR2 Ba'u war, während die andere Aussprache gur offenbar nur dem

unpersonificirten mythologischen Begriff G U R 1 (ohne Gottheitsdeterminativ) eignete.

Ich habe dies deshalb so ausführlich und eingehend hier B E W I E S E N , 1

weil in einem viel citirten Buche die betreffende Identification eine ' auch jeglicher Begründung entbehrende' genannt worden ist (Jensen, Kosmologie,

S. 245)."

And I h a v e t a k e n this t r o u b l e to p r e s e n t to t h e p u b l i c t h e splendid are.

PROOFS

of P r o f e s s o r H o m m e l , to s h o w w h a t n o n s e n s e they

I do not possess J e n s e n ' s Kosmologie,

nor is it accessible to

me, h e n c e do not k n o w w h a t a r g u m e n t s J e n s e n a d d u c e s to d i s p r o v e Hommel.

B u t a r g u m e n t s are not necessary at all to d i s p r o v e t h e

above-given

" r e a s o n s " ; every m a n with a little c o m m o n sense will T o q u o t e H o m m e l 3 again :

see instantly t h a t they are nonsensical.

" W e r so einen Unsinn denken, schreiben und schliesslich drucken lassen kann, der hat überhaupt den Anspruch ernst genommen zu werden verwirkt."

All seven " r e a s o n s " of H o m m e l are built u p o n t h e s e q u e n c e of Anu, Bel, E a , w h i c h suffices to prove

for him t h a t Ea was the

son of Bèi, and b e c a u s e E a was also t h e son of lows, t h a t s a m e as

di

dinsirGUR

h e fol-

din ir

s G U R m u s t h a v e been t h e wife of Bel, and t h u s the

»PrBa-u !

T h e only p a s s a g e in t h e old Babylonian inscriptions, w h e r e t h e sequence Anu, Bel, E a m a y be f o u n d is t h a t of Gudea, S t a t u e din ir

B. Col. V I I I . 45 ff. : An-e KI.

And here E a or

din

s En-lil-li,

s Nin-char-sag

ü E N - K I is divided from B81 or

by t h e wife of t h e latter !

Italics and capitals are mine.

3

Hommel, Die Sildarabischen mid Abhandlungen,

din din

R ir E N -

üirEn-lil

In all the other oldest inscriptions t h e

1

= Auf'sätze

din ir

ir

2

Alterthümer II. p. 140.

Given in cuneiform signs. des Wiener

Hof museums,

p. 12

32

THE CREATIONTSTORY OF GENESIS I.

sequence of the gods seems to be without any special order, as one can easily convince himself, by examining the inscriptions with regard to this point. Furthermore the celebrated trilingual list of gods, 1 written in E M E - S A L , Sumerian, and Semitic Babylonian, does NOT give the names of the gods in the sequence An, Bel, Ea— which it would have undoubtedly done, if Ea had been the son of Bel, as Rommel supposes—but in the order Anu, 2 E a , Bel. The same arrangement, viz.: Anu, Ea, Bel is found again in IV. R. i, 6i c ff. Hence, the sequence Anu, Bel, E a would not prove anything at all. And if it does not, then is Hommel's statement, to say the least, nonsense, that it is " n a c h der stereotypen Folge Anu, Bel, Ea, mehr als wahrscheinlich, dass sie (the Babylonians) auch den E a als Sohn Bel's betrachteten und dass in der Reihe Anum, Bei, Ea, Merodach, die älteste babylonische Göttergenealogie vorliegt." And if the sequence Anu, Bel, E a does not prove anything, then it also follows that d i n s i r G U R is not proven to be the wife of Bel or = Ba-u! The other seven arguments or " r e a s o n s " (Gründe) of Hommel are so foolish as to require no further refutation. But who then was d i n s i r G U R ? In order to answer this question it is necessary to inquire into the meaning of god AN and god K I ! The sign AN is translated in Semitic Babylonian generally by shamu, i. e., " h e a v e n , " and the sign KI generally by irtsitu, i. e., " e a r t h . " Both signs occur very often together in the attributes of En-lil (lugal-an-ki 3 ) and Nin-char-sag (nin-an-ki 3 ), where they no doubt stand for " h e a v e n and earth." That the original meaning of AN was not so much " h e a v e n " and that of KI not so much " e a r t h " is evident from the following considerations:

1

I I . R. 59 (see Hommel, S . L . p. 46).

2

Anu is called in the E M E - S A L column = dim-me-ir ; in the Sumerian : A N ; and in the Semitic : i[-lum], i. e., the god /car' kHoxJ/v. From this it would follow that the writing A N - E might also be read dingir-e, and that of AN-tum = il-tum, and lastly that of NI-NI-tum = i - l i - t u m , but in every case it would signify either the " g o d " or the " g o d d e s s " Kar' eijoxvv, i. e., Anu and his wife Annat. 3

See above, p. 19, 4. 5. 6.

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

33

(1) " H e a v e n " in Sumerian means G I S H and in E M E - S A L : mu.

1

(2) In the expression AN-ta = elish and Kl-ta = shaplish, the AN stands simply for " t h a t which is a b o v e " and the KI for " t h a t which is below." name

T h u s it happened that Jensen explained the

din ir

s E N - K I by " H e r r , dessen was unten i s t " = E a . 2 If this

explanation be correct, it would follow from the analogy of the case that the name AN or E N - A N 3 would have to be translated by " h e who is a b o v e " or by " l o r d of that which is above." T h i s idea of " b e i n g a b o v e " and " b e i n g below" is no doubt the original one, and because " t h a t which is a b o v e " was considered to be the heaven thus it came in course of time that AN stood for heaven, and KI " b e i n g that which is b e l o w " came to mean "earth." 3. En-lil, we have seen, was in later inscriptions also called E - K U R - d u m u - n u n n a , i. e., E - K U R , 4 the son of Nunna.

If this

be true, then AN, the father of B61 (see a b o v e : Bel mar rSshtu shame) must also have been, or been called, a N U N ! 4. But

din ir

s E N - K I or Mr. KI was also called N U N as is ap-

parent from the name of his wife d i n s i r Dam-gal-nun-na, " t h e great wife of N U N . "

W h a t this N U N means wp know ; it is the zu-ab

or apsu, the ocean. T h u s we see instantly that AN was " t h e upper o c e a n " and KI the " l o w e r ocean," or " t h e heavenly ocean" and " t h e ocean," or as the Bible calls it, " t h e waters above the and " t h e waters below the

firmament."

terrestrial firmament"

This specific meaning of

god AN and god KI has been recognised already by other scholars, even by Hommel, although I do not know what arguments he employed. Having thus established the original meaning of the words AN and KI respectively, we may turn to the relationship of AN and

1

Trilingual list of gods, II. R . 59, col. II. 1. 47.

2

K. B . I l l 1 , p. 21,' note f.

3

Comp. the proper name E N - A N - N A - t u m and see above, p. 24, 6.

4

E - K U R is originally the name of the temple

of En-lil at Nippur.

34

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF GENESIS I.

KI, i. e., inquire whether g o d K I w a s the son of E n - l i l and thus the grandson of s°d A N , or whether he w a s something else. In Assyrian w e h a v e a word achu w h i c h means " b r o t h e r " and also " s i d e . "

If this very same word is written achu (contracted out

of achaiu) it means " e n e m y . " B o t h words no doubt g o b a c k to t h e same root.

B u t h o w then could the word achu possibly g e t t h e

meaning " e n e m y " and be written a c h u ?

M y explanation is t h i s :

Achu, or achaiu, literally m e a n s : " h e who or that w h i c h belongs to the b r o t h e r , " comp. Nippuru out of Nippuraiu, " h e w h o b e l o n g s to N i p p u r , " i. e., " a N i p p u r i a n . "

B u t " a b r o t h e r " is in every

case " t h e o t h e r , " i. e., the " o n e w h o is not the ego," " w h o is in opposition to the e g o , " " w h o is o p p o s e d to the e g o , " and the one that is opposed to m y e g o is " m y b r o t h e r " and " m y e n e m y ! "

If

a person or a g o d is called " A N , " then he w h o is his achu hud to be called " K I " and as such he is " i n opposition to'''' (an achu !) to the A N . trial

If A N means the " heavenly ocean " and K I the " terres-

o c e a n , " w e h a v e here an achu in so far as they are both an

ocean, hence also of the same stock or parents, b u t also an achu in so far as the K I is opposed to the A N , " t h e terrestrial " t h e heavenly o c e a n . "

o c e a n " to

C o m p . here also A N - S A R and K I - S A R ; as

S A R they are achu, as A N and K I they are achu ! 1 A n d now, if

dinsirGUR

is called the mother of god E a or E n -

ki, it follows, because E N - K I is the achu and achu of g o d A N , that djngir G U R must be the mother of sod a n too. the " h e a v e n l y and the terrestrial o c e a n , " the " p r i m e v a l o c e a n . "

dinsir

A N and KI b e i n g G U R c a n only b e

A n d it is more than mere accident that w e

should h a v e handed d o w n to us the following three writings of this

1 See also Winckler, who has partly anticipated me here,—although his investigations are in quite another field,—who says in M. V. A. G. 1901, 4, part 1, p. 15, note 1, which has just come to hand: "Mythologisch—und damit im Zusammenhang der ganzen Weltauffassung—erscheint das Brudermotiv—wie alle— also in den zwei Gegensätzen, denn jedes Ding schlägt schliesslich in sein Gegentheil um, wie es der Kreislauf der Natur vorschreibt und bedingt. W i r haben die unzertrennlichen und doch getrennten Brüder: Dioskuren, Mond und Sonne = Nacht und T a g = Licht und Finslterniss = Winter und Sommer, die beiden Sonnen—und Naturhälften. Diese sind die feindlichen Brüder, deren einer den anderen tötet: Eteokles und Polyneikes, Baldr-Hödur (dessen Blindheit Mondmotiv ist.)

35

T H E CREATION-STORY OF G E N E S I S I.

deity:

din

«irGUR,

din

&ir E N - G U R ,

din

«irNIN-GUR.

T h e last two

stand for Mr. and Mrs. G U R , i. e., for apsu and tiamat, for a i m and D"1», or for Tj&ri and n f f l * nil respectively.

dinsir

G U R on the

d

other h a n d signifies only s° G U R , without laying special e m p h a s i s u p o n the male or female part, or husband and wife. becomes " t h e primeval

ocean, Kar

N I N - G U R or E N - G U R .

din ir

e G U R thus

and is as such older t h a n

This also proves that we h a d originally

only a god KI, 1 —and because the heavenly is only a reflex of the earthly, this god K I became a w i f e : a N I N - K I , " M r s . K I " ; and in order to distinguish the wife from t h e husband, or better, in order to avoid misunderstanding, Mr. K I ; for

the h u s b a n d was called E N - K I ,

din ir

s K I alone, if used also of Mr. KI, would leave it

d o u b t f u l whether s°d KI as a whole—male

and female—were meant,

or whether it stood for E N - K I only. F u r t h e r m o r e , if ¿ m ^ G U R (notice not

din

« i r N I N - G U R , as we

m i g h t expect) is called the mother of E N - K I , we may see in this a striking parallel to t h e Babylonian creation story as well as to the Biblical,—according to both the heavenly and terrestrial ocean take their origin from the tiamat or tehom, i. e., t h e descent

was

2

reckoned through the mother,

T e h o m and tiamat even in later times are used for "ocean'" without any special reference to a mythological being as consisting of two g e n d e r s : the male and female g e n d e r ;

so G U R

may have been primarily the ocean and only in later times acquired this mythological conception of being male and female, t h u s able to generate and p e r p e t u a t e itself.

However this m a y h a v e been,

all suggestions that might be m a d e here are at the very best only guesses.

May it suffice therefore to have shown that

was the primeval ocean who brought forth —notice generation—two

by process of

din

eirGUR

generation

sons : AN and KI, who later on were to-

gether with G U R t h o u g h t to be male and female, and thus able to p e r p e t u a t e their own lines respectively.

H a v i n g m a d e this prob-

able, we can now explain the succession: Anu, BS1, E a as well as Anu, E a , Bel. 1

I n this latter sequence the two brothers are men-

See above pp. 13, 9 ; 15 ff.

2

See above p, 9.

36

T H E CREATION-STORY OF G E N E S I S I.

tioned first, t h e n follows Bel as the son of Anu.

I n the former

sequence we h a v e the father Anu together with his son Bel, and E a is the ' am, the father's

brother, who plays such an important role

in old Arabic inscriptions that even the word itself became a god, — t h e god ' A m . 1

Anu, BS1, E a , is thus proven to be what t h e

Arabs call a raht, i. e., a community consisting of a head or " a b u " = Anu, of an ' a m = E a , and of a n e p h e w = Bel, 2 who form the first triad in the Babylonian p a n t h e o n as well as in the Assyrian, which triad, as we have seen, goes back to the Sumerian conception of the theogony and cosmogony. As AN, originally the " h e a v e n l y o c e a n , " became in later times the shamu or " h e a v e n , " thus KI, originally the " t e r r e s t r i a l o c e a n " became later on the irtsitu or " e a r t h . "

W e would expect t h a t AN

and KI became in consequence of this also the " g o d of h e a v e n " and " t h e god of e a r t h " respectively.

B u t this is not the case.

T h e " g o d of heaven and e a r t h " was Bel, for h e is repeatedly called the "lugal-an-ki, " t h e king of heaven and e a r t h . "

" H e a v e n and

e a r t h " were thus considered to be closely connected, yes, to be one, and what this one thing was called, we shall see, when we come to speak of

din ir

s

En-lil.

And if " h e a v e n and e a r t h " were considered to be one, it is, of course, natural, that we should not find a god in this Sumerian theogony who is called L U G A L - K I , shar irtsiti " t h e king of the earth."

H e n c e , t h e r e does not seem to h a v e existed at the time of

t h e Sumerians a so-called " b a ' a l of the soil," who plays such an i m p o r t a n t role a m o n g the Semitic peoples. T h e god K I h a d sons and daughters, all of whom we h a v e m e t already above.

It only remains here to explain their names.

T h e sign by which Nina is expressed is composed of E S H or A B = " a b o d e , " with inserted C H A or " f i s h . " Signs, when inserted into a n o t h e r sign, may be either an indicator of the pronunciation or an indicator of the sense.

T h e latter I take to be the case here.

1

S e e Hömmel, Die südarabischen München, 1899, p. 28 ff. 2 See also Proksch, Die Blutrache ler, M. V. A. G., 1901, 4, p. 16.

Alterthümer

des Wiener

bei den alten Arabern,

Hofmuseums,

p. 23, and Winck-

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF GENESIS I.

37

T h e sign " f i s h " may either stand for " f i s h " itself, or for " p l e n t y . " Nina then would be either a fishgoddess, or a goddess of pleaty. T h e goddess N i d a b a 1 " w a s the goddess of grain," as even the Ideogram indicates it. 2

d i n s i r Dumu-zi

because =

iIU Du-'-u-zu,

and

because to him was dedicated originally the sixth and in later times the fourth month called S H U - K U L - N A or " m o n t h of s o w i n g " must have been " t h e god of v e r d u r e . " 8 According to the analogy we should expect for Nina's husband also some such signification as " v e r d u r e , " or " f i s h e s , " or " p l e n t y , " or " g r a i n ; " this however cannot be made out as yet. be impossible that the name

din « ir

It may not

Nin-dub, because dub means

" c l a y , " then " c l a y t a b l e t , " may make that god to have been originally " t h e god of the c l a y g r o u n d . "

H o w e v e r this may have been,

the significations of the names of Nina, Dumu-zi, Nidaba, suffice to show us that we have to see in them the gods of either " w h a t the earth p r o d u c e s " or " w h a t the sea produces." it follows that the

ding'rEN-KI,

If this be true then

the "terrestrial ocean," was thought

to contain the earth also, i. e., he was " t h e waters which contained the dry ground," or else he could not have produced sons or daughters who are the gods of " t h e produce of the earth"!

As

already said above, the Sumerians do not seem to have had " a god of the dry land or soil "««t' ¿¿OX^V." W h a t may possibly be the reason for this phenomenon?

We

know from the Gilgamesh e p i c — a n d our present investigation confirms it, as we shall s e e — t h a t E r i d u or N U N - k i , the city of E a or E N - K I was one of the oldest cities of Babylonia, from which practically the whole of the specific Babylonian religion took its origin. Eridu, when the Gilgamesh epic was written, was a seaport town on the Persian Gulf, while to-day it is one hundred and thirty miles

1

For references see E . B . H. Index, gods, p. 444, sub. N.

See Br. 7453, and comp. Trilingual list of gods, 2 R. 59, I. 24, where she is called the " w i f e of din £ ir Lugal-ki-sa(di)-a." 2

3 In the sixth month the festival of '' the dying of the verdure," while in the fourth month that of " t h e new life of the verdure" was celebrated. T h e former was the festival of the wailing for Tammuz, the latter that of his resurrection.

See also Dr. Cams, The Monist, July, 1901, pp. 528 ff.

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

38

from the coast line.

Here the Sumerians of old saw how new

earth or dry land was added year by year to the already existing dry ground.

Hence it was quite natural for them to think that

" t h e earth was contained in the terrestrial o c e a n . " also necessary for vegetation !

B u t water is

Hence also, vegetation, verdure of

the dry ground, were made to be children of

din s ir

EN-KI.

In the

ocean are also fishes, etc., and thus Nina the fishgoddess became of necessity his child.

Thus we would expect " t h e ba'al of the soil"

to be a son of E N - K I .

It may very well be possible that future

investigations will shed light upon this question.

At the present

it will be best not to put too great an emphasis upon this omission, for any of the gods not yet identified may become in future times " a god of the s o i l . " 1 T h e firstborn of E N - L I L or Bel is the god Z U , i. e., aingirENZ U or also called

d i n s i r Uru-ki.

Semitic-Babylonian by

Nannar, 2

This latter is translated into the i. e., " t h e luminary." T h e " n a - a n -

na-ri shame-e u irtsitim," or " t h e luminary of heaven and earth," 8 was god Sin.

And " S i n " translates the Sumerian E N - Z U .

In

the Monolith Inscription of Shalmaneser II. 4 we have a god called " i l u Na-nir shame-e irtsi-tim," i. e., " t h e god the luminary 6 of heaven and earth."

Hence there can be no doubt that E N - Z U is

= Uru-ki = Sin — Nannar — Moon. we cannot tell.

W h a t the name Z U

means

It is explained in the syllabaries by " t o k n o w , "

" t o be wise," " t o learn," " t o understand," etc., etc. It may be probable that G u d e a 6 of old was obliged to confess of Sin :

d i n s i r En-zu

mu-ni galu-nu-gab-ne : " S i n — h i s name no man

has ever disclosed,

understood, explained," because

he—Sin—

treading his quiet path for all those ages past acquired in course of time a wisdom and knowledge so great that they cannot be

1 Does perhaps the din s ir Dun-gur-(an) belong here, who is called the din s ir Entemen-[an] (E. B. H. p. 118, note i)? The temen-an, the "foundation of heaven," would be the "earth." But a ba'al of the soil is quite different from a ba'al of the earth. See however below ! 2IV.

R. 9 | - J i a .

3V.

R. 64, 18.

4

III. R. 7, col. I. 2.

5

" Die göttliche Leuchte," or "der göttliche Leuchter."

6

Gudea, Statue B. VIII. 49 (K. B. III 1 , p. 46).

39

THE CREATION-STORY OF G E N E S I S I.

disclosed, for he saw many things which nobody else has seen and heard m a n y things which no man ever could have heard—in short " S i n was the god who not only could not be disclosed, or understood, but who also did not disclose, open, betray anything himself." This god " w h o passes our understanding" had two children, U D and

din e ir

Innanna. T h e god U D " t h e bright, or shining one,"

is called in the oldest inscriptions, " t h e king filled with splend o r , " 1 and is identified in the later inscriptions with the god S h a mash or " t h e sun." oldest

His sister or w i f e — f o r that is thé Same in thé

inscriptions 2 —is

the " g o d d e s s of Innanna."

nanna was we cannot tell as yet.

W h a t the In-

S h e was later on identified with

the " e v e n i n g s t a r " as well as with " t h e morning star," the former being the precursor of the moon, the latter that of the sun.

As

" m o r n i n g star," which leads the king out to battle, she was considered in later times to be a male god, but retained her feminine name and was called either Ishtar or A-nu-ni-tum bêlit tachâzi. 3 This latter title she had already in the oldest inscription, where she is called " n i n mè," 4 i. e., mistress of battle—hence It may not be impossible that even in the oldest time

din * ir

feminine! Innanna

Was assigned to both functions, viz., to that of " t h e evening star," thus becoming " t h e goddess of love," and to that of " t h e morning star," as such being called the mistress of battle.

T h e Innanna

then would express the function common to both : the morning and the evening star.

This function in every case must be a double

one : the morning star announces the end of the night but also the beginning of the day ; the evening star in like manner shows that iSee, e. g., Gudea, Statue B. VIII. 63 (K. B. Ill 1 , p. 46): Iugal-zal-sig-ga. E.

B. H. p. 76

etpassim.

2

See above Enlil and Ba-u—both "the firstborn of An," hence brother and sister, but also husband and wife. 3 A good example of this may be found in Nabii-n&'id, Thoncylinder aus Sippar, A.-W. Keilschrifttexte, p. 42, col. III. 1. 23 If., where A-nu-ni-tum is treated both as a masculine and a feminine deity. 4

Gudea, Statue B. VIII. 61 (K. B. Ill 1 , p. 46}.

40

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

t h e day is at its close and that the night is beginning. 1

The

god

Nin-Gir-su, the city-god of Girsu, whose real name w e do not know as yet, was, as w e have seen, a son of

din g ir

En-lil, hence, a brother

of g o d Z U , i. e., Sin or the moon, hence also, the c am, the " f a t h e r ' s b r o t h e r " of U D . W h o is this Nin-Gir-su? H o m m e l 2 identified him with N e r g a l . god of war.

I n another

place 4

Jensen, 3 with N i n i b , the

he reaches the same conclusion by

the f o l l o w i n g consideration : T h e t e m p l e which U r - B a - u and Gudea built for Nin-Gir-su was called E-ninnu, i. e., the t e m p l e of the number fifty, and ninnü is again = N i n i b . 6 called E

d i n s i r Im-gig-ghu-bar-bar.

T h i s E-ninnú was also

F r o m this Jensen concludes (7. c.):

igir E N - L I L

which is generally transcribed

ilu

ilani

ilu

Marduk

bel ilani'1"Mar-

duk, and translated " t h e lord of the gods, M a r d u k , " — t h e original, and no d o u b t intended signification however i s : " t h e E N - L I L of the gods (viz.:) M a r d u k . "

By thus terming his s u p r e m e god, Nabu-

na'id wanted to show that Marduk takes t h e place of E N - L I L of old. Above we h a v e seen that " h e a v e n and e a r t h " were considered by the old Babylonians to be closely connected, so closely as to require only one g o d ; and if there was only one god for " h e a v e n and e a r t h , " then this latter must have been considered as one. T h i s one thing, this heaven-earth, A N - K I , has, when t h u s looked u p o n as one the n a m e L I L .

T h e first triad, when enumerated has mostly

the sequence Anu, B81, E a , i. e., Bel is mentioned between his father and his 'am " f a t h e r ' s - b r o t h e r . "

T h a t just this

sequence

should have become a stereotyped one must have a meaning.

The

explanation of this sequence no doubt is the following: AN " t h e heavenly o c e a n , " and K I " t h e terrestrial o c e a n " are s e p a r a t e d according to the Bible (Gen. i.) by the so-called ST'pl ( r a q i a ) generally translated by " f i r m a m e n t , " which latter is there " t o k e e p back the waters of the heavenly o c e a n . " only one-sided.

This conception however is

F o r we may very well ask, if the heavenly ocean

is kept back by a ¡^p"), by what is the terrestrial ocean k e p t back ? And when J o b 2 complains : 1

'Am I a sea or a sea-monster That thou settest a watch over me,"

h e did not think so much of a

£4

heavenly sea or s e a - m o n s t e r " that

is to be guarded, but of an earthly sea or sea-monster.

T h u s we

would necessarily expect that there was also a i r p i for the terres" g o d of the gods" (with ili ( = p l ! ) comp. also the fluralis majestaticus DWX) and "king of the gods" are attributes of E n - L I L . See p. 19, 9. 10., and Deut. x. 17. 1

Nabft-n&'id, Thoncylinder aus Sippar, A.-W. p. 40, col. I. 1. 21.

3

Chap. vii. 12.

52

T H E CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

trial ocean.

T h e jrp") of the heavenly ocean is called " h e a v e n . '

T h e " h e a v e n " 1 or " t h e waters above.

firmament

of h e a v e n " 2 keeps back thè

T h e D^tt^n JTpl itself proves that there must have

been also another jrp"i besides that of heaven—or else the E'ftÉn would, to say the least, be quite unnecessary.

Thus, even P . still

was under the impression that there existed a nitóri JTpT and, of course, as we may conclude a yixn irp*-

As the one jj"p-| is the

" h e a v e n , " so the other jrp-| is the " e a r t h . "

T h i s one irpT that

stands between the heavenly and terrestrial ocean, and keeps back the waters above the firmament as well as below the firmament is called by the Sumerians : L I L . T h u s we understand the succession : A N - L I L - K I or Anu, Bèi, E a it • stands for : the heavenly waters—the irpi—the terrestrial ocean, by the ¡ r p they are divided, by it they also are kept back, the heavenly ocean by the y p i which is the " h e a v e n " and the terrestrial ocean, by the j r p i which is the "earth."

T h u s it also hap-

pened that according to P 3 t h e heaven had to have " w i n d o w s " (D^tSn MIX) through which the waters of the heavenly ocean could pour down at the time of the flood, and the " t e r r e s t r i a l o c e a n " — the n2"i Dim as he calls it—had likewise to have some exits through which the waters might come, and these exits are the " w e l l s " or nWìJtt-

F r o m this is also evident that not only the heavenly ocean

was " k e p t b a c k " but also the terrestrial

ocean—the heavenly by

the heaven and the terrestrial by the earth : heaven and earth thus form the

or L I L .

And E N - L I L standing between the AN

ànd K I , i. e., " t h e heavenly and terrestrial o c e a n , " becomes thus the jrp"], and the latter again under a twofold aspect : the heaven and earth—hence he is " t h e king of heaven and e a r t h , " or of the jrpi that stands between the AN and K I ! T h i s consideration gives us also an insight into the C O S M O L O G Y of the Sumerians. According to the Sumerian conception the earth as a EDIFICE

consisted of

T H R E E PARTS :

1 D^iS jpplb DVDX Nip*1!, Gen. i. 8. D-atèn i^pID mxtt, Gen. i. 14. 3 Gen. vii. 11.

2

WORLD

53

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF GENESIS I.

( 1 ) T h e heavenly ocean or A N . (2) T h e terrestrial ocean or K I . (3) T h e jrp-| or L I L , which stands between the A N and K I . These three parts were assigned to the first triad or raht of the Sumerian pantheon, i. e., to Anu, Ea, Bel.

T o these as such be-

longs the world edifice. As there existed a heavenly and a terrestrial ocean, so the L I L or j r p was considered also under a double a s p e c t : (a) A s a heavenly ¡rpi or an = shamu,

or " h e a v e n . "

A s a terrestrial jr>p"i or ki = irtsitu, ynx or " e a r t h . " T h e former keeps back the heavenly and the latter the terrestrial ocean. This latter consideration gives us the so-called sion of the earth as

WORLD EDIFICE.

TWOFOLD

divi-

According to this it consisted:

(1) Of the upper world, which is A N - t a = elish, i. e., a b o v e : the heavenly world; (2) Of the lower world, which is K l - t a = shaplish, i.e., below: the terrestrial

world?

T h e heavenly i^p") appears in and is of the form of a " h a l f c i r c l e " or better " p l a t e " — a n d as the heavenly is only the reflex of the terrestrial, this latter was considered to be the other half of the circle as a whole, i. e., of the i^pi as such.

And if the irpi be a

circle then the heavenly and terrestrial ocean must also form a circle. T h e world edifice is inhabited.

T h e inhabitants which dwell

either in or within the j^pn are Z U , U D , Innanna, Nin-Girsu. T h u s they had to become necessarily his, i. e., L I L ' s children.

LIL

thus becomes not only the L U G A L or " k i n g , " but also the A B B A or " f a t h e r " of the gods.

Z U , U D , Innanna are the moon,

sun, morning or evening-star.

T h u s we find that even according

to Gen. i. 14 the stars are put D^&T 3rp"Q. E a c h one of these stars 1 T h i s twofold division is mentioned by Diodorus II. 30, translated in Winckler, " H i m m e l s - und Weltenbild der Babylonier (Der alte Orient, III.), p. 62, with these w o r d s : " V o n diesen beobachten die Hälfte (sc. of the 36 gods) die überirdischen, die andere Hälfte die unterirdischen Stätten, indem sie über das bei den Menschen und den Göttern geschehende gleichzeitig -wachten."

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

54

has his abode and special sphere not only in the terrestrial 1 but also in the heavenly j>*>pi.

W h e n they are in the latter they are

visible, but when in the former they become invisible.

T h e road

they had to travel when in the heavenly i^pi was marked out for them by the so-called zodiac, which was called in later times shupuk shame,2 i. e., " t h e dam of h e a v e n . " T h e functions of the stars, especially those of the two great luminaries are according to Gen. i. 14, 15 threefold: (1) Y " i x n t x h ' 1 ? 8 w nwn w n p ivnanV4 (3) twt&i D"ii>itt^«nni6 r n i 8

No. 2, i. e., " t h e dividing between the day and the n i g h t " is done by the sun. halves—but

H e divides what we call " d a y " into two equal

this he does only on two days during the whole year,

i. e., at the vernal and the autumnal equinox.

W h e r e the sun rises

on these two days is the East and where he sets is the West.

On

these two days it takes therefore just as many hours for the sun to travel over the heavenly as over the earthly r y i , or in other words : the sun is just as many hours visible as he is invisible. W e s t becomes thus the two points in the

East and

as a whole where the

earthly and the heavenly touch, i. e., E a s t and W e s t divide the jrp") and thus also the whole world edifice into two equal halves:

into

the upper or heavenly and into the lower or terrestrial world.

The

E a s t of the terrestrial world is however at the same time the W e s t of the heavenly and vice versa, for when the sun rises for the " e a r t h " he sets for the " h e a v e n . " T h e " nether world"

or Hades was considered to lie in the

South, i. e., under that point of the " e a r t h " or terrestrial jrp-| 1 -£he abode of U D , e. g., is U d - u n u g - k i , i. e., " Shamash-abode " or L a r s a ; that of Z U or U r u : U r u - u n u g - k i - m a , i. e., N a n n a r (or Sin)-abode = U r ; that of I n n a n n a : Innanna-ab- k i (or also to be read : Innanna-unug- k i ) etc., etc. 2 See W i n c k l e r , I. c., p. 62 ff. 3

T o give light upon the earth.

4

T o divide between the day and b e t w e e n the night,

Gen. i. 15.

5

T o be for signs.

6

A n d f o r seasons and f o r days and years.

T h i s expresses the astrologic

c i a l l y on that of the sun and moon the calendar

l i e n . 1. 14.

signification of the stars.

O n the course of the stars, espeis based.

T H E CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

55

where the sun stands at noon during the equinox.

Also the upper

world has a H a d e s w h i c h likewise w a s considered to be in the South, i. e . , under the same point of the "heaven " or heavenly indicated by the sun at noon during the equinox.

W e would get

thus in the world edifice as a whole two points for E a s t , W e s t , and S o u t h !

T h e opposite of the S o u t h is the North.

If we would

prolong the two points indicating the South towards the N o r t h they would ( i ) meet in one and the same point of the line w h i c h connects the E a s t and the W e s t or which divides the world edifice into the upper and lower world, (2) divide the lower as well as the u p p e r world again into two equal halves. the North.

The point where they meet is

T h e North becomes thus not only the centre of the

j p p , which, as w e saw, was considered to be a circle, but also that of the whole world edifice. "dwelt

H e r e in this North, in this centre

the gods," there also the "mountain of the gods," "der

Gotter-

berg" was situated. N o w we understand the name for the North.

In Assyrian it is

called ishtanu or iltanu, i. e., "the only one"—thus

called in con-

tradistinction to all the other points, of each of which w e h a v e two. T h e r e is only one North

in the world edifice, this North is the

same for the heavenly as for the terrestrial world.

In Sumerian

the North has the name I M - S I - D I , which D e l i t z s c h 1 translates by "gerade

Richtung,"

i. e., all the radii of the great periphery of

" h e a v e n and earth " are directed towards it as the centre. 2 If sun, moon, and the stars are in the j r p , to what god has to be assigned the region around the centre of the world edifice, i. e., the space between " h e a v e n and e a r t h " ? Speaking

from our present standpoint the space

between

" h e a v e n and e a r t h " is filled out by the a i r — h e n c e we might be inclined to assign that region to the " g o d of the a i r " to the " H e r m der Luft."

B u t there does not seem to e x i s t — e i t h e r in H e b r e w ,

or in Assyrian, or in S u m e r i a n — a word for " a i r , " at least no such word is known to me. JH. 2

T h e Hebrew nn does not mean " a i r , " but

W . B . p. 152.

S e e also the E - p a e-ub-7-na!

" t h e temple of the seven regions."

U b = kibratu, '' Weltgegend, Gudea, Statue D , ii, 11.

-richtung,"

i. e.,

(K. B . , iii 1 , p. 50,)

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

56

"wind, spirit, breath."

The Sumerian L I L is = the Assyrian

zaqiqu, i. e., "wind, storm," and IM is = shäru, which again means "wind."

This, latter word gives us the right solution.

So far we

were able to assign all gods to a special sphere or function in the world edifice

One god, however, remained to whom no such

sphere has been assigned äs yet, and this is Nin-Gir-su or Ramman.

(a) Heavenly o c e a n : AN, A n u ; (6) Terrestrial ocean : KI, E a ; (c) Heavenly J T p l : an = C K E , shamu or heaven ; (pi) from which we get the raqfa, i. e., something which is or is made dense, t i g h t , — h e n c e our word firmament! resents the old dual ending.

T h e ai at the end rep-

E l shaddai would mean according to

this explanation : the god (el) of the two (ai) firmaments or raqfas. T h e god of the two firmaments, i. e., of heaven and of earth, is E N - L I L or Bel.

Abraham would thus become a worshipper of

Bel, the father of the moon-god Sin. T h e second etymology, however, seems to be much better and was given already by D e l i t z s c h 1 who, however, translates E l shaddai on the basis of the Assyrian ilu shadu'a by " g o d is my mountain."

T h i s translation I do not think can be maintained.

The

ai at the end of Shaddai must be taken again for the old dual ending, which occurs, e. g., in Shalmaneser I I . : " t h e camels sha skuna-ai tsi-ri-shi-na, i. e., whose back is double." T h e double d stands ford/, i. e., the /'assimilated itself to the d.2 1 2

The Hebrew

Language,

For such a retrogressive

E l Shaddai would

p. 48. assimilation of the j comp. among others bunju =

59

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

thus become " t h e god of the TWO mountains," i. e., the lugal-kurkur or E N - L I L , who was the god of the upper and the lower mountain or heaven and earth.

E l Shaddai then is as much as

" g o d of heaven and earth," or lugal-an-ki.

T h u s even according

t o this etymology the E l Shaddai of the patriarchs is the E N - L I L of the Sumerians.

A b o v e we have seen that even nVP was = E N -

L I L , because both when they appear are accompanied by a primeminister or a n g e l — n w by his g

a

dingir

and E N - L I L by his ur-sag lig-

Nin-Gir-su,—i. e., they appear always under thunder and

lightning and surrounded by clouds.

T h e statement of P, there-

fore, that mrr appeared unto the patriarchs only under another NAME,1

viz., E l Shaddai,

remaining however the same god

before, is thus shown to be fully justified.

as

E l Shaddai is thus

proved to be an Assyrian name which translates simply the Sumerian. " l u g a l - k u r - k u r " or " l u g a l - a n - k i " !

Abraham coming from

U r where the Sumerian pantheon was fully developed and known becomes thus a worshipper of B e l or E N - L I L the lugal-kur-kur ! T h e title lugal-kur-kur however is translated in the later Semitic Babylonian inscriptions always by bel matati,"1 " l o r d of the lands." If this transcription and translation be correct, then the idea expressed here would be that B e l as the firmament embraces all the " l a n d s " on the terrestrial as well as on the heavenly j>">p—for the " l a n d s " are situated IN the jrpn. 2. T h e dominion of B e l is sometimes spoken of as a char-sag kalam-ma or shad matati as " t h e mountain of the lands," and B e l himself is called K U R - G A L 3 or shadu rabu, i. e., " the great mounbunnu = bunu: zimju = zimmu = zimu. Such a word as shaddft, given by Del. H . W . B . p. 642 does not exist. T h e writing SHAD-di-e, etc., ought to be transcribed by shadS di"e, i. e., shadu fins two phonetic complements. 1 Whether ffirp was a name taken from the Kenites or not, would not affect our argument. I myself would see in DlrT simply another name for "rock," i. e., = " he who is, was, and will be," the " r o c k " that will not pass away nor change. Comp. here the proper name s 3I?TISS " m y rock is Shaddai," the K U R G A L (the great rock) and the char-sag kalam-ma (the mountain of the lands) of the Sumerians, and see below. 2 See e. g. Shalmaneser II. Obelisk, 1. 3 : transcribe here also " shadai" ? 3

ilu b£l

KUR-KUR.

Or should we

See Jensen, K . B . I l l 1 , p. 16, note 3, and E . B . H . p. 65, note 1.

6o

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF GENESIS I.

tain."

B e l is the god of the yp-), which y^p-, is, as we saw, a circle

or a mountain.

In this mountain or circle as a whole the " l a n d s of

heaven and e a r t h " are situated.

B e l becomes thus not only " t h e

great mountain" or " c i r c l e , " the ¡rp-), but also the " m o u n t a i n of the lands." 3. Later inscriptions speak of a so-called " m o u n t a i n of the rise of the s u n " and of a " m o u n t a i n of the setting of the sun," which mountains lie in the East and W e s t respectively.

T h e earth

being considered as the lower half of the great circle called jrpT is, of course, at its extremities, i. e., in the East and W e s t higher than on any other part.

T h e earth seems to be always higher at the

horizon than where we stand. 4. T h e earth as world edifice in the form of a circle or better g l o b e 1 explains the whole system of the Sumerian reckoning, according to which the circle was divided into 360 degrees, the year into 360 days, etc., etc. 5. It removes all the difficulties which W i n c k l e r still finds in his conception of the Babylonian cosmology. 2 Having traced the genealogy of the gods and inquired into their specific meaning, we are now able to establish the pedigree tabulated

on the opposite page.

Of aingirNin-ib the pa-te-si-gal known under the name lugh-magh

din « ir

din « ir En-lil-lal-ge, 3

din g ir Shit-lam-ta-ud-du-a, 6

Nergal 4 or also and Nusku the

En-lil-lal 6 we kno^y too little to be able to classify

them, if we want to do it according to the Old Babylonian inscriptions.

Nabu does not occur at all. 7

Consisting of two halves or plates—the upper being put or resting upon the lower. 1

2 See Winckler, '' Himmels- und Weltenbild der Babylonier," Der alte Orient, III. (1901) pp. 59-65. 3

E. B. H. p. 25822•

Written d ! n s i r GIR-UNUG-GAL, for this reading, and not: Nir-unug-gal, see Thureau-Dangin, Z. A. XV. p. 47, and note 2. For references see E. B. H. p. 2263. 5 E. B. H. I33 , 224, 227 . 6 E. B. H. p. 223, note 3. 30 t i

7 The inscription of Ardi-Na-bi-um belongs to a later (Canaanitish or Aramaean) period, as the name Ia-lu-un-a-sar shows. E. B. H. p. 229.

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y O F G E N E S I S I.

6l

If we translate this genealogy and compare it with that of Gen. i. we would get the following result : In the beginning there was a chaos which was thought to be a •male and female, perhaps in one person.

The Biblical name for this

chaos was tohu-vabohu, but as male and female it was called either " w a t e r s " and " T e h o m , " or " S p i r i t of Elohim " and " d a r k n e s s . " GUR EN-GUR„NIN-GUR = (apsû) (=tiâmat) AN

KI ( = £ a ) EN-KI_NIN-KI Nun Dam-gal-nun-na

(=Anu)

EN-AN_*NIN-AN An-nuni An-nat

LIL (=Bêl) EN-LIL_NIN-LIL Lugal-kur-kur Nin-char-sag Lugal-dingir-e*ne Ba-ul Nin-tu Sal (Nin)-in-si-na Ga-tum-dug Nin-an-da-gal-ki Innanna

ZU(=Sz«) x=(= EN-ZU„NIN-ZU Nin-Gir-su„ [Ba-u] Uru-(ki) Nin-gal Im-gig-ghu-(bar-bar) Im

U D (=Shamash)

X=[ —

jr=

Ninâ^.

Nin-dar-a Nidaba Nin-dub Lugai-Erimki L Ud-mà-Ninâ-ki-shurit-ta J

x=

Dumu-zi-zu-ab Dumu-zi

Ishtar)

Innanna (i) Za-za-ru, (2) Im-pa-ud-du, (3) Ur-kalam-ta-ud-du-a, (4) Ghe{GAN)-gir-(nun-na) (2) =Dun-pa-ud-du?, (3) Gim-nun-ta-ud-du-a, (4) Nin-sar,

(5) Ghe(GAN)-shag-ga, Dun-shag-ga

(6) Ka-úr-mu,

(4) Nin-gir, (4) Gàl-alim, (7) Za-ar-mu.

In the Babylonian account the names apsu and tiamat are used, while in the original Sumerian the chaos was simply called G U R which at one time or another was differentiated and became " M r . 1

Dun,

O t h e r n a m e s f o r B a - u to b e f o u n d in O l d B a b y l o n i a n i n s c r i p t i o n s a r e : D a - m u , Gu-la,

Za-ma-ma.

Ma-ma,

N i n - d i n - d u g (probably to b e read, however,

See E . B . H . Index.

Innanna-edin,)

62

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I.

Gur" and "Mrs. Gur,"i. e., EN-GUR or NIN-GUR. From these first parents everything in heaven and upon earth took its origin. EN-GUR and NIN-GUR had two sons: AN and KI, i. e., they begot the "heavenly ocean" and the "terrestrial ocean." In the Babylonian-Semitic account the two sons were called AN-SAR and KI-SAR, who again probably correspond to the Lachmu and Lachamu. Genesis i., on the other hand, calls them "waters that are above the firmament" and "waters that are below the firmament." According to all three accounts, these waters take their origin from Tehom, 1 i. e., the descent is reckoned through the mother. AN, the "heavenly ocean," has a son called LIL, i. e., the jrpl or firmament. The Sumerians reckoned to this firmament also the "earth," for "heaven and earth," which served as barriers for the heavenly and terrestrial ocean, are the dominion of the "king of heaven and earth", i. e, of EN-LIL. Here then we should have a marked difference between the Biblical creation story and the Sumerian theogony.

T h e difference, however, is only ' ' a seeming

one ;" in reality it does not exist. If we compare the Sumerian theogony as given above on p. 61 with the genealogy of Genesis i. on p. 9 we will find that E N - L I L corresponds to the Biblical " h e a v e n , " " e a r t h , " and " o c e a n or waters," of the creation of which we read in verses 6-10.

On account of the importance of this difference it would seem neces-

sary to examine verses 6-10 more closely. Wellhausen 2 thinks that in Gen. i. the creation of t h e world is recorded a s having taken place, not in six, but in seven days.

This he bases upon the fact

that the " f o r m u l a of a p p r o v a l " : 2itS" s ? D'iT"i? N l ^ l 3 is repeated seven viz., in verses 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. upon the following days : 1. T h e division of the darkness by the creation of the light (v. 3-5). 2. T h e division of the waters (v. 6-10). 3. T h e creation of the plants (v. 11-13). 4. T h e s t a r s (v. 14-19).

5. T h e fishes and birds (v. 20-23). 6. The animals and beasts (v. 24-25). 7. M a n (v. 26-31). 1

See above, pp. 35, 9.

2

Die Composition

3

" A n d God saw that it was good."

des Hexateuchs,

times,

According to him the single works fall

p. 188 ff.

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF GENESIS I.

63

W e see, then, that Wellhausen finds in verses 6-10 only ONE work : the of the

division

waters!

This scheme of seven days is rejected by B u d d e 1 for the following reasons : 1. A week of seven working-days without a sabbath is impossible for the time to which P belongs. 2. T h e verses 6 - 1 0 do not speak of the division of the waters only but of the creation of heaven on one hand and that of the earth and the ocean on the other. And on account of the important rôle which the division of the tiâmat plays in the Babylonian cosmogony, it is more than probable that the creation of heaven

was

considered by P to be one day's work by itself. Budde's objection sub. No. 1 must be maintained.

Although the system of

seven days is not original, yet it was introduced by P with the intention2

to de-

scribe the creation of the world as having taken place in six days, while the creator rested 3 on the seventh day.

B u t when Budde maintains that in verses 6-10 not

the division of waters only but two separate Verses 6-8 tell us that Elohim divided tween them.

tasks are recorded, he is mistaken.

the primeval waters by putting a

be-

T h i s S^pT he calls " heaven." Verses 9, 10 literally translated read :

' ' And Elohim said : L e t the waters under the heaven gather themselves unto one place so that the dry land is made to appear, 4 and it was so.

And Elohim called

the dry land earth and the gathering-place of the waters he called ocean.

And

Elohim saw that it was good." T h e waters shall gather themselves together unto one place!

W h a t place?

T h i s expression presupposes that the earth was already in existence

(!), or else

the waters could not gather themselves together unto one place or "ki"

!

Hence

we have to put gb before 9a and read : ' ' L e t the waters make the dry ground to appear."

But if the waters obeyed the command, then it follows ipso facto

that the

waters had to recede, had to gather themselves together unto one place,—one conditions the other, and thus 9a becomes superfluous. the creation of " t h e ocean " of the ' ' appearing of the earth. "

From this it also follows that

is not a task by itself, but merely the

result

Hence even in verses 6-10 we read only of the

creation of " h e a v e n AND earth," i. e., of the ^ p T as a whole, the L I L . Gen. i. 6-10 agrees exactly with the Sumerian theogony.

Thus

Wellhausen therefore is

correct in connecting verses 6-10 and seeing in them ' ' the division of the waters " only—which division was made possible by the creation of the

— i . e., by E N -

L I L ' S or Bel's taking his place between Anu and Ea. T h e division of the primeval waters or Tiâmat was the first act of Marduk ; the division of the waters is also the first act of Elohim, 1

Urgeschichte,

2

See above pp. 3 ff., and below p. 64.

for we have seen above

pp. 489-491.

3

That P did not succeed in making this very clear, we saw above, p. 4.

4

Read n^pffl.

64

THE CREATION-STORY OF GENESIS I.

that the creation of the " l i g h t " was simply introduced in order to help P in f a b r i cating his days. M a r d u k - E l o h i m then accomplished the following tasks: (i) the division of the waters, or the creation of the STpl or " heaven and earth " ; (2) the creation of the p l a n t s ; (3) of the stars ; (4) of the fishes and b i r d s ; (5) of animals and b e a s t s ; (6) of man.

On the seventh day E l o h i m rested.

B u t there is still another difference and difficulty.

A c c o r d i n g to the S u m e r i a n

theogony, E N - L I L , the S^pl or " h e a v e n and e a r t h , " is the son of Anu, i. e., " t h e heavenly

ocean," while according to the B i b l i c a l text, as it stands now, the earth

or dry ground is born by the terrestrial

ocean, or '' the waters under the h e a v e n s , "

i. e., b y E N - K I . P , no doubt, wanted to elucidate here more f u l l y the Sumerian theogony.

He

knew that L I L was " t h e h e a v e n and EARTH" or ITp* as a w h o l e — t h u s born b y A n u — b u t he also knew that the verdure (Tammuz), grain (Nidaba), etc., were not born b y E N - L I L — a s we should e x p e c t — b u t b y K I , the terrestrial ocean. knew further that the Sumerian " k i " means " e a r t h . "

He

T h u s in order to get o v e r

the difficulty in the Sumerian theogony where E N - L I L is the god of " h e a v e n and EARTH," and yet w h e r e " t h e produce of the e a r t h " is not born b y E N - L I L but b y E N - K I , the god of the terrestrial ocean, P divided the J>"p"l as a w h o l e into t w o h a l v e s , — m a d e the u p p e r JTp") be born by the heavenly and the lower by the terrestrial ocean.

S e e also what has been said on p. 37.

It may not be impossible, however, that L I L was thought to be a son of both : 1 of A N and K I , — f o r both oceans were thought to be joined together beyond the firmament or srp*i,—this being simply the natural observation that the heaven rests upon the earth, and mutatis mutandis-, the heavenly ocean upon the terrestrial. 2 T h e god L I L , by virtue of his being the jj'p") or " h e a v e n " and " e a r t h , " became the " f a t h e r " and the " k i n g of the gods of heaven and e a r t h , " — n o t only of the gods, however, but also of all other 1

T h i s probably explains w h y Marduk, w h o was, as we have seen, identified

with E N - L I L or B e l , is called the aplu rgshtfi sha E a , II. R . 64d, comp. with 17c. d. and in Damascius : TOV Se "Aov (i. e., E a ) mi Aavuric (i. e., D a m k i n a ) mdf 0 Bf/Xos (i. e., acoording to later times the B e l mf i&xhv : Marduk). Monist,

April, igoi,

p. 406.

See also Carus,

The

T h a t one son should h a v e two fathers is not strange,

it merely would presuppose polyandry with descent reckoned through the father. F o r a classical example see here the M i n e a n inscription H a l . 504 = Hommel, arabische 2

"the

Chrestomathie,

p. 94.

Siid-

C o m p . also above, pp. 33,3 and 21 !

R e m a r k a b l e also is that B a - u together with L I L , her husband, are said to be firstborn"

of A N , — s u r e l y an evident trace that the differentiation of the

sexes was comparatively late.

If L I L was the firstborn, then also his wife had to

be the firstborn : both are thus husband and wife, and brother and sister.

T H E C R E A T I O N - S T O R Y OF G E N E S I S I .

65

c r e a t u r e s , a s m a y b e still seen from one of the attributes of h i s w i f e : S a l (Nin)-in-si-na who is c a l l e d : " t h e mother of the world, t h e one who c r e a t e d the c r e a t u r e s of the w o r l d . " 1 And a s the attrib u t e s of the wife b e l o n g also to the h u s b a n d , hence g o d L I L w a s , a c c o r d i n g to S u m e r i a n conception, the creator or father of the gods a n d of the creatures

T h e gods who are b e g o t t e n b y

of the world.

L I L are Z U or S i n , the m o o n - g o d , R a m m a n or Nin-Gir-su,

"the

t h u n d e r e r " or s i m p l y " c l o u d , " who a g a i n is the ' a m of U D or S h a m a s h , the sun-god, and I n n a n n a or Ishtar, the m o r n i n g or evening star.

B y B a - u the wife of R a m m a n a g a i n a r e born the

s e v e n winds.

Also a c c o r d i n g to Gen. i. " the two g r e a t lights and

the s t a r s " belong to the s>*p-).2

W e now u n d e r s t a n d why P is s o

a w f u l l y afraid of n a m i n g these two g r e a t lights by n a m e . that they were the sun a n d the moon.

H e knew

H e did not want to mention

their n a m e s , — f o r if he did then he would h a v e h a d to u s e for " s u n " the H e b r e w

( S h e m e s h ) , which a p p a r e n t l y w a s

too

closely related to the S e m i t i c - B a b y l o n i a n Shamash and m i g h t have betrayed a heathenish origin of his ( P ' s ) whole c o s m o g o n y . s a m e m a y b e s a i d of Ishtar or ins)» ! P one of the principal

gods,—and

The

S h a m a s h w a s at the t i m e of

whatever smelled of h e a t h e n i s m

w a s b l o t t e d out by P ! A strange difference however is to be found here between the Biblical account of the creation and the Sumerian theogony. According to the latter Sin or E N - Z U , the moon-god, is the sun-god.

firstborn

of E N - L I L , and hence precedes

Shamash or U D the

In Gen. i. 16 on the other hand Shamash is called " t h e g r e a t e r l i g h t , " 3

while Sin is named " t h e lesser light," 4 thus the former apparently precedes the latter. W h a t is the reason for this ? Winckler 5 confesses: " Das babylonische Pantheon stellt nicht den Sonnen;gott, sondern den Mondgott an the S p i t z e — u u a r u m , ist noch unklar."

T h e reason

is this : A s the chaos preceded the cosmos, as the darkness the light, thus the

night

preceded the day, and S i n 6 being " h e who governs the night," must necessarily 1

E . B . H. p. 202, note I. 1.

3

b r o n .nxttn.

6

Sin precedes Shamash also in the old Arabian pantheon.

^tspn Tixan.

2 5

D-J32TI » y i 3 Gen. i. 14.

" Himmels- und Weltenbild," etc., p. 65. Our investigation

enables us to identify that pantheon with the second triad or raht of the Sumerians.

Wadd, Sin, 'Amm, Haubas—all names for the Sumerian E N - Z U or Uru-ki,

the moon-god, have been correctly identified.

T h e same is true of Athtar and

66

T H E CREATION-STORY OF G E N E S I S I.

precede Shamash, who governs the day. times the ' ' day " consisted of '' night

T h i s is also the reason why in early

and day "—accepted even by P : " there was

evening and there was morning, the . . . day."

This latter, no doubt, is a relic of

the Sumerian conception of the day—for among the Sumerians Sin was the

father

Shams—the former is the d i n s i r Innanna, the morning or evening-star, the latter din it s UD, the sun—with the difference, however, that Athtar has become a masculine a n d Shams a feminine. Even in later Semitic Babylonian inscription Ishtar as " t h e morning-star" was, as was pointed out above, p. 39, considered to be a masculine deity. If the old Arabian pantheon represents t h e gods of the second triad or raht of the Sumeriaiis, then an-Karich, Chaul, Anbäj, and Almäqu-hü must be Nin-Gir-su or R a m m ä n . Hommel, Die südarabischen Altertümer des Wiener Hof museums, p. 28 ff., identified them either with Nebo, because (1) " A n b ä j " is a broken plural of Nabiju, which stands for the older Nabi'u ; (2) Chaul = i>in " P h o e n i x " ( " der ja vom Weihrauchlande, Hadhramöt, her nach Aegypten fliegt, also ein richtiger Iji&li oder Götterbote ist"), or with the " S t e r n e n h e e r " = Almäqu-hü. W i t h regard to an-Karich he is in doubt, thinks however, that this god is " wohl auch " = Nebo. Above we have seen that Nin-Gir-su is the ur-sag of E N - L I L , — h e n c e a t]X?53 or minister, just as Chaul = 5111 is. Chaul is here the minister of Sin, because Sin is the chief-god, who was even in Assyrian times identified with B&l (see above p. 50) hence might also have an ur-sag ! B u t it is not necessary at all to identify Chaul with the bird Phoenix (see J o b xxix. 18 and Herodotus ii. 73); the signification which the root 51(1 gives on hand, is a much better one. 5'H or also " ' n is used in Jerem. xxiii. 19 ; xxx. 23 of the storm and has the signification : wirbelnd losbrechen hernieder auf etwas (c. 5J>). See Gesenius-Buhl sub voce. E v e n in Assyrian we have a root with the signification "beben, erbeben," and a chilu or Hochflut, see Del. H . W . B. pp. 274, 275. T h e god Chaul would become t h u s t h e " g o d of the stormflood! " and might be read Chäwil. Almäqu-hü—thus read by Hommel—is derived from the root P - ' " t o destroy," " t o beat." R a m m ä n as the god of lightning destroys the wicked. I would like to see in this word a surname of R a m m ä n and read " almaqu-hü," i. e., " h i s (sc. Sin's) chief destroyer or warrier = ur-sag lig ga. T o this explanation fits also an-Karich from the root ¡113, Del. H . W . B. p. 352, b : " i n Not bringen." Anbäj too is not a broken plural of Nabiju = Nabi'u—why should there b e a plural for the name of a god, seeing that this god is only a shajftm?—but also an elative form (like almaqu-hü!) from the root ¡122 and has to b e read — anbaju. ¡123 I would like to take in the sense of Del H . W . B. p. 442, b. " hervorsprudeln, hervorquellen," from which we get the namba'u, "Quell, Wasserquell," and the imbu'u, " v e g e t a t i o n , " and especially nib'u " Spross, Fruchtertrag u. der gl." R a m m ä n would thus become as the " g o d of r a i n " h e who pkoduces vegetation—hence he is called by Shalmanesser II., Obelisk, 1. 7 : [ Uu R a m m ] an gish-ru shti-tn-ru b£l che-gal-li, i. e., the strong one, the powerful, the lord of the abundance or riches (sc. of the fields). W i t h this agrees quite wonderfully also the name ur-¿"'¡r^Nin-G'ir-su, which n a m e is not only that of an early Babylonian ¿atesi(see E . B. H . p. 441 for references), but which also is translated in the bilingual texts by ikkaru or farmer, husbandman, Landmann, Ackerbauer, Landwirt, see Del. H . W . B. p. 58 sub voce. Ur-