Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and Banks, /Bismya/ (1912). On grounds of antiquity alone we might perhaps have expected its inclusion in the myth. In Sibbar, the fourth of the Antediluvian cities in our series, we again have a parallel to Berossus. it has long been recognized that Pantibiblon, or Pantibiblia, from which the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh of his Antediluvian kings all came, was the city of Sippar in Northern Babylonia. For the seventh of these rulers, {Euedorakhos}, is clearly Enmeduranki, the mythical king of Sippar, who in Babylonian tradition was regarded as the founder of divination. In a fragmentary composition that has come down to us he is described, not only as king of Sippar, but as "beloved of Anu, Enlil, and Enki", the three creating gods of our text; and it is there recounted how the patron deities of divination, Shamash and Adad, themselves taught him to practise their art.[1] Moreover, Berossus directly implies the existence of Sippar before the Deluge, for in the summary of his version that has been preserved Xisuthros, under divine instruction, buries the sacred writings concerning the origin of the world in "Sispara", the city of the Sun-god, so that after the Deluge they might be dug up and transmitted to mankind. Ebabbar, the great Sun-temple, was at Sippar, and it is to the Sun-god that the city is naturally allotted in the new Sumerian Version. [1] Cf. Zimmern, /Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Bab. Relig./, pp. 116 ff. The last of the five Antediluvian cities in our list is Shuruppak, in which dwelt Ut-napishtim, the hero of the Babylonian version of the Deluge. Its site has been identified with the mounds of Fâra, in the neighbourhood of the Shatt el-Kâr, the former bed of the Euphrates; and the excavations that were conducted there in 1902 have been most productive of remains dating from the prehistoric period of Sumerian culture.[1] Since our text is concerned mainly with the Deluge, it is natural to assume that the foundation of the city from which the Deluge-hero came would be recorded last, in order to lead up to the central episode of the text. The city of Ziusudu, the hero of the Sumerian story, is unfortunately not given in the Third Column, but, in view of Shuruppak's place in the list of Antediluvian cities, it is not improbable that on this point the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions agreed. In the Gilgamesh Epic Shuruppak is the only Antediluvian city referred to, while in the Hebrew accounts no city at all is mentioned in connexion with Noah. The city of Xisuthros, too, is not recorded, but as his father came from Larankha or Larak, we may regard that city as his in the Greek Version. Besides Larankha, the only Antediluvian cities according to Berossus were Babylon and Sippar, and the influence of Babylonian theology, of which we here have evidence, would be sufficient to account for a disturbance of the original traditions. At the same time it is not excluded that Larak was also the scene of the Deluge in our text, though, as we have noted, the position of Shuruppak at the close of the Sumerian list points to it as the more probable of the two. It may be added that we cannot yet read the name of the deity to whom Shuruppak was allotted, but as it is expressed by the city's name preceded by the divine determinative, the rendering "the God of Shuruppak" will meanwhile serve. [1] See /Hist. of Sum. and Akk./, pp. 24 ff. The creation of small rivers and pools, which seems to have followed the foundation of the five sacred cities, is best explained on the assumption that they were intended for the supply of water to the cities and to the temples of their five patron gods. The creation of the Euphrates and the Tigris, if recorded in our text at all, or in its logical order, must have occurred in the upper portion of the column. The fact that in the later Sumerian account their creation is related between that of mankind and the building of Nippur and Erech cannot be cited in support of this suggestion, in view of the absence of those cities from our text and of the process of editing to which the later version has been subjected, with a consequent disarrangement of its episodes. III. THE COUNCIL OF THE GODS, AND ZIUSUDU'S PIETY From the lower part of the Third Column, where its text is first preserved, it is clear that the gods had already decided to send a Deluge, for the goddess Nintu or Ninkharsagga, here referred to also as "the holy Innanna", wails aloud for the intended destruction of "her people". That this decision has been decreed by the gods in council is clear from a passage in the Fourth Column, where it is stated that the sending of a flood to destroy mankind was "the word of the assembly [of the gods]". The first lines preserved in the present column describe the effect of the decision on the various gods concerned and their action at the close of the council. In the lines which described the Council of the Gods, broken references to "the people" and "a flood" are preserved,
after which the text continues: At that time Nintu [. . .] like a [. . .], The holy Innanna lament[ed] on account of her people. Enki in his own heart [held] counsel; Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga [. . .]. The gods of heaven and earth in[voked] the name of Anu and Enlil. It is unfortunate that the ends of all the lines in this column are wanting, but enough remains to show a close correspondence of the first two lines quoted with a passage in the Gilgamesh Epic where Ishtar is described as lamenting the destruction of mankind.[1] This will be seen more clearly by printing the two couplets in parallel columns: SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION At that time Nintu [. . .] like Ishtar cried aloud like a woman a [. . .], in travail, The holy Innanna lament[ed] on Bêlitili lamented with a loud account of her people. voice. [1] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 117 f. The expression Bêlit-ili, "the Lady of the Gods", is attested as a title borne both by the Semitic goddess Ishtar and by the Sumerian goddess Nintu or Ninkharsagga. In the passage in the Babylonian Version, "the Lady of the Gods" has always been treated as a synonym of Ishtar, the second half of the couplet being regarded as a restatement of the first, according to a recognized law of Babylonian poetry. We may probably assume that this interpretation is correct, and we may conclude by analogy that "the holy Innanna" in the second half of the Sumerian couplet is there merely employed as a synonym of Nintu.[1] When the Sumerian myth was recast in accordance with Semitic ideas, the /rôle/ of creatress of mankind, which had been played by the old Sumerian goddess Ninkharsagga or Nintu, was naturally transferred to the Semitic Ishtar. And as Innanna was one of Ishtar's designations, it was possible to make the change by a simple transcription of the lines, the name Nintu being replaced by the synonymous title Bêlit-ili, which was also shared by Ishtar. Difficulties are at once introduced if we assume with Dr. Poebel that in each version two separate goddesses are represented as lamenting, Nintu or Bêlit-ili and Innanna or Ishtar. For Innanna as a separate goddess had no share in the Sumerian Creation, and the reference to "her people" is there only applicable to Nintu. Dr. Poebel has to assume that the Sumerian names should be reversed in order to restore them to their original order, which he suggests the Babylonian Version has preserved. But no such textual emendation is necessary. In the Semitic Version Ishtar definitely displaces Nintu as the mother of men, as is proved by a later passage in her speech where she refers to her own bearing of mankind.[2] The necessity for the substitution of her name in the later version is thus obvious, and we have already noted how simply this was effected. [1] Cf. also Jastrow, /Hebr. and Bab. Trad./, p. 336. [2] Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 123. Another feature in which the two versions differ is that in the Sumerian text the lamentation of the goddess precedes the sending of the Deluge, while in the Gilgamesh Epic it is occasioned by the actual advent of the storm. Since our text is not completely preserved, it is just possible that the couplet was repeated at the end of the Fourth Column after mankind's destruction had taken place. But a further apparent difference has been noted. While in the Sumerian Version the goddess at once deplores the divine decision, it is clear from Ishtar's words in the Gilgamesh Epic that in the assembly of the gods she had at any rate concurred in it.[1] On the other hand, in Bêlit- ili's later speech in the Epic, after Ut-napishtim's sacrifice upon the mountain, she appears to subscribe the decision to Enlil alone.[2] The passages in the Gilgamesh Epic are not really contradictory, for they can be interpreted as implying that, while Enlil forced his will upon the other gods against Bêlit-ili's protest, the goddess at first reproached herself with her concurrence, and later stigmatized Enlil as the real author of the catastrophe. The Semitic narrative thus does not appear, as has been suggested, to betray traces of two variant traditions which have been skilfully combined, though it may perhaps exhibit an expansion of the Sumerian story. On the other hand, most of the apparent discrepancies between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions disappear, on the recognition that our text gives in many passages only an epitome of the original Sumerian Version.
Page 1 and 2: BennieBlount.com THE BRITISH ACADEM
Page 3 and 4: L. W. KING. LECTURE I EGYPT, BABYLO
Page 5 and 6: Palestine ran then as they do to-da
Page 7 and 8: interesting, for it is clearly the
Page 9 and 10: founded a Jewish colony beside a fl
Page 11 and 12: material effects upon the native po
Page 13 and 14: [3] Ezek. i. 1, 3; iii. 23; and cf.
Page 15 and 16: [1] See Breasted, /Anc. Rec./, I, p
Page 17 and 18: example, which preceded that of Nî
Page 19 and 20: may yet be accepted in a modified f
Page 21 and 22: and Enmerkar's father was high prie
Page 23 and 24: I may add that a parallel is provid
Page 25 and 26: Now the tablets from the Royal Libr
Page 27 and 28: including in addition to these two
Page 29 and 30: explicable only on that hypothesis.
Page 31 and 32: from it might well be referred to b
Page 33: [1] In Semitic-Babylonian the first
Page 37 and 38: It is an interesting fact that Zius
Page 39 and 40: employed for the flood both in the
Page 41 and 42: plan of the temple which he drew wa
Page 43 and 44: oth versions. We find an equally cl
Page 45 and 46: We will now return to the text and
Page 47 and 48: [1] Possibly to be translated "moun
Page 49 and 50: Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus, tho
Page 51 and 52: evidence of a subsequent attempt to
Page 53 and 54: and up-stream of "Nimrod's Dam". Th
Page 55 and 56: terrestrial experience. To-day we w
Page 57 and 58: [1] This detail is not clearly pres
Page 59 and 60: God of Wisdom, he is not only the t
Page 61 and 62: [4] Cf. Tabl. VII, ll. 116 ff. [5]
Page 63 and 64: [4] i.e. the length of his pace was
Page 65 and 66: When in the height heaven was not n
Page 67 and 68: period when some progress in system
Page 69 and 70: First Dynasty, whose genius for met
Page 71 and 72: staff of the bread transgression! t
Page 73 and 74: in the first lecture we noted some
Page 75 and 76: of MAN Creation of MAN from Creatio
Page 77: [6] Eanna was the great temple of E

Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?