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

Ishtar took her place. She does indeed appear in the north during the Sargonic period under her own name, though later
she survives in her synonyms of Ninmakh, "the Sublime Lady", and Nintu, "the Lady of Child-bearing". It is under the
latter title that Hammurabi refers to her in his Code of Laws, where she is tenth in a series of eleven deities. But as
Goddess of Birth she retained only a pale reflection of her original cosmic character, and her functions were gradually
specialized.[1]
[1] Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 33. It is possible that, under one of her later synonyms, we should identify her, as Dr. Poebel
suggests, with the Mylitta of Herodotus.
From a consideration of their characters, as revealed by independent sources of evidence, we thus obtain the reason for
the co-operation of four deities in the Sumerian Creation. In fact the new text illustrates a well-known principle in the
development of myth, the reconciliation of the rival claims of deities, whose cults, once isolated, had been brought
from political causes into contact with each other. In this aspect myth is the medium through which a working
pantheon is evolved. Naturally all the deities concerned cannot continue to play their original parts in detail. In the
Babylonian Epic of Creation, where a single deity, and not a very prominent one, was to be raised to pre-eminent
rank, the problem was simple enough. He could retain his own qualities and achievements while borrowing those of
any former rival. In the Sumerian text we have the result of a far more delicate process of adjustment, and it is possible
that the brevity of the text is here not entirely due to compression of a longer narrative, but may in part be regarded as
evidence of early combination. As a result of the association of several competing deities in the work of creation, a
tendency may be traced to avoid discrimination between rival claims. Thus it is that the assembled gods, the pantheon
as a whole, are regarded as collectively responsible for the creation of the universe. It may be added that this use of
/ilâni/, "the gods", forms an interesting linguistic parallel to the plural of the Hebrew divine title Elohim.
It will be remembered that in the Sumerian Version the account of Creation is not given in full, only such episodes
being included as were directly related to the Deluge story. No doubt the selection of men and animals was suggested
by their subsequent rescue from the Flood; and emphasis was purposely laid on the creation of the /niggilma/ because
of the part it played in securing mankind's survival. Even so, we noted one striking parallel between the Sumerian
Version and that of the Semitic Babylonians, in the reason both give for man's creation. But in the former there is no
attempt to explain how the universe itself had come into being, and the existence of the earth is presupposed at the
moment when Anu, Enlil, Enki, and Ninkharsagga undertake the creation of man. The Semitic-Babylonian Version, on
the other hand, is mainly occupied with events that led up to the acts of creation, and it concerns our problem to
inquire how far those episodes were of Semitic and how far of Sumerian origin. A further question arises as to whether
some strands of the narrative may not at one time have existed in Sumerian form independently of the Creation myth.
The statement is sometimes made that there is no reason to assume a Sumerian original for the Semitic-Babylonian
Version, as recorded on "the Seven Tablets of Creation";[1] and this remark, though true of that version as a whole,
needs some qualification. The composite nature of the poem has long been recognized, and an analysis of the text has
shown that no less than five principal strands have been combined for its formation. These consist of (i) The Birth of
the Gods; (ii) The Legend of Ea and Apsû; (iii) The principal Dragon Myth; (iv) The actual account of Creation; and
(v) the Hymn to Marduk under his fifty titles.[2] The Assyrian commentaries to the Hymn, from which considerable
portions of its text are restored, quote throughout a Sumerian original, and explain it word for word by the phrases of
the Semitic Version;[3] so that for one out of the Seven Tablets a Semitic origin is at once disproved. Moreover, the
majority of the fifty titles, even in the forms in which they have reached us in the Semitic text, are demonstrably
Sumerian, and since many of them celebrate details of their owner's creative work, a Sumerian original for other parts
of the version is implied. Enlil and Ea are both represented as bestowing their own names upon Marduk,[4] and we
may assume that many of the fifty titles were originally borne by Enlil as a Sumerian Creator.[5] Thus some portions
of the actual account of Creation were probably derived from a Sumerian original in which "Father Enlil" figured as
the hero.
[1] Cf., e.g., Jastrow, /Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc./, Vol. XXXVI (1916), p. 279.
[2] See /The Seven Tablets of Creation/, Vol. I, pp. lxvi ff.; and cf. Skinner, /Genesis/, pp. 43 ff.
[3] Cf. /Sev. Tabl./, Vol. I, pp. 157 ff.