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

[4] Cf. Tabl. VII, ll. 116 ff.
[5] The number fifty was suggested by an ideogram employed for Enlil's name.
For what then were the Semitic Babylonians themselves responsible? It seems to me that, in the "Seven Tablets", we
may credit them with considerable ingenuity in the combination of existing myths, but not with their invention. The
whole poem in its present form is a glorification of Marduk, the god of Babylon, who is to be given pre-eminent rank
among the gods to correspond with the political position recently attained by his city. It would have been quite out of
keeping with the national thought to make a break in the tradition, and such a course would not have served the
purpose of the Babylonian priesthood, which was to obtain recognition of their claims by the older cult-centres in the
country. Hence they chose and combined the more important existing myths, only making such alterations as would fit
them to their new hero. Babylon herself had won her position by her own exertions; and it would be a natural idea to
give Marduk his opportunity of becoming Creator of the world as the result of successful conflict. A combination of
the Dragon myth with the myth of Creation would have admirably served their purpose; and this is what we find in the
Semitic poem. But even that combination may not have been their own invention; for, though, as we shall see, the idea
of conflict had no part in the earlier forms of the Sumerian Creation myth, its combination with the Dragon /motif/
may have characterized the local Sumerian Version of Nippur. How mechanical was the Babylonian redactors' method
of glorifying Marduk is seen in their use of the description of Tiamat and her monster brood, whom Marduk is made to
conquer. To impress the hearers of the poem with his prowess, this is repeated at length no less than four times, one
god carrying the news of her revolt to another.
Direct proof of the manner in which the later redactors have been obliged to modify the original Sumerian Creation
myth, in consequence of their incorporation of other elements, may be seen in the Sixth Tablet of the poem, where
Marduk states the reason for man's creation. In the second lecture we noted how the very words of the principal
Sumerian Creator were put into Marduk's mouth; but the rest of the Semitic god's speech finds no equivalent in the
Sumerian Version and was evidently inserted in order to reconcile the narrative with its later ingredients. This will best
be seen by printing the two passages in parallel columns:[1]
[1] The extract from the Sumerian Version, which occurs in the lower part of the First Column, is here compared with
the Semitic- Babylonian Creation Series, Tablet VI, ll. 6-10 (see /Seven Tablets/, Vol. I, pp. 86 ff.). The comparison is
justified whether we regard the Sumerian speech as a direct preliminary to man's creation, or as a reassertion of his
duty after his rescue from destruction by the Flood.
SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION
"The people will I cause to . . . "I will make man, that man may in their settlements, [. . .]. Cities . . . shall (man) build,
I will create man who shall in their protection will I cause inhabit [. . .], him to rest, That he may lay the brick of our
That the service of the gods may house in a clean spot, be established, and that [their] shrines [may be built]. That in a
clean spot he may But I will alter the ways of the establish our . . . !" gods, and I will change [their paths]; Together
shall they be oppressed, and unto evil shall [they . . .]!"
The welding of incongruous elements is very apparent in the Semitic Version. For the statement that man will be
created in order that the gods may have worshippers is at once followed by the announcement that the gods themselves
must be punished and their "ways" changed. In the Sumerian Version the gods are united and all are naturally regarded
as worthy of man's worship. The Sumerian Creator makes no distinctions; he refers to "our houses", or temples, that
shall be established. But in the later version divine conflict has been introduced, and the future head of the pantheon
has conquered and humiliated the revolting deities. Their "ways" must therefore be altered before they are fit to receive
the worship which was accorded them by right in the simpler Sumerian tradition. In spite of the epitomized character
of the Sumerian Version, a comparison of these passages suggests very forcibly that the Semitic-Babylonian myth of
Creation is based upon a simpler Sumerian story, which has been elaborated to reconcile it with the Dragon myth.
The Semitic poem itself also supplies evidence of the independent existence of the Dragon myth apart from the process
of Creation, for the story of Ea and Apsû, which it incorporates, is merely the local Dragon myth of Eridu. Its inclusion
in the story is again simply a tribute to Marduk; for though Ea, now become Marduk's father, could conquer Apsû, he