Chapter XXI: The Cosmology of the Babylonians (2)

When Marduk's work is finished, the Igigi gather around him in adoration. This scene is described in a tablet which for the present we may regard[759] as the close of the series. No less than fifty names are bestowed upon him by the gods, the number fifty corresponding according to some traditions to the number of the Igigi. Marduk accordingly absorbs the qualities of all the gods. Such is the purpose of this tablet. The diction is at times exceedingly impressive.

God of pure life, they called [him] in the third place, the bearer of
purification.
God of favorable wind,[760] lord of response[761] and of mercy,
Creator of abundance and fullness, granter of blessings,
Who increases the things that were small,
Whose favorable wind we experienced in sore distress.
Thus let them[762] speak and glorify and be obedient to him.

The gods recall with gratitude Marduk's service in vanquishing Tiamat. Marduk is also praised for the mercy he showed towards the associates of Tiamat, whom he merely captured without putting them to death.

As the god of the shining crown in the fourth place, let them
[_i.e._, mankind] exalt him.
The lord of cleansing incantation, the restorer of the dead to life,
Who showed mercy towards the captured gods,
Removed the yoke from the gods who were hostile to him.

A later fancy identified the 'captured gods' with eleven of the heavenly constellations.[763]

Mankind is enjoined not to forget Marduk

Who created mankind out of kindness towards them,
The merciful one, with whom is the power of giving life.
May his deeds remain and never be forgotten
By humanity, created by his hands.

Among other names assigned to him are 'the one who knows the heart of the gods,' 'who gathers the gods together,' 'who rules in truth and justice.' In allusion again to his contest with Tiamat, he is called 'the destroyer of the enemy and of all wicked ones,' 'who frustrates their plans.'

With the help of a pun upon his having 'pierced' Tiamat; he is called Nibir, _i.e._, the planet Jupiter.[764]

Nibir be his name, who took hold of the life of Tiamat.
The course of the stars of heaven may he direct.
May he pasture all of the gods like sheep.[765]

But the climax is reached when, upon hearing what the Igigi have done, the great gods, father Bel and father Ea cheerfully bestow their own names upon Marduk.

Because he created the heavens and formed the earth
'Lord of Lands'[766] father Bel called his name.
When he heard of all the names that the Igigi bestowed
Ea's liver rejoiced
That they had bestowed exalted names upon his son.
"He as I--Ea be his name.
The control of my commands be entrusted to him.
To him my orders shall be transmitted."

The historical background to this transference of the name of Bel has been dwelt upon in a previous chapter.[767] This "Marduk hymn" is to justify the transference of the role of the older Bel of Nippur to the younger god Marduk. Throughout, the tablet describing the contest of Marduk with Tiamat, Marduk is called Bel,[768] and while this name is used in the generic sense of "lord," the transference of the name of Bel to Marduk is evidently introduced to account for his assuming the prerogatives belonging to another god. The original 'lord' was En-lil of Nippur. The sacred significance of ancient Nippur made its patron deity the most important rival of Marduk. Bel could not be disposed of as Ea, who by virtue of his mythological relationships to Marduk--a solar deity--could be retained as the father of Marduk. There was nothing left but for Marduk to take the place of Bel. The constant introduction of the epithet 'Bel' into the Tiamat story points to an older version in which Bel was the hero. In popular traditions, Bel continued to be pictured as armed with mighty weapons,[769] and, though ready to inflict severe punishment for disobedience to his commands, he engages in contests for the benefit of mankind. The earth being his special sphere of action, what more natural than that he should have had a prominent share in adapting it as a habitation for mankind. He would be directly interested in fighting the powers of darkness.

In the weapons that Marduk employs, particularly the lightning and the winds which belong to an atmospheric god rather than a solar deity, we may discern traces of the older narrative which has been combined with the Marduk-Tiamat nature myth.[770] It may be that Kingu represents Bel's particular rival. In the narrative, it will be recalled, the contest with Tiamat is sharply separated from that with Kingu and his associates. The division that thus suggests itself between Marduk and Tiamat, on the one hand, Bel and the monsters with Kingu at their head, on the other, may certainly be termed a natural one. The solar deity Marduk disposed of the storms and rains of the winter, whereas, a god of "that which is below,"[771] _i.e._, the earth and the atmosphere immediately above the earth, would appropriately be represented as ridding the earth of the monsters in order to prepare it as a habitation for mankind. Ea was not such a serious rival to Marduk as the older Bel. Political rivalry between Nippur and Babylonia probably contributed towards the disposition to have Marduk completely absorb the role of Bel, whereas, this rivalry being absent in the case of Eridu (the original seat of Ea worship) and Babylon, the mythological relations between Ea and Marduk led, as already pointed out, in a perfectly natural way to making Marduk the son of Ea. Still, while cheerfully acknowledged by Ea as his equal, it is evident that in older traditions Ea was far superior to Marduk, and the latter replaces Ea as he does Bel. The real creator of mankind, according to certain traditions, is Ea, just as in all probabilities a third tradition existed which arose in Nippur giving to Bel that distinction. It is necessary, therefore, for Ea to declare that Marduk's name (_i.e._, his power) is the same as Ea. The alteration of the traditions is thus justified by a harmonistic theology. Marduk has triumphed over Bel and Ea. The god of Babylon reigns supreme, his sway acknowledged by those whom he supplants. Marduk's declaration that in the event of his vanquishing Tiamat he will assume authority over all the gods is thus formally confirmed. The epic closes grandiloquently:

With fifty names, the great gods
According to their fifty names, proclaimed the supremacy of his
course.

The compiler has added to the epic what Delitzsch appropriately designates an 'epilogue,'--a declaration of affection for Marduk. The epilogue consists of three stanzas. All mankind--royalty and subjects--are called upon to bear in mind Marduk's glorious deeds, achieved for the benefit of the world.

Let the wise and intelligent together ponder over it.
Let the father relate it and teach it to his son.[772]
To leader and shepherd[773] be it told.
Let all rejoice in the lord of gods, Marduk
That he may cause his land to prosper and grant it peace.
His word is firm, his order irrevocable.
What issues from his mouth, no god can alter.

Marduk's anger, the poet says in closing, terrifies even the gods, but he is a god upon whose mercy one may rely, though he punishes the evil-doer.

Bearing in mind the general nature of the creation epic we have discussed, we must of course in our conclusions distinguish between those elements in it which reflect the intent of the compiler or compilers to glorify Marduk at the expense of other gods and such parts as bear the stamp of being generally accepted beliefs. Setting aside, therefore, the special role assigned to Marduk, we find that the Babylonians never developed a theory of real beginnings. The _creatio ex nihilo_ was a thought beyond the grasp even of the schools. There was always _something_, and indeed there was always a _great deal_--as much perhaps at the beginning of things as at any other time. But there was no cosmic order. Instead of a doctrine of creation, we have a doctrine of evolution from chaos to the imposition of eternal laws. The manifestation of these laws was seen first of all in the movements of the heavenly bodies. There was a great expanse, presenting the appearance of a stretched-out curtain or a covering to which the stars and moon were attached. Along this expanse the wandering stars moved with a certain regularity. The moon, too, had its course mapped out and the sun appeared in this expanse daily, as an overseer, passing along the whole of it. This wonderful system was the first to be perfected, and to the solar deity,[774] which seemed to control everything, was ascribed the distinction of having introduced the heavenly order. This notion we may well believe was of popular origin, though elaborated in the schools to conform to a developed astrological science.

The stars and moon never passed beyond certain limits, and, accordingly, the view was developed which gave to the canopy of heaven fixed boundaries. At each end of the canopy was a great gate, properly guarded. Through one of these the sun passed in rising out of the ocean, through the other it passed out when it had run its course. Learned speculation could not improve upon this popular fancy. As the heavens had their limitations, so also the great bodies of water were kept in check by laws, which, though eternal, were yet not quite as inexorable as those controlling the heavenly bodies. The yearly overflow of the Euphrates and Tigris was too serious a matter to be overlooked, and we shall see in a following chapter[775] how this phenomenon was interpreted as a rivalry between Bel and Ea, deliberately caused by the former in anger toward mankind. Still, as a general thing, the 'deep,' presided over by Ea, kept within the limits assigned to it. The waters above the canopy were under rigid control, and the lower waters flowed around the earth and underneath it, and bordered the canopy of heaven at its two ends.

The earth itself was a vast hollow structure, erected as a "place of fertility" under the canopy of heaven and resting on the great 'deep.' Its vegetation was the gift of the gods. 'Fertility' summed up the law fixed for the earth. Much as in the Book of Genesis, "to multiply and increase" was the order proclaimed for the life with which the earth was filled.

The creation of mankind was the last act in the great drama. Assigned in some traditions to Ea, in others as it would seem to Bel, the transfer of the traditions to Marduk is the deliberate work of the schools of theological thought. The essential point for us is that mankind, according to all traditions, is the product of the gods. In some form or other, this belief was popularly held everywhere. Its original form, however, is obscured beyond recognition by the theory which it is made to serve.

A second version of the course of creation[776] agrees in the main with the first one, but adds some points of interest. In this version, likewise, Marduk is assigned the most important role--an evidence that it was produced under similar influences as the larger epic. So far as preserved, the second version differs from the first in its brevity and in the prominence given to such themes as the development of animal life and the growth of civilization. It fills out to a certain degree the gaps in the first version, due to the fragmentary condition of the fifth tablet and the loss of the sixth. The brevity of the second version is due in part to the fact that it is introduced into an incantation text, and, what is more, incidentally introduced.

It begins as does the larger epic with the statement regarding the period when the present phenomena of the universe were not yet in existence, but it specifies the period in a manner which gives a somewhat more definite character to the conception of this ancient time.

The bright house of the gods was not yet built on the bright place,
No reed grew and no tree was formed,
No brick was laid nor any brick edifice[777] reared,
No house erected, no city built,
No city reared, no conglomeration[778] formed.
Nippur was not reared, E-Kur[779] not erected.
Erech was not reared, E-Anna[780] not erected.
The deep[781] not formed, Eridu[782] not reared.
The bright house, the house of the gods not yet constructed as a
dwelling.
The world[783] was all a sea.

Again it will be observed that neither popular nor scholastic speculation can picture the beginning of things in any other way than as an absence of things characteristic of the _order_ of the universe.

The bright[784] house of the gods corresponds to Eshara and the canopy of heaven in the first version. The gods are again identified with the stars, and it is in the heavens--the bright place--that the gods dwell.[785] The reference to the absence of vegetation agrees closely with the corresponding passage in the larger creation epic. The limitations of the cosmological speculations of the Babylonians find a striking illustration in the manner in which the beginnings of human culture are placed on a level with the beginnings of heavenly and terrestrial phenomena. Nippur, Erech, and Eridu, which are thus shown to be the oldest religious centers of the Euphrates Valley, were indissolubly associated in the minds of the people with the beginning of order in the universe. Such was the antiquity of those cities as seats of the great gods, Bel, Ishtar, and Ea, that the time when they did not exist was not differentiated from the creation of the heavens and of plant life. This conception is more clearly emphasized by the parallelism implied between Eridu and the 'deep.' The 'formation' of Apsu corresponds to the 'structure' made by Marduk according to the first version, as the seat of Ea. The waters were not created by Marduk, but they were confined by him within a certain space. In a vague way, the 'deep' itself rested in a vast tub. The waters flowed freely and yet not without limitation.

The contest with Tiamat is not referred to in this second version, and this may be taken as an indication that the 'nature' myth was not an ingredient part of cosmological speculations, but only introduced into the first version because of its associations with Marduk.

The appearance of dry land is described somewhat vaguely as follows:

There was a channel[786] within the sea.
At that time Eridu was erected, E-Sagila[787] was built,
E-Sagila in the midst of the 'deep,' where the god of the glorious
abode[788] dwells.

The mention of the channel appears to imply that the waters were permitted to flow off in a certain direction.

The conception would then be similar to the view expressed in Genesis, where the dry land appears in consequence of the waters being 'gathered' into one place.[789] The temple at Eridu is regarded as synonymous with the city, as the temples E-Kur and E-Anna are synonymous with Nippur and Erech respectively. Eridu at the head of the Persian Gulf, which for the Babylonians was the beginning of the great 'Okeanos' surrounding the world,[790] is the first dry land to appear and hence the oldest place in the world. At this point in the narrative a line is interpolated which clearly betrays the lateness of the version. The mention of E-Sagila suggests to a Babylonian, naturally, the great temple of Marduk in the city of Babylon--'the lofty house.' Local pride and the desire to connect Babylon with the beginning of things leads to the insertion:

Babylon was reared, E-Sagila built.

With this mention of Babylon, the connecting link is established which leads easily to the glorification of Babylon and Marduk. The thought once introduced is not abandoned. The rest of the narrative, so far as preserved, is concerned with Marduk. Eridu alone is beyond his jurisdiction. Everything else, vegetation, mankind, rivers, animals, and all cities, including even Nippur and Erech, are Marduk's work.

The Anunnaki[791] he[792] created together
And bestowed glorious epithets upon the glorious city, the seat dear
to their heart.

The 'glorious city' is Eridu, though the compiler would have us apply it to Babylon.

With the founding of Eridu, a limit was fixed for the 'deep.' The rest of the dry land is formed according to the theory of the writer by the extension of this place.

Marduk constructed an enclosure around the waters,
He made dust and heaped it up within the enclosure.[793]

The _naivete_ of the conception justifies us in regarding it as of popular origin, incorporated by the theologians into their system.

But this land is created primarily for the benefit of the gods.

That the gods might dwell in the place dear to their heart.

Naturally not all of the gods are meant,--perhaps only the Anunnaki,--for the great gods dwell in heaven. The creation of mankind is next described, and is boldly ascribed to Marduk.

Mankind he created.[794]

In the following line, however, we come across a trace again of an older tradition, which has been embodied in the narrative in a rather awkward manner. Associated with Marduk in the creation of mankind is a goddess Aruru.

The goddess Aruru created the seed of men together with him.[795]

We encounter this goddess Aruru in the Gilgamesh epic,[796] where she is represented as creating a human being,--Eabani; and, curiously enough, she creates him in agreement with the Biblical tradition, out of a lump of clay. It has already been pointed out that according to one tradition Ea is the creator of mankind,[797] and the conjecture has also been advanced that at Nippur, Bel was so regarded. In Aruru we have evidently a figure to whom another tradition, that arose in some district, ascribed the honor of having created mankind. The Gilgamesh story is connected with the city of Erech, and it is probable that the tale--at least in part--originated there. It becomes plausible, therefore, to trace the tradition ascribing the creation of man to Aruru to the same place. A passage in the Deluge story, which forms an episode of the Gilgamesh epic, adds some force to this conjecture. After the dreadful deluge has come, Ishtar breaks out in wild lament that mankind, her offspring, has perished: "What I created, where is it?"[798] She is called 'the mistress of the gods,'[799] and if Jensen is correct in an ingenious restoration of a defective text,[800] Aruru is given the same epithet in a lexicographical tablet. The Ishtar occurring in the Gilgamesh story is the old Ishtar of Erech. I venture to suggest, therefore, that Aruru and Ishtar of Erech are one and the same personage. Ishtar is, of course, as has been pointed out, merely a generic name[801] for the 'great goddess' worshipped under many forms. The more specific name by which Ishtar of Erech was known was Nana, but Nana again is nothing but an epithet, meaning, as the Babylonians themselves interpreted it, the 'lady' _par excellence_. Have we perhaps in Aruru the real name of the old goddess of Erech? At all events, the occurrence of Aruru in this second 'creation' story points to her as belonging to the district of which Erech was the center. In this way, each one of the three most ancient sacred towns of Babylonia would have its 'creator,'--Bel in Nippur, Ea in Eridu, and Aruru in Erech. The chief deity of Erech, it will be recalled, was always a goddess,--a circumstance that supports the association of Aruru with that place. Aruru being a goddess, it was not so easy to have Marduk take up her role, as he supplanted Bel. Again, Erech and Babylon were not political rivals to the degree that Nippur and Babylon were. Accordingly a compromise was effected, as in the case of Marduk and Ea. Aruru is associated with Marduk. She creates mankind with Marduk, and it would seem to be a consequence of this association that the name of Marduk's real consort, Sarpanitum, is playfully but with intent interpreted by the Babylonian pedants as 'seed-producing.'[802]

Our second version thus turns out to be, like the first, an adaptation of old traditions to new conditions. Babylon and Marduk are designedly introduced. In the original form Nippur, Eridu, and Erech alone figured, and presumably, therefore, only the deities of these three places. Among them the work of creation was in some way parceled out. This distribution may itself have been the result of a combination of independent traditions. In any early combination, however, we may feel certain that Marduk was not introduced.

After this incidental mention of Aruru, the narrative passes back undisturbed to Marduk.

The animals of the field, the living creatures of the field he
created,
The Tigris and Euphrates he formed in their places, gave them good
names,
Soil (?), grass, the marsh, reed, and forest he created,
The verdure of the field he produced,
The lands, the marsh, and thicket,
The wild cow with her young, the young wild ox,
The ewe with her young, the sheep of the fold,
Parks and forests,
The goat and wild goat he brought forth.

The text at this point becomes defective, but we can still make out that the clay as building material is created by Marduk, and that he constructs houses and rears cities. Corresponding to the opening lines, we may supply several lines as follows:

Houses he erected, cities he built,
Cities he built, dwellings he prepared,
Nippur he built, E-Kur he erected,
Erech he built, E-Anna he erected.

Here the break in the tablet begins.

The new points derived from this second version are, (_a_) the details in the creation of the animal and plant world, (_b_) the mention of Aruru as the mother of mankind, and (_c_) the inclusion of human culture in the story of the 'beginnings.'

Before leaving the subject, a brief comparison of these two versions with the opening chapters of Genesis is called for. That the Hebrew and Babylonian traditions spring from a common source is so evident as to require no further proof. The agreements are too close to be accidental. At the same time, the variations in detail point to independent elaboration of the traditions on the part of the Hebrews and Babylonians.

A direct borrowing from the Babylonians has not taken place, and while the Babylonian records are in all probabilities much older than the Hebrew, the latter again contain elements, as Gunkel has shown, of a more primitive character than the Babylonian production. This relationship can only be satisfactorily explained on the assumption that the Hebrews possessed the traditions upon which the Genesis narrative rests long before the period of the Babylonian exile, when the story appears, indeed, to have received its final and present shape. The essential features of the Babylonian cosmology formed part of a stock of traditions that Hebrews and Babylonians (and probably others) received from some common source or, to put it more vaguely, held in common from a period, the limits of which can no longer be determined. While the two Babylonian versions agree in the main, embodying the same general traditions regarding the creation of the heavenly bodies and containing the same general conception of an evolution in the world from confusion and caprice to order, and the establishment of law, the variations in regard to the terrestrial phenomena must not be overlooked. According to the first version, mankind appears as the last episode of creation; in the second, mankind precedes vegetation and animal life.

If we now take up the two versions of creation found in Genesis, we will see that the same differences may be observed. According to the first, the so-called Elohistic version,[803] mankind is not created until the last day of creation; according to the second,[804] the so-called Yahwistic version, mankind is first created, then a garden is made and trees are planted. After that, the beasts of the field and the birds of heaven are called into existence.

The resemblance of the second Babylonian version to the Yahwistic version extends even to certain phrases which they have in common. The opening words of the Yahwist--

And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of
the field had yet sprung up--

might serve almost as a translation of the second line of the Babylonian counterpart. The reference to the Tigris and Euphrates in the second Babylonian version reminds one of the four streams mentioned in the Yahwistic version, two of which are likewise the Tigris and Euphrates. Again, Tiamat is mentioned only in the first Babylonian version, and T'hom similarly only in the Elohistic version; while, on the other hand, the building of cities is included in the Yahwistic version,[805] as it forms part of the second Babylonian version. The points mentioned suffice to show that the Elohistic version is closely related to the larger creation epic of the Babylonians, while the Yahwistic version--more concise, too, than the Elohistic--agrees to an astonishing degree with the second and more concise Babylonian record.

The conclusion, therefore, is justified that the variations between the Babylonian versions rest upon varying traditions that must have arisen in different places. The attempt was made to combine these traditions by the Babylonians, and among the Hebrews we may see the result of a similar attempt in the first two or, more strictly speaking, in the first three chapters of Genesis. At the same time, the manner in which both traditions have been worked over by the Hebrew compilers of Genesis precludes, as has been pointed out, the theory of a direct borrowing from cuneiform documents. The climatic conditions involved in the Hebrew versions are those peculiar to Babylonia. It is in Babylonia that the thought would naturally arise of making the world begin with the close of the storms and rains in the spring. The Terahites must therefore have brought these cosmological traditions with them upon migrating from the Euphrates Valley to the Jordan district.

The traditions retained their hold through all the vicissitudes that the people underwent. The intercourse, political and commercial, between Palestine and Mesopotamia was uninterrupted, as we now know, from at least the fifteenth century before our era down to the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and this constant intercourse was no doubt an important factor in maintaining the life of the old traditions that bound the two peoples together. The so-called Babylonian exile brought Hebrews and Babylonians once more side by side. Under the stimulus of this direct contact, the final shape was given by Hebrew writers to their cosmological speculations. Yahwe is assigned the role of Bel-Marduk, the division of the work of creation into six days is definitely made,[806] and some further modifications introduced. While, as emphasized, this final shape is due to the independent elaboration of the common traditions, and, what is even more to the point, shows an independent _interpretation_ of the traditions, it is by no means impossible, but on the contrary quite probable, that the final compilers of the Hebrew versions had before them the cuneiform tablets, embodying the literary form given to the traditions by Babylonian writers.[807] Such a circumstance, while not implying direct borrowing, would account for the close parallels existing between the two Hebrew and the two Babylonian versions, and would also furnish a motive to the Hebrew writers for embodying _two_ versions in their narrative.

FOOTNOTES:

[680] The so-called Elohistic version, Gen. i. 1-ii. 4; the Yahwistic version, Gen. ii. 5-24. Traces have been found in various portions of the Old Testament of other popular versions regarding creation. See Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 29-114, 119-121.

[681] Gunkel, _ib._ pp. 28, 29. What Sayce (_e.g._, _Rec. of the Past_, N. S., I. 147, 148) calls the 'Cuthaean legend of the creation' contains, similarly, a variant description of Tiamat and her brood.

[682] Published by Pinches, _Journal Royal Asiat. Soc._, 1891, pp. 393-408.

[683] Complete publication by Delitzsch, _Das Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_ (Leipzig, 1896) with elaborate commentary.

[684] See Zimmern in Gunkel's _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 415, 416, and on the other side, Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 20. Zimmern's doubts are justified.

[685] _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._ vi. 7.

[686] _Zeits. f. Assyr._ viii. 121-124. Delitzsch, in his _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 61-68, has elaborately set forth the principles of the poetic composition. See also D. H. Mueller, _Die Propheten in ihrer urspruenglichen Form_, pp. 5-14.

[687] _I.e._, did not exist. To be 'called' or to 'bear a name' meant to be called into existence.

[688] _I.e._, of the waters.

[689] _I.e._, of heaven and earth.

[690] The word used is obscure. Jensen and Zimmern render "reed." Delitzsch, I think, comes nearer the real meaning with "marsh." See Haupt's translation, _Proc. Amer. Oriental Soc._, 1896, p. 161.

[691] Delitzsch supplies a parallel phrase like "periods elapsed."

[692] Supplied from Damascius' extract of the work of Berosus on Babylonia. See Cory, _Ancient Fragments_, p. 92; Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 94.

[693] The _o_ is represented in Babylonian by _a_, and the ending _at_ in Tiamat is an affix which stamps the Babylonian name as feminine. T'hom in Hebrew is likewise a feminine noun, but it should be noted that at a certain stage in the development of the Semitic languages, the feminine is hardly distinguishable from the plural and collective.

[694] Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, pp. 29-82, 379-398.

[695] For our purposes it is sufficient to refer for the relations existing between Damascius and the cuneiform records to Smith's _Chaldaeische Genesis_, pp. 63-66, to Lenormant's _Essai de Commentaire sur les fragments Cosmogoniques de Berose_, pp. 67 _seq._, and to Jensen's _Kosmologie der Babylonier_, pp. 270-272.

[696] The names are given by Damascius as _Apason_ and _Tauthe_.

[697] Suggested by Professor Haupt (Schrader, _Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament_, p. 7).

[698] Hommel, _Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch._, xviii. 19.

[699] See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 224, 225.

[700] Agumkakrimi Inscription (VR. 33, iv. 50); Nabonnedos (Cylinder, VR. 64, ll. 16, 17).

[701] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 58.

[702] See above, pp. 198, 199.

[703] See above, pp. 198, 199.

[704] I avoid the term "Sumerian" here, because I feel convinced that the play on Anshar is of an entirely artificial character and has no philological basis.

[705] See below, pp. 421-423.

[706] IIR. 54, no. 3.

[707] For a different interpretation of the phrase, see Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 273, 274.

[708] See p. 107.

[709] _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 94.

[710] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 58.

[711] An epithet descriptive of Tiamat. "Ummu" is "mother" and "khubur" signifies "hollow"; "mother of the hollow" would be a poetic expression for "source of the deep," and an appropriate term to apply to Tiamat. It has nothing to do with Omoroka. The latter, as Wright has shown, is a corruption of "O Marduk" (_Zeits. f. Assyr_. x. 71-74).

[712] The word used is Lakhami, the plural of Lakhamu.

[713] This scene, the description of the monsters and the installation of Kingu, occurs four times in the 'Epic.' See p. 424.

[714] Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 25.

[715] Cory, _ib._ p. 92.

[716] "The chamber of fates" where Marduk sits on New Year's Day and decides the fate of mankind for the ensuing year. Jensen and Zimmern read _upshugina_, but see Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos,_ p. 135.

[717] The deity is mentioned by Sennacherib (Meissner-Host, _Bauinschriften_, p. 108). See above, p. 238.

[718] In the first tablet, in the second in connection with the mission of Anu, and twice in the third in connection with Marduk's visit.

[719] Tiamat's presence.

[720] Called Nudimmud. Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 99, questions the identity with Ea, but his skepticism is unwarranted, though the title is also used of Bel.

[721] Here used to comprise the army of Tiamat.

[722] _I.e._, thy power is equal to that of Anu.

[723] Exod. iv. 2-8; other parallels might be adduced.

[724] _I.e._, far off.

[725] _I.e._, that a wind might not carry her off.

[726] Adding three to the ordinary winds from the four directions.

[727] For the explanation of the term used in the original--_kirbish_--see Delitzsch's excellent remarks, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos._ pp. 132-134.

[728] Lit., 'storm,'--perhaps the thunderbolt, as Delitzsch suggests.

[729] Marduk.

[730] She lost her reason.

[731] Gasping, as it were, for breath.

[732] Cory's _Ancient Fragments_, p. 49.

[733] Lit., 'places,' here used as a synonym for 'heavens,' as an Assyrian commentator expressly states. See Delitzsch's remarks (_Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 147) against Jensen's and Zimmern's interpretation.

[734] _I.e._, Ea. See above, p. 424, note 3.

[735] The complete proof is brought by Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 246-253.

[736] To render the word used as "Palace" (so Delitzsch), while not incorrect, is somewhat misleading.

[737] _Kosmologie_, p. 199.

[738] _Magie und Wahrsagekunst der Chaldaer_, p. 163.

[739] See the illustration in Jensen's _Kosmologie_, pl. 3.

[740] The word used also means "cities." A Babylonian district is naught but an extended city.

[741] See p. 429.

[742] Gen. viii. 22.

[743] See above, p. 370, and chapter xxii.

[744] _I.e._, for each of the great gods.

[745] _I.e._, of the gods.

[746] A particular group of stars--the _mashi_ stars--is mentioned, but the term seems to be used in a rather general sense. I cannot share Delitzsch's extreme skepticism with regard to the interpretation of the fifth tablet. Jensen seems to have solved the chief difficulties.

[747] Jensen and Zimmern interpret "he drew the pictures," referring the phrase to the contours of the stars; but the parallelism speaks in favor of connecting the words with the "year." The divisions of the year or seasons seem to be meant.

[748] _I.e._, the planet Marduk, or Jupiter.

[749] _I.e._, with Nibir.

[750] See Jensen, _Kosmologie_, p. 354. George Smith already interpreted the passage in this way.

[751] _I.e._, of the heavens. Delitzsch renders "Schwerpunkt."

[752] Text _elati_. Jensen, Zimmern, and Halevy translate "zenith," but Delitzsch questions this.

[753] The moon-god.

[754] _I.e._, the moon.

[755] Published by Delitzsch, _Assyrische Lesestuecke_ (3d edition), p. 94.

[756] See the proof as put together by Jensen, _Kosmologie_, pp. 293, 294.

[757] Line 15.

[758] So Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 19, 20.

[759] Following Delitzsch, _Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, pp. 20, 21. I pass over two fragments which Delitzsch adds to our 'epic.' They are not sufficiently clear to be utilized for our purposes. Delitzsch may be right with regard to no. 20, but if so, it forms part or another version of the Marduk-Tiamat episode. No. 19, treating of the bow of Marduk (?), does not seem to belong to our series.

[760] A standing phrase for "favor" in general.

[761] To prayer.

[762] The gods or the Igigi.

[763] See p. 486 and Gunkel's note, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 26.

[764] See above, p. 434. The play is between Nibir (as though from the stem _eberu_) and _itebbiru_ ("he pierced"), a form of _eberu_, and meaning 'to pass through.'

[765] This metaphor is carried over into astronomical science. The planets are known as "wandering sheep." See p. 459.

[766] _Bel matate_.

[767] See p. 118.

[768] Similarly in another version of the contest published by Delitzsch, _Assyr. Woerterbuch_, p. 390.

[769] See p. 54.

[770] Tiele (_Gesch. der Religion im Alterthum_, I. 176) assigns to Marduk a double character, making him both a god of light and a god of storms, but I venture to think that the latter attribute represents the transference of En-lil's power to Marduk.

[771] So Bel is called in contrast to Anu. See p. 53.

[772] One is reminded of the Biblical injunction with regard to the Laws of Yahwe, Deut. vi. 7: "Thou shall teach them to thy sons and speak constantly of them."

[773] _I.e._, to the kings who are frequently called 'shepherds' in the historical texts.

[774] Or, according to the earlier view, to an atmospheric god.

[775] "The Gilgamesh Epic."

[776] First published by Pinches, _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1891, pp. 393-408.

[777] Clay, it will be recalled, was the building material in Babylonia.

[778] The word in the text is generally applied to "a mass" of animals, but also to human productions. See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_, p. 467.

[779] Bel's temple at Nippur.

[780] Temple of Ishtar at Erech or Uruk.

[781] _I.e._, Apsu.

[782] City sacred to Ea at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

[783] Lit., 'totality of lands.'

[784] Zimmern's rendering (Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 419) "sacred" (instead of 'bright') misses the point.

[785] _Cf._ S. A. Smith, Miscellaneous, K. 2866, l. 8, "the great gods dwelling in the heaven of Anu." The reference, therefore, cannot be to "the gathering place of the gods," where the fates of mankind are decided.

[786] The original has _ratum_. Delitzsch, _Assyr. Handwoerterbuch_, p. 663, compares Hebrew _rahat_, "trough." Zimmern (Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 419) translates "Bewegung," but on what grounds I do not know. The passage is obscure; the text possibly defective.

[787] If the reading E-Sagila is original. It is here used as the name of Ea's temple in Eridu, but it is of course possible that E-Sagila has been deliberately introduced to enhance the glory of Marduk's temple in Babylon.

[788] Ea.

[789] Gen. i. 9.

[790] See Haupt, _Wo lag das Paradies_, p. 7 (_Ueber Land und Meer_, 1894-95, no. 15, Sonderabdruck), who furnishes numerous illustrations of the indefinite geographical notions of the ancients.

[791] The group of celestial beings.

[792] _I.e._, Marduk.

[793] Read _a-ma-mi_.

[794] Zimmern purposes to connect this line with the preceding, but the sense in that case is not at all clear.

[795] _I.e._, with Marduk.

[796] Haupt's edition, p. 8, l. 34.

[797] See above, p. 437.

[798] Haupt, _ib._ p. 139, l. 116.

[799] _Ib._ l. 111.

[800] _Kosmologie_, p. 294, note 1.

[801] See p. 82.

[802] _Zerbanitum_, as though compounded of _zer_ (seed), and _bani_ (create). See p. 121.

[803] Gen. i. 1-ii. 4, embodied in the "Priestly Code."

[804] Gen. ii. 4 and extending in reality as far as iv. 25.

[805] Gen. iii. 17.

[806] See Gunkel, _Schoepfung und Chaos_, p. 13.

[807] On the acquaintance of Hebrew writers of the Babylonian exile with cuneiform literature and on the influence exercised by the latter, see D. H. Mueller, _Ezechielstudien_.