LECTURE III — CREATION AND THE DRAGON MYTH; AND THE PROBLEM OF BABYLONIAN PARALLELS IN HEBREW TRADITION (continued 2)
Reading edition
During the second period, that of the settlement in Canaan, the Hebrews came into contact with a people who had used the Babylonian language as the common medium of communication throughout the Near East. It is an interesting fact that among the numerous letters found at Tell el-Amarna were two texts of quite a different character. These were legends, both in the form of school exercises, which had been written out for practice in the Babylonian tongue. One of them was the legend of Adapa, in which we noted just now a distant resemblance to the Hebrew story of Paradise. It seems to me we are here standing on rather firmer ground; and provisionally we might place the beginning of our process after the time of Hebrew contact with the Canaanites.
Under the earlier Hebrew monarchy there was no fresh influx of Babylonian culture into Palestine. That does not occur till our last main period, the later Judaean monarchy, when, in consequence of the westward advance of Assyria, the civilization of Babylon was once more carried among the petty Syrian states. Israel was first drawn into the circle of Assyrian influence, when Arab fought as the ally of Benhadad of Damascus at the battle of Karkar in 854 B.C.; and from that date onward the nation was menaced by the invading power. In 734 B.C., at the invitation of Ahaz of Judah, Tiglath-Pileser IV definitely intervened in the affairs of Israel. For Ahaz purchased his help against the allied armies of Israel and Syria in the Syro-Ephraimitish war. Tiglath-pileser threw his forces against Damascus and Israel, and Ahaz became his vassal.(1) To this period, when Ahaz, like Panammu II, "ran at the wheel of his lord, the king of Assyria", we may ascribe the first marked invasion of Assyrian influence over Judah. Traces of it may be seen in the altar which Ahaz caused to be erected in Jerusalem after the pattern of the Assyrian altar at Damascus.(2) We saw in the first lecture, in the monuments we have recovered of Panammu I and of Bar-rekub, how the life of another small Syrian state was inevitably changed and thrown into new channels by the presence of Tiglath-pileser and his armies in the West.
(1) 2 Kings xvi. 7 ff. (2) 2 Kings xvi. 10 ff.
Hezekiah's resistance checked the action of Assyrian influence on Judah for a time. But it was intensified under his son Manasseh, when Judah again became tributary to Assyria, and in the house of the Lord altars were built to all the host of heaven.(1) Towards the close of his long reign Manasseh himself was summoned by Ashur-bani-pal to Babylon.(2) So when in the year 586 B.C. the Jewish exiles came to Babylon they could not have found in its mythology an entirely new and unfamiliar subject. They must have recognized several of its stories as akin to those they had assimilated and now regarded as their own. And this would naturally have inclined them to further study and comparison.
(1) 2 Kings xxi. 5. (2) Cf. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11 ff.
The answer I have outlined to this problem is the one that appears to me most probable, but I do not suggest that it is the only possible one that can be given. What I do suggest is that the Hebrews must have gained some acquaintance with the legends of Babylon in pre-exilic times. And it depends on our reading of the evidence into which of the three main periods the beginning of the process may be traced.
So much, then, for the influence of Babylon. We have seen that no similar problem arises with regard to the legends of Egypt. At first sight this may seem strange, for Egypt lay nearer than Babylon to Palestine, and political and commercial intercourse was at least as close. We have already noted how Egypt influenced Semitic art, and how she offered an ideal, on the material side of her existence, which was readily adopted by her smaller neighbours. Moreover, the Joseph traditions in Genesis give a remarkably accurate picture of ancient Egyptian life; and even the Egyptian proper names embedded in that narrative may be paralleled with native Egyptian names than that to which the traditions refer. Why then is it that the actual myths and legends of Egypt concerning the origin of the world and its civilization should have failed to impress the Hebrew mind, which, on the other hand, was so responsive to those of Babylon?
One obvious answer would be, that it was Nebuchadnezzar II, and not Necho, who carried the Jews captive. And we may readily admit that the Captivity must have tended to perpetuate and intensify the effects of any Babylonian influence that may have previously been felt. But I think there is a wider and in that sense a better answer than that.
I do not propose to embark at this late hour on what ethnologists know as the "Hamitic" problem. But it is a fact that many striking parallels to Egyptian religious belief and practice have been traced among races of the Sudan and East Africa. These are perhaps in part to be explained as the result of contact and cultural inheritance. But at the same time they are evidence of an African, but non-Negroid, substratum in the religion of ancient Egypt. In spite of his proto-Semitic strain, the ancient Egyptian himself never became a Semite. The Nile Valley, at any rate until the Moslem conquest, was stronger than its invaders; it received and moulded them to its own ideal. This quality was shared in some degree by the Euphrates Valley. But Babylonia was not endowed with Egypt's isolation; she was always open on the south and west to the Arabian nomad, who at a far earlier period sealed her Semitic type.
To such racial division and affinity I think we may confidently trace the influence exerted by Egypt and Babylon respectively upon Hebrew tradition.
APPENDIX I COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE SUMERIAN, SEMITIC-BABYLONIAN, HELLENISTIC, AND HEBREW VERSIONS OF CREATION, ANTEDILUVIAN HISTORY, AND THE DELUGE N.B.—Parallels with the new Sumerian Version are in upper-case. Sumerian Version. Seven Tablets Gilgamesh Epic, XI Berossus('Damscius) Earlier Heb. (J) Later Heb. (P) (No heaven or earth No heaven or earth Darkness and water Creation of earth Earth without form First Creation from Primaeval water- (Primaeval water- and heaven and void; darkness primaeval water gods: Apsû-Tiamat, gods: {'Apason- No plant or herb on face of tehôm, without conflict; Mummu Tauthe}, {Moumis} Ground watered by the primaeval water cf. Later Sum. Ver. Generation of: Generation of: mist (or flood) Divine spirit moving Lakhmu-Lakhamu {Lakhos-Lakhe} (cf. Sumerian (hovering, brooding) Anshar-Kishar {'Assoros-Kissare} irrigation myth of upon face of waters Creation) The great gods: Birth of great gods: Birth of great gods: ANU, ENLIL, ENKI, ANU, Nudimmud (=EA) {'Anos, 'Illinos, and Ninkharsagga, Apsû and Tiamat 'Aos, 'Aois-Lauke, creating deities revolt Belos) Conquest of Tiamat Conquest of {'Omorka}, Creation of light by Marduk as Sun- or {Thamte}, by god {Belos} Creation of covering Creation of heaven and Creation of firmament, for heaven from earth from two halves or heaven, to divide half of Tiamat's of body of Thamte waters; followed by body, to keep her emergence of land waters in place Creation of vegetation Creation of luminaries Creation of luminaries Creation of luminaries (Creation of (probable order) Creation of animals vegetation) REASON FOR MAN'S REASON FOR MAN'S CREATION: worship of CREATION: worship of gods gods Creation of MAN Creation of MAN from Creation of MAN from Creation of MAN from Creation of MAN in Creator's blood and Creator's blood and dust and Creator's image of Creator, to from bone from earth breath of life have dominion Creation of ANIMALS (Creation of animals) Creation of ANIMALS Creation of vegetation Hymn on Seventh Tablet able to bear the air ANIMALS, and woman Rest on Seventh Day Creation of KINGDOM 10 Antediluvian KINGS The line of Cain Antediluvian 5 ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES: Antediluvian city: 3 ANTEDILUVIAN CITIES: The Nephilim (cf. patriarchs (cf. Eridu, Bad.., LARAK, SHURUPPAK Babylon, SIPPAR, Sumerian Dynastic Sumerian Dynastic SIPPAR, SHURUPPAK LARANKHA List) List) Gods decree MANKIND'S Gods decree flood, Destruction of MAN Destruction of all destruction by flood, goddess ISHTAR decreed, because of flesh decreed, because NINTU protesting protesting his wickedness of its corruption ZIUSUDU, hero of UT-NAPISHTIM, hero {Xisouthros} Noah, hero of Deluge Noah, hero of Deluge Deluge, KING and of Deluge (=Khasisatra), hero priest of Deluge, KING Ziusudu's PIETY Noah's FAVOUR Noah's RIGHTEOUSNESS WARNING of Ziusudu by WARNING of Ut-nap- WARNING of Xisuthros WARNING of Noah, and Enki in DREAM ishtim by Ea in DREAM by Kronos in DREAM instructions for ark Ziusudu's vessel a SHIP: 120x120x120 Size of SHIP: 5x2 Instructions to enter Size of ARK: 300x50x30 HUGE SHIP cubits; 7 stories; 9 stadia ark cubits; 3 stories divisions All kinds of animals All kinds of animals 7(x2) clean, 2 unclean 2 of all animals Flood and STORM for 7 FLOOD from heavy rain FLOOD FLOOD from rain for 40 FLOOD; founts. of deep days and STORM for 6 days days and rain, 150 days Ship on Mt. Nisir Ark on Ararat Abatement of waters Abatement of waters Abatement of waters Abatement of waters tested by birds tested by birds tested by birds through drying wind SACRIFICE to Sun-god SACRIFICE with sweet SACRIFICE to gods, SACRIFICE with sweet Landing from ark (after in ship savour on mountain after landing and savour after landing year (+10 days)) paying adoration to EARTH Anu and Enlil appeased Ea's protest to ENLIL APOTHEOSIS of X., Divine promise to Noah Divine covenant not (by "Heaven and Earth") IMMORTALITY of Ut-nap- wife, daughter, and not again to curse again to destroy EARTH IMMORTALITY of Ziusudu ishtim and his wife pilot the GROUND by flood; bow as sign
APPENDIX II THE ANTEDILUVIAN KINGS OF BEROSSUS AND THE SUMERIAN DYNASTIC LIST
It may be of assistance to the reader to repeat in tabular form the equivalents to the mythical kings of Berossus which are briefly discussed in Lecture I. In the following table the two new equations, obtained from the earliest section of the Sumerian Dynastic List, are in upper-case.(1) The established equations to other names are in normal case, while those for which we should possibly seek other equivalents are enclosed within brackets.(2) Aruru has not been included as a possible equivalent for {'Aloros}.(3) 1. {'Aloros} 2. {'Alaparos (? 'Adaparos)}, Alaporus, Alapaurus (Adapa) 3. {'Amelon, 'Amillaros}, Almelon (Amêlu) 4. {'Ammenon} ENMENUNNA 5. {Megalaros, Megalanos}, Amegalarus 6. {Daonos, Daos} ETANA 7. {Euedorakhos, Euedoreskhos}, Edoranchus Enmeduranki 8. {'Amemphinos}, Amemphsinus (Amêl-Sin) 9. {'Otiartes (? 'Opartes)} (Ubar-Tutu) 10. {Xisouthros, Sisouthros, Sisithros} Khasisatra, Atrakhasis(4)
(1) For the royal names of Berossus, see Euseb. chron. lib. pri., ed. Schoene, cols. 7 f., 31 ff. The latinized variants correspond to forms in the Armenian translation of Eusebius. (2) For the principal discussions of equivalents, see Hommel, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., Vol. XV (1893), pp. 243 ff., and Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament (1902), pp. 23 ff.; Zimmern, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 3rd ed. (1902), pp. 531 ff.; and cf. Lenormant, Les origines de l'histoire, I (1880), pp. 214 ff. See also Driver, Genesis, 10th ed. (1916), p. 80 f.; Skinner, Genesis, p. 137 f.; Ball, Genesis, p. 50; and Gordon, Early Traditions of Genesis, pp. 46 ff. (3) There is a suggested equation of Lal-ur-alimma with {'Aloros}. (4) The hundred and twenty "sars", or 432,000 years assigned by Berossus for the duration of the Antediluvian dynasty, are distributed as follows among the ten kings; the numbers are given below first in "sars", followed by their equivalents in years within brackets: 1. Ten "sars" (36,000); 2. Three (10,800); 3. Thirteen (46,800); 4. Twelve (43,200); 5. Eighteen (64,800); 6. Ten (36,000); 7. Eighteen (64,800); 8. Ten (36,000); 9. Eight (28,800); 10. Eighteen (64,800).
For comparison with Berossus it may be useful to abstract from the Sumerian Dynastic List the royal names occurring in the earliest extant dynasties. They are given below with variant forms from duplicate copies of the list, and against each is added the number of years its owner is recorded to have ruled. The figures giving the total duration of each dynasty, either in the summaries or under the separate reigns, are sometimes not completely preserved; in such cases an x is added to the total of the figures still legible. Except in those cases referred to in the foot-notes, all the names are written in the Sumerian lists without the determinative for "god". KINGDOM OF KISH (23 kings; 18,000 + x years, 3 months, 3 days) . . .(1) 8. (. . .) 900(?) years 9. Galumum, Kalumum 900 " 10. Zugagib, Zugakib 830 " 11. Arpi, Arpiu, Arbum 720 " 12. Etana(2) 635 (or 625) years 13. Pili . . .(3) 410 years 14. Enmenunna, Enmennunna(4) 611 " 15. Melamkish 900 " 16. Barsalnunna 1,200 " 17. Mesza(. . .) (. . .) " . . .(5) 22. . . . 900 years 23. . . . 625 " KINGDOM OF EANNA (ERECH)(6) (About 10-12 kings; 2,171 + x years) 1. Meskingasher 325 years 2. Enmerkar 420 " 3. Lugalbanda(7) 1,200 " 4. Dumuzi(8) (i.e. Tammuz) 100 " 5. Gishbilgames(9) (i.e. Gilgamesh) 126 (or 186) years 6. (. . .)lugal (. . .) years . . .(10) KINGDOM OF UR (4 kings; 171 years) 1. Mesannipada 80 years 2. Meskiagnunna 30 " 3. Elu(. . .) 25 " 4. Balu(. . .) 36 " KINGDOM OF AWAN (3 kings; 356 years) . . .(11)
(1) Gap of seven, or possibly eight, names. (2) The name Etana is written in the lists with and without the determinative for "god". (3) The reading of the last sign in the name is unknown. A variant form of the name possibly begins with Bali. (4) This form is given on a fragment of a late Assyrian copy of the list; cf. Studies in Eastern History, Vol. III, p. 143. (5) Gap of four, or possibly three, names. (6) Eanna was the great temple of Erech. In the Second Column of the list "the kingdom" is recorded to have passed from Kish to Eanna, but the latter name does not occur in the summary. (7) The name Lugalbanda is written in the lists with and without the determinative for "god". (8) The name Dumuzi is written in the list with the determinative for "god". (9) The name Gishbilgames is written in the list with the determinative for "god". (10) Gap of about four, five, or six kings. (11) Wanting.
At this point a great gap occurs in our principal list. The names of some of the missing "kingdoms" may be inferred from the summaries, but their relative order is uncertain. Of two of them we know the duration, a second Kingdom of Ur containing four kings and lasting for a hundred and eight years, and another kingdom, the name of which is not preserved, consisting of only one king who ruled for seven years. The dynastic succession only again becomes assured with the opening of the Dynastic chronicle published by Père Scheil and recently acquired by the British Museum. It will be noted that with the Kingdom of Ur the separate reigns last for decades and not hundreds of years each, so that we here seem to approach genuine tradition, though the Kingdom of Awan makes a partial reversion to myth so far as its duration is concerned. The two suggested equations with Antediluvian kings of Berossus both occur in the earliest Kingdom of Kish and lie well within the Sumerian mythical period. The second of the rulers concerned, Enmenunna (Ammenon), is placed in Sumerian tradition several thousand years before the reputed succession of the gods Lugalbanda and Tammuz and of the national hero Gilgamesh to the throne of Erech. In the first lecture some remarkable points of general resemblance have already been pointed out between Hebrew and Sumerian traditions of these early ages of the world.