|
Chapter 6 - The Bible and Babylonian
Creation Tablets
The paper read that day became famous and was enthusiastically
discussed in Europe and America. It produced a confident expectation that
further archaeological research would reveal the source from which the
early chapters of Genesis had been derived, or at least show that the
Babylonians had similar accounts. Consequently a sum of money was placed
at Mr. Smith's disposal by the Daily Telegraph so that he could himself
go to Assyria in search of the missing parts of the so-called 'Genesis
narratives'. Some fragments of the Deluge account were soon discovered
in the same ruined library at Nineveh. Mr. Smith thus described the finding
of a piece of a 'Creation tablet'. "My next discovery here was a
fragment evidently belonging to the creation of the world; this was the
upper comer of a tablet, and gave a fragmentary account of the creation
of animals. Further on in this trench I discovered two other portions
of this legend, one giving the creation and fall of man; the other having
part of the war between the gods and evil spirits. At that time I did
not recognise the importance of these fragments, excepting the one with
the account of the creation of animals, and, as I had immediately afterwards
to return to England, I made no further discoveries in this direction." Two years later the results of his efforts to recover the
Genesis stories were summarised in a volume entitled Chaldean Account
of Genesis ('containing the description of the Creation, the Fall of Man,
the Deluge, the Tower of Babel, the Times of the Patriarchs and Nimrod,
Babylonian fables and legends of the gods from the cuneiform inscriptions').
When it was published, some people imagined that these Babylonian Legends
would ultimately prove to be the source from which the Genesis narratives
had been derived and the long title certainly suggests it. Others boldly
asserted that by the discovery of these Assyrian tablets the origin of
the early chapters of Genesis had already been ascertained. It is now
known that the tablets Smith found represent not an original source, but
a muddied and contaminated river which had already travelled far from
its beginning. Writing of the Assyrian creation record he said that "the
tablets composing it are in a mutilated condition, and too fragmentary
to enable a single tablet to be completed, or to give more than a general
view of the whole subject. The story, as far as I can judge from the fragment,
agrees generally with the account of creation in the Book of Genesis,
but shows traces of having originally included very much more matter.
The fragments of the story which I have arranged are as follows : I have cited this able Assyriologist because of his interest
in the discovery of a Babylonian equivalent to the Genesis creation narrative,
and in order that we may see the origin and growth of the expectation
that a parallel account to that in the first chapter of Genesis would
one day be recovered from the soil of Mesopotamia. Notwithstanding unremitting
search by numerous scholars for over a period of seventy years, that expectation
has never been realised. On the contrary, as more and more of the missing
parts of these so-called tablets have come to light, the wider grows the
chasm which separates the Babylonian and Genesis records. The search for the missing fragments continued during the
earlier part of this century. In 1899, the Deutsche OrientGesellschaft
commenced the immense task of thoroughly excavating the city of Babylon,
but nothing was discovered there which added materially to our knowledge
of the Babylonian story of creation. But the German excavators at the
old capital of Assyria, Ashur (Kalah Sherghat), were in this respect more
successful, for they found some copies of the 'Creation' series, including
the long-missing sixth tablet. These new Assyrian texts were published
in 1919 by Dr. Erich Ebeling in Keilschrifttexte aus A Assur religiosen
Inhalts; but the newly discovered sixth tablet did not contain any of
the matter which Dr. Ryle said it 'must have recorded'. I submit that a comparison of the two accounts shows clearly
that the Bible owes nothing whatever to the Babylonian tablets. Perhaps
it is not surprising to find as the various fragments were discovered,
pieced together, and deciphered, that the more comprehensive knowledge
about these tablets did not overtake the old false conjectures and expectations
as to their probable contents. At first many archaeologists were inclined
to agree with Smith that the probable origin of the Bible narrative was
the Babylonian Legend; but when these completed tablets came to light
it became obvious that the Genesis account was not derived from the Babylonian.
Thus in The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight between Bel
and the Dragon, issued by the Trustees of the British Museum, we read
that "the fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts
are essentially different ". Sir Ernest Budge said, "It must
be pointed out that there is no evidence at all that the two accounts
of the creation, which are given in the early chapters of Genesis, are
derived from the seven tablets" (Babylonian Life and History, p.
85). It is more than a pity that many theologians, instead of keeping
abreast of modem archaeological research, continue to repeat the now disproved
theory of Hebrew 'borrowings' from Babylonian sources. For instance, we
find the following paragraph even in the late editions of Dr. Driver's
Genesis (p. 27), "The more immediate source of the Biblical cosmogony,
however, there can be little doubt, has been brought to light recently
from Babylonia. Between 1872 and 1876 that skilful collector and decipherer
of cuneiform records, the late Mr. George Smith, published, partly from
tablets found by him in the British Museum, partly from those he had discovered
himself in Assyria, a number of inscriptions containing, as he quickly
perceived, a Babylonian account of creation. Since that date other tablets
have come to light; and though the series relating to the creation is
still incomplete, enough remains not only to exhibit clearly the general
scheme Of the cosmogony but also to make it evident that the Cosmogony
of the Bible is dependent upon it." The newer information we now
possess emphatically contradicts Dr. Driver's final statement, and I submit
that there was no evidence whatever to support it. Even Jeremias who argues
that both Bible and Babylonian tablets had a common origin Says (Old Testament
in the Light of the Acient East, Vol. p. 196), "The prevailing assumptian
of a literary dependence of the Biblical records of creation upon Babylonian
texts is very frail." But this deposed theory, rejected by archaeologists,
remains a popular impression to this day, as may be seen from the report
on Doctrine in the Church of England, where it is stated (P. 45) that
"it is generally agreed among educated Christians that these (Gen.
i and ii)'are mythological in origin ". In order that we may test the widespread assumption that Genesis record is based on the mythological Babylonian accounts, I select from nearly 8oo lines of crude polytheistic and mythological matter, those lines which bear the closest resemblance to Genesis i, though to my mind they have no more similarity than a mud hut has to a palace. I use Dr. Langdon's translation (Epic of Creation, Oxford University Press). TABLET I Line 1. When on high the heavens were not named 2. And beneath a home bore no name, 3. And Apsu primeval, their engenderer, 4. And the 'Form', Tiamat, the bearer of all of them, 5. There mingled their waters together; 6. Dark chambers were not constructed, and marshlands were not seen, 8. And they were not named, and fates were not fixed, 9. Then were created the gods in the midst thereof 81. In the midst of the nether sea was born Asur, 95. Four were his eyes, four were his cars, 132. Mother Huber, the designer of all things, 133. Added thereto weapons which are not withstood; she gave birth to the monsters. 135. With poison like blood she filled their bodies, Colophon. First tablet of "when on high" taken from upon a tablet . . . a copy from Babylon, according to its original it was written: The tablet of Nabu-musetik-umi son of . . . 5th month Ayyar 9th day 27th year of Darius. TABLET 4 Line 128. Unto Tiamat whom he had bound he returned again. 129. The lord trod upon her hinder part. 130. With his toothed sickle he split her scalp. 131. He severed the arteries of her blood. 132. The north wind carried it away into hidden places. 133. His fathers saw and were glad shouting for joy, 134. Gifts and presents they caused to be brought unto him, 135. The lord rested beholding the cadaver, 136. As he divided the monster, devising cunning things. 137. He split her into two parts like a closed fish. 138. Half of her he set up and made the heavens as a covering 139. He slid the bolt and caused watchmen to be stationed. 140. He directed them not to let her waters come forth TABLET 6 Line 1. When Marduk heard the words of the gods, his heart prompted him as he devised clever things. 2. He opened his mouth speaking unto Ea, that which he conceived in his heart, giving him counsel. 3. Blood will I construct, bone will I cause to be. 4. Verily I will cause Lilu (man) to stand forth, verily his name is man. 5. I will create Lilu, man. 6. Verily let the cult services of the gods be imposed, and let them be Pacified. 7. I will moreover skilfully contrive the ways of the gods. 8. All together let them be honoured and may they be divided into two parts. 9. Ea replied to him, speaking to him a word. 10. For in pacification of the gods he imparted to him a plan. 11. Let one of their brothers be given. He shall perish and men be fashioned. 12. Let the great gods assemble. Let this one be given and as for them may they be sure of it, 13. Marduk assembled the great gods, 23. It was Kingu that made war; 24. That caused Tiamat to revolt and joined battle. 25. They bound him and brought him before Ea. Punishment they imposed upon him, they severed the arteries of his blood. 26. With his blood he (Ea) made mankind. In the cult service
of the gods, and he set the 27. After Ea had created mankind and (?) had imposed the cult service of the gods upon him. Colophon.-Sixth tablet of "when on high". The
colophon of this tablet is badly damaged but on tablet BM (2629 there
is the name of the owner of the tablet, Nabu-balatsu-ikbi. I submit that the continued propagation of these legends
as the source from which the Genesis narrative is derived is entirely
unjustifiable. Surely it is not reasonable to imagine these crude accounts
of gods and goddesses plotting war amongst themselves, smashing skulls,
getting drunk and similar activities, as the basis of the first chapter
of the Bible. When Mr. George Smith discovered the first fragment in the
British Museum he imagined that it referred to the creation of animals;
now we know the animals referred to were the 'monsters' created in order
to fight Tiamat. The old theory of the supposed similarities between the
Bible and Babylonian tablets was founded on the 'expectation' that discoveries
would provide the missing links; excavation has proved this hope to be
false. Until recent years it was thought that the account was written
on seven tablets; but the more recent discoveries have clearly shown that
this was not the case. In his Semitic Mythology (p. 289), Professor Langdon
states, "The Babylonian Epic of Creation was written in six books
or tablets, with a late appendix added as the seventh book, as a commentary
on the fifty sacred Sumerian titles of Marduk. 'No copies of the Babylonian
text exists earlier than the age of '--Nebuchadnezzar. The epic had immense
vogue in Assyria, where the national god Ashur replaced Marduk's name
in most of the copies, and it is from the city of Ashur that all the earliest
known texts are derived. These are at least three centuries earlier than
any surviving southern copy. Since traces of the influence of the epic
are found in the Babylonian iconography as early as the sixteenth century,
it is assumed that the work was composed in the period of Babylon's great
literary writers of the first dynasty." George Smith and others had
conjectured that the Assur tablets had been copied from Babylonian sources,
the finding of tablet 45528 proved this, for the colophon read: The closest resemblance, and certainly the most significant one, is that from the days of Abraham (which is as far back as can at present be traced) the Babylonians always recorded the 'creation' series on six tablets. Although there is this agreement in the number six, the similarity ends there. Long ago Schrader wrote in his Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament (Vol. I, P. 15), "Neither the cuneiform creation story nor that of Berossus gives any hint that the Babylonians regarded the creation of the universe as taking place in seven days. " Professor Landon summarised the Epic in these words, "The arrangement of the poem in six books was probably taken from the rules of liturgical compositions. When the Babylonians edited the canonical Sumerian liturgies for their own use and provided the Sumerian text with an interlinear Semitic version, the material was almost invariably distributed over six tablets. " It is important that we should notice that nowhere in the Babylonian account is there any suggestion of the creation of the world in six days, or in six periods. After seventy years of search into supposed likenesses between the Bible and Babylonian tablets the only valid similarity is that the Genesis narrative is divided into six days, numbered one to six, and that the Babylonian accounts of creation are almost invariably written on six tablets. Why six? |