MAN: SERVANT OF THE CITY AND LORD OF THE WORLD A thorough comparison between the Creation s Accounts in Genesis I-2 and in Enuma Elish Metropolitan of Bursa Prof. Dr. Elpidophoros To speak about creation is to speak about the human being per se. It is quite impossible for any kind of utterance to be made about the very origins, the absolute beginnings of the World and of the human race, simply because nobody was there to witness these events in person, so nobody is able, as a result, to hold any sort of knowledge about that period. In the final analysis, even if such a knowledge were available to us, it would not have any meaning at all, since the importance lies only in the present state of the world and of humanity. Occasionally, however, a group of people made the effort to speak about that day. The day when: earth had been not yet separated from the heaven, when the name of the man had been not yet fixed and when the bread had been not yet baked in the ovens of the land 1. But, each time a community turned its glance back to the beginning of the ages, it did so neither because of the desire to describe how the world actually was once upon a time, nor for meditation about an ideal world, but in order to establish a more clear and comprehensible image of the world as we experience it, and as it really is. As a result of this process, every account of the creation reflects the point of view of the people who speak about it; someone can discern within these texts the mentality of the community who composed them. It is almost a kind of projection, the fact that certain groups of people dressed their history with the garments of creation s stories. Everything that is related to the past of a community is of extreme importance because in the past, or even better, in the way that the community perceives its own past, lies its very identity. Furthermore, as one reads the creation stories in their entireties, that is to say, the narratives about how humanity reached its present state, one has the impression that the texts intend to make a statement concerning the human condition itself; as J. Scullion points out, one can almost hear the sigh of the writer such is the race of humans from the beginning, such will it always be 2. 1 S.N.Kramer (trs.), From The Poetry of Sumer: Creation, Glorification, Adoration, University of California, Berkeley, 1979, p.23. Also mentioned in Richard Clifford s Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Washington DC, 1994, p. 23. 2 In Genesis, A Commentary for Students, Teachers, and Preachers, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1992, p.9.
In the present study our attempt will be toward an in-depth examination of the two predominant creation accounts that fully survived up to us from the region of the Near East: the Biblical version, as it is recorded in Genesis I-2, and the Babylonian chronicle, as it is preserved in the epic Enuma Elish. We will bring together these texts, without any intention to prove the superiority of one over the other, but with the belief that focusing on and examining their peculiarities, differences and similarities, their comprehension will be more creative, more positive and more effective. The fact that indeed there exists a kind of relationship between the two texts is beyond any doubt. C. Westermann recognizes that the J. and P. elaborate an older material of primeval motifs which both traditions not only adopted and refashioned but also were heirs of an already formed tradition 3. However, this paper will not be engaged in the controversy of the possibility of a mutual influence between the texts; such an issue is beyond our scope. Here, we are precisely interested in what the texts themselves say, rather than on what the scholars say about these texts. At this point we should make clear that to speak about texts constitutes a peculiar action; a text can only be heard or read, it cannot be seen in the way that an image or a statue is seen; therefore, the text itself does not impose any picture on the reader s mind but rather it opposes any kind of imagery, representation or vision; we will approach these texts not as idols (i.e., like something which stands in the place of something else which, furthermore, is absent, if not nonexistent) but rather as speeches that, whenever recited, bring back to life the voice of the one who initially pronounced them. Besides, the truth is always iconoclastical. Both texts begin with a short reference to the time when none of the things that we know today existed 4. This reference has been modified to the formula where there was not yet. If we recognize a sort of difficulty in speaking about creation, the same difficulty and even greater applies to the period before creation. The time before creation, that is, before existence, prohibits any possibility to meaningful utterance. The human word is strongly intertwined with the limits of the human world; it cannot extend beyond it, nor can it express things beyond this world or things prior to time and space. All meaning in language is derived from the existing world; when language, therefore, places itself above the world, it becomes nonsensical. The Biblical texts avoid such a danger by speaking of the period before the creation of the world with the terminology and the language of the world (even if, supposedly, this world is about to be), but from a negative point; for example, if the writer wants to 3 In Genesis 1-11, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1984, p.64. 4 Genesis: 1:2, Enuma Elish: Tablet I, 1-8.
describe a situation when there is no vegetation, he does not begin to reflect about being and non-being, but chooses instead to speak negatively about a reed as follows: when not even a reed marsh was to be seen 5. A second point that we should note here is that a thing does not exist as long as it has not been named. This axiom is valid for both Genesis and Enuma Elish and it is more clear in the introductory part of the latter, where we read: when none of the gods had been brought into being when they had not yet been called by their names......lahmu and Lahamu came into being; they were called by their names. (Tablet I, 7-10) 6 Here, to be named and to exist are the two sides of the same coin. Later on, we will discuss to a greater extent the importance of naming within the framework of creation. What is interesting for us now is the fact that things which do not exist are also nameless, simply because language cannot know the non-existent. Besides all that, a question emerges at this point: what is the function of such a reference to the time before creation? Surely, not a description of chaos. The answer lies in the ephemeral character of the world; from the moment that creation had a beginning, its end should always be taken into consideration. And if there were a time when nothing at all existed, there will come again a period when nothing will be any more. Therefore, we should read the reference that the texts make to the time before creation as a warning, one that prevents the world and its existence from being taken for granted 7. There are several kinds of creations or, to put it better, there are several kinds of processes through which creation takes place. R.Clifford distinguishes six types of creation according to structure (i. creation from nothing, ii. creation from chaos, iii. creation from a cosmic egg, iv. world parent myths, v. emergence myths, vi. earth-diver myths) 8, while C. Westermann categorizes four types of action within the event of creation (i. creation by birth, ii. creation out of struggle or victory, iii. creation by an action or activity, iv. creation through a world) 9. All these categories will be summarized in two major divisions, i.e., creation by a succession of births and creation by action. We should consider the type of creation by a succession of births as linked with the older idea of the origins (and 5 Enuma Elish, Tablet I, 6. 6 Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1951, p.18. 7 Claus Westermann, op.cit. p.44. 8 Op.cit. p.1. 9 Op.cit. p.26.
not of creation as an event or a deed performed by the God-creator), while the type of the creation by action is obviously associated with the person who acts by fashioning, making and forming the created world. In the book of Genesis, one can find both types, even within the same verse : 2:4a these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created 2:4b in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens In the first half of the verse which belongs to P we come upon the tradition of the origin as a process of births while in the second half which marks the beginning of J s tradition we encounter the pure concept of creation, that is creation as the personal deed of a god. Each text, moving by its own peculiar reasons, puts the emphasis either on one or the other aspect of creation s process, although that in a greater or shorter extent they combine both. In the Enuma Elish the narration is centered around the struggle between the two major figures, Tiamat and Marduk, and the creation of the world comes as a result of this struggle; however, before that, the text informs us that the entire pantheon in the epic was created after a series of births by the primeval couple, Apsu and Tiamat. Here, the idea of creation out of struggle loses its significance for the sake of the idea of creation by a succession of births. The latter is more impersonal, since it follows an almost natural course, the creation itself is something that happens and the notion of a god who deliberately creates the world is not necessary. Perhaps, it was this reason that made Israel to reject the idea of creation in terms of births by giving it a new meaning, as it is preserved in the narration of genealogies. In order to understand why the two texts hold different attitudes toward the event of creation, we should first take a look in what creation means for them. The key-point for the understanding of Genesis creation account is that the Biblical text is a narration of the primeval stories and, at the same time, the exegesis of these stories. The prism through which this exegesis views the story of creation as C. Westermann had strongly supported throughout his monumental work is the event of Exodus 1-18. But since the episodes of the Exodus are nothing but a par excellence manifestation of Cod s intervention to the history of His chosen people, the narration of creation in Genesis is clearly moving from the state of mythology to that of history. Therefore, the biblical creation account functions, in a first level, as the connective link between the primeval stories which it borrowed from the various mythologies of Near East and the history of Israel. This fact is made evident by numerous examples throughout Genesis. For instance, in the book of Genesis human society is presented as destined to exist only through procreation and possession of land (1:28). But, what else could this signify if not the pressing demand of an exiled
people who lack both of them? This phenomenon is comprehensible enough; Israel has experienced the redemptive intervention of God in Exodus and has extended it retrogressively to the Creation 10. But it would not have any special meaning if it were only that. The most obvious thing in Genesis is also the most astonishing one. As soon as one reads the biblical narration, one immediately understands that this narrative concerns not only Israel, but rather, and herein lies the rub, it touches humanity in its entirety. Creation is precisely the creation of the whole world and the genealogies of Adam are a long chain which includes any member of the human family. A long discussion has been introduced at this point, by many scholars, concerning the precedence of the creation of the individual over the creation of the whole. 11 Even though in both texts these traditions have been brought together, Genesis account identified the two versions by referring both acts of creation the creation of world and the creation of man to the same person, Yahweh. On the contrary, in the epic Enuma Elish, the god-creator of the world (Marduk) is differentiated from the god-creator of Man (Ea), the idea that the latter was creating under the instruction of the former should be taken as a later elaboration. Still, an issue here has been left open; from various points throughout the text of Genesis it becomes clear that the creation of the whole (i.e., of the world) precedes the creation of the individual (Man), but only for the sake of the latter. Regardless of the time s sequence, it is the creation of Man which takes precedence over the creation of the world. Or to put it in other words, the creation of the world prepares the creation of man, and the creation of Man opens the way to history. In Enuma Elish now, the creation of the world, as a result of divine struggle, stands almost independently from the creation of Man which seems to have happened accidentally 12. Until now we have to deal with two sets, on the one hand, the Creator and history and, on the other hand, the Creator and created Man. In the Biblical account, the Creator-god has a history and He is bound by it; in Enuma Elish the gods may have a story but they lack this specific relation with time and space. Tiamat and Marduk belong exclusively to the realm 10 Bernahard Anderson had spoke of a twofold function embedded in Genesis narration: Just as the creation points forward to the Exodus and the making of the covenant with Sinai, so the covenant faith reaches backward and includes the creation. (From Creation to New Creation, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1994, p.24). 11 C.Westermann, op.cit. pp.22-24. 12 This is made evident just by the comparison of the size that the two narrations occupied in the body of the epic as a whole, the creation of the man is expanded in 33 verses (Tablet IV), while the account of the struggle and the creation of the world are narrated in 598 verses (Tablet I - III).
of mythology, their creations seem to be more or less establishments of a cultic or ritual circle which as such is timeless; the creation in Enuma Elish could be repeated in the basis of the annual round of the religious festivities. Each time that the epic was recited, during the fifth day of the Babylonian feast for the New Year, people experienced again the same struggle between Tiamat and Marduk, and Man was repeatedly reborn and recreated. In Genesis, by contrast, everything is unrepeatable and unique as the Exodus was, and creation is an once-for-all event that marked the beginning of history 13. But something which is unrepeatable should be by necessity unparalleled. By demythologizing the primeval stories, Genesis manages to emphasize the uniqueness of the Creator-god and consequently, the particular importance of the created person as the one who is always in an immediate relationship with its Creator. The peculiar dynamics of such a relationship between God and human being will be discuss in detail later on; first we have to go into a comparison of the two texts as far as creation and matter and creation by word are concerned. Of course, the most obvious difference is the polytheism of Enuma Elish versus the monotheism of Genesis. Because of this differentiation, the entire first part of the epic deals with the theogony of the Babylonian pantheon, while in Genesis there is not even one trace of God s origin 14. Furthermore, in the biblical account there is no suggestion that God is bound or conditioned by chaos, in contrast to Enuma Elish which presents the birth of gods out of the functional figure of Tiamat. In the Babylonian tradition, the primordial abyss is a living entity while the account of Genesis demythologizes it by depicting an inanimate watery chaos which eventually is separated into waters and dry land (1:2b,1:6-9). Tiamat is clearly a mythical personality functioning as the personification of the watery deep (Tablet I,5-6) which in Genesis is just called tehom, a word which completely lacks any connection with the mythical realm. Any attempt to associate the two words on a grammatical basis has been deemed impossible for a long period of time. The name Tiamat is feminine while the word Tehom is masculine, and the valid rule is that usually the feminine world derives from the masculine one and not vice versa. The only possible suggestion is that both words go back to a common Semitic etymology 15. Besides that, the question of a pre-existing material out of which the Creator forms the world, or of an ex nihilo creation cannot be discussed herein; the only thing that makes a difference is the 13 Anderson, op.cit., p.27. 14 From Israel s point of view, as Westermann has correctly pointed out, god should be beyond any origin, to be created means to be not-god. (Op.cit., p.26.). 15 A. Heidel, op.cit., pp.99-100.
fact that the Babylonian creator is more likely about to shape or form the world rather than to create it with perfect freedom and without any constraints or limitation that matter may impose upon him, as is the case with the Biblical God 16. The Babylonian creator and the creator-god of the ancient Greeks, especially as Plato understands him in the Timaeus is more a decorator than a creator. The notion of cosmos, as beauty and order, suggests a world decorated by the god and not deliberately created by him. If this is correct then a series of serious problems follow; the world exists because of necessity and not because of its creator s free will, also god s freedom is vanished due to the limitations that the matter and the space impose to him and ultimately god himself is found within the world and bound by it, destined to follow its conclusion. But this is a radically different example with what is the case in Genesis. Another obvious difference between the two texts is the process through which creation takes place. In Enuma Elish all the weight of the narration is carried by the description of the struggle between Apsu and Ea (Tablet I, 37-76) and chiefly between Tiamat and Marduk (Tablet I, 141-Tablet IV, 120). In Genesis, on the other hand, there is not clear suggestion for such struggle. Besides, two more things offer to us a sufficient proof about the Biblical intention of demythologizing the primeval stories that it had succeeded; the creation of earth and the creation of the luminaries. Again, the concept of mythos is profound in Enuma Elish even regarding the creation of those secondary elements that constituted the creation of the world in the wider sense. The earth is made up from the half part of the murdered body of Tiamat. Therefore, the earth, because of its nature, should exist eternally. The only common element, which leads us back to a common property of almost all cosmogonies, is that in both cases, earth is covered or comes out of water. As far as the creation of luminaries or lights is concerned, two point need attention: firstly, in both Genesis and Enuma Elish the light exists independently and proceeds the creation of the luminaries and secondly in Enuma Elish the luminaries are connected with astronomy and astrology, while in Genesis avoids to mention even the names of the two lights (the sun and the moon) wishing to free them from all the mythological reference and by using a common language more close to a rational explanation. In parallel with the creation of the earth, the Babylonian cosmogony describes the stars as the dwelling place of three hundred gods (Tablet VI, 42) and thus it falls to pantheism. On the contrary, in the biblical account both earth and lights are 16 This is precisely the meaning underscored by the Hebrew verb: bara (=to create) exclusively attributed to God s creative action.
presented out of any divine connotation; their only link with the divine is the fact that they are created by God. The biblical idea of the creation by the divine word is unique and unparalleled. As A. Heidel has concluded, the world of God is almighty, he commands and the result is in perfect conformity with his command. 17 However, the power of the god s word finds evidence in the Babylonian account as well. Before the great confrontation between Tiamat and Marduk, the latter was enthroned in the middle of gods assembly in order for his strength to be tested, then, they placed a garment in their midst; to Marduk, their first-born, they said thy destiny, O lord, shall be supreme among the gods. Command to destroy and to create, (and) they shall be! By the word of thy mouth, let the garment be destroyed; Command again, and let the garment be whole! He commanded with his mouth, and the garment was destroyed. He commanded again, and the garment was restored. (Tablet IV, 19-26) Although, the idea of the garment, in the ancient mythologies, usually functions as a symbol of the created world, in this case the word of Marduk has not application in the creation itself, and lacks the power that the word of Yahweh has, otherwise Marduk could destroy Tiamat without any other mean but simply by his word. We have now to return to the statement that we did previously that the creation of the world prepares in a sense the ground for the creation of the man. This is valid almost exclusively for the biblical account, since, as we have already seen, in the Babylonian version the creation of the world stands independently from the creation of the man which is occurred because of other expediencies. For the text s point of view it seems that the purpose for which the world was created is nothing else but a living space for humanity. In other words, the measure for world s creation is the creation of man. And indeed, the Creator-God does not bring the world to the existence primarily for the sake of the divine world, but rather through the steps of the cosmogony the world is made increasingly suitable for human habituation. C. Westermann asserts that even the verbs make and create indicate the creation of a world that is meant to be a living space for humankind...the world that God created is meant to be the world of 17 Op.Cit. p.27.
people 18. Therefore, we cannot speak about creation in Genesis without focusing on the creation of the man. Man in accordance with J is created by formatting out of clay, while the world is created by division or separation. In P s version man is also made according to God s image and likeness. It is believed that the creation out of clay is a more primitive and older element while the notion of God s image and likeness responds to a later and much more spiritualized tradition 19. However, this notion creation of a human in the likeness of a god is already found in the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh, where we read: When Anu in the sky heard this, he said to Aruru, great goddess of creation that she is: You created humans; create again in the image of Gilgamesh and let this imitation be as quick in heart and as strong in arm so that these counterforces might first engage, then disengage, and finally let Uruk s children live in peace. Hearing that, Aruru thought of Anu. Then she wet her creative fingers, fashioned a rock, and tossed it as far as she could into the woods. Thus she fathered Enkidu...bringing forth another likeness of Ninutra, god of war. (Tablet I, 69-83) 20. Here, both versions of the man s creation are known, Enkidu is created from clay and also according to the image of Gilgamesh (who was the king of Uruk, and thus the god s representative) and the likeness of Ninutra, god of war. The interesting point though, in the aforementioned passage, is that the creation of Enkidu takes place after a decision made by Anu and executed by Aruru as she has in her mind the thought of Anu. In the Babylonian tradition of the creation, man (Lullu) is made out from the blood of a defeated god, Kingu, who had plotted against Marduk and the rest of gods by supporting Tiamat. Man is not created from clay and there is not a decision before his creation but only as far as his creation solves a problem, namely, complains of the vanquished gods who served the victorious deities. Besides, the epic of Gilgamesh and the epic of Enuma Elish share a common tradition, the god who commands the creation of 18 Op.Cit., p.87. 19 Westermann, Op.cit., p.36. 20 The Epic of Gilgamesh, Jackson, Biggs and Kapheim (eds.), Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Wauconda, Illinois, 1992, p.4.
man (Anu or Marduk) is differentiated from the god who actually creates man (Aruru or Ea). The decision before the creation of man (especially in the case of Genesis) is usually interpreted as a distinction of the man from the other living beings, since the decision of the creator mirrors the capacity to reflect which is granted to human beings 21. Man, as a created thing, has his portion within both, the creation and the creator, the world and the God. Genesis does not totally separated man from the rest of creation. The God s blessing over the birds and the fishes (1:22) is repeated in an expanded form to the human couple (1:28). The verbs create and bless are applied indifferently to both humans and animals. Moreover, the necessity of food is a condition common to both of them 22. The phrase for the reproduction of each species (1:11, 21, 24) is transposed for the human race into sexes and sexuality; the latter is issued as the human version of the reproductive capacity inherent in all life forms 23. The idea of the toledot, however, consists of a series of births through sexuality, procreation and family; the essential list of genealogies, which traces the human race back to its origin, is also found in the reproductive capacity of the animals, with the difference that in the case of humans, it is not only through births that a genealogy is made up but also through the names of the originators; thus, the capability of language and naming it is the only element that differentiates the man from the animal. At the same time, the same capacity links man with God. In various cases throughout the Genesis text, God names his creatures (1:5,8,10), naming appears to be an equally creative action as forming, making, separating and dividing. Consequently, to name is to exercise dominion 24. But, this right to the dominion has been also granted to man, who is the only creature in the account of Genesis who names (2:19-20, 24). The dominate character of man is pointed in many other places throughout the Biblical account; for example, he was appointed to rule the life of each of three domains sea, sky and earth as the sun and the moon govern day and night. It has been recognized by many scholars and for a long period of time that in Genesis man is depicted in royal terms very similar to that of the king in the political ideology of the Near East 25. This statement finds evidence in the text itself. The astonished thing, however, is the fact that the Biblical account does not include any mention of a 21 C. Westermann, op.cit. p.36. 22 C. Westermann, Genesis, T. and T. Clark, Edinburg, Scotland, 1995, pp. 7-11. 23 R. Clifford, op.cit., p.144. 24 J. Scullion, op.cit., p.19. 25 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p.38 (where he quotes H. Wildberger) and Clifford, op.cit., p.143.
king while in the Mesopotamian versions the king is created separately from the other humans in order to oversee the human activities but the man in Genesis is a layman, a mere and everyday man who is the king of himself and the lord of the world. In the epic of Enuma Elish, the creation of man serves expediency. After the victory of Marduk over Tiamat, the former had taken as captivates all those deities who had supported Tiamat and he had put them in the service of the gods (Tablet IV, 111-114, 127). But eventually, these deities found their task very burdensome and asked Marduk for relief. It was at this point where: As Marduk hears the words of the gods, his heart prompts (him) to create ingenious things. He conveys his idea to Ea, Imparting the plan [which] he had conceived in his heart: Blood will I form and cause bone to be; Then will I set up lullu, Man shall be his name! Yes, I will create lullu:: Man! (Upon him) shall the services of the gods be imposed that they may be at rest. (Tablet VI, 1-8). First of all the man is created from the blood of a vanquished god, even if that asserts a portion to the divine realm the emphasis is put on the fact that humanity by its origin will be always a servant of the gods. The God of Genesis does not require servants; the human race has consequently a different relation to work and to the world, it is obviously for his own interest, God did not ask for any returns 26. Therefore, for the Babylonians the first entrance of the man to the drama of the creation and of the history has been the cultic obligations and all the ritual practices that surround the human activities. The second aspect which needs to be mentioned here is that the Babylonian cosmogony including the purposes of the man s creation reflects the political structure of the Babylon. Since the whole world is conceived as a state, the god is in fact king, the master and the owner of the land. Marduk becomes king only at the height of the crisis in order to save the assembly of the gods, thus the divine monarchy itself is the product of confusion and anxiety. On the other hand, the sovereignty of the god over the city is fully manifested only in the person of the king who, without being personally a god, holds his sovereignty by divine favor 27. Therefore, the 26 A. Heidel, op.cit., p.121. 27 In this conclusion the examination of the ancient Mesopotamian epics had led Paul Ricoeur, in his treatise about The symbolism of Evil, Beacon Press, Boston, 1967, p.194.
man in Enuma Elish because of his origin must always show obedience to his king and respond to his role as the servant of the city.