A Synopsis of this website's MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES:
21 February 2007
Please click here for this website's most important article: Why the Bible Cannot be the Word of God.
(1) "Why a _naked_ Adam in Eden?"
(2) "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as Reworked Mesopotamian Motifs"
(3) "Adam's 'Fall from Grace' a reworking of Mesopotamian Motifs"
(4) "Locating the Garden of Eden via Mesopotamian Creation Myths"
(5) "Sabbath Origins and the Epics of Atrahasis and Gilgamesh"
(1) "Why a _Naked_ Adam in Eden?"
The Sumerian myths regarding the creation of man -to some degree- AGREE with Genesis: Man was: 1) created by a god (Enki supervising man's creation); 2) Made "naked and left in that state" for an undetermined period of time; 3) Man was placed in a location called edin which in Sumerian means "desert" (desert-plain or steppe); 4) A god (Enki) placed naked man in HIS "fruit-tree garden" to till and tend it forevermore in Eridu, in edin-the-plain; 5) Man eventually learns it is wrong to be naked and clothes himself, an echo of the Sumerian notion that the gods wore clothes, and knew it was wrong to be naked, yet they denied man this knowledge, allowing him to wander edin the plain without clothes, with only wild animals for companions who were naked like himself.
The modern secular humanist disciplines of Anthropology and Archaeology have determined that the Sumerian priests were WRONG, the gods did NOT teach man it was wrong to be naked, the gods did NOT create man so he could work in their gardens, relieveing some of them of toil (at Eridu and Nippur); the gods' did NOT first build cities and later have man live in these cities while toiling in their gardens. The gods are NOT the source of man's acquistion of the "arts of civilization."
Anthropologists and Archaeologists understand CORRECTLY man TRANSFORMED HIMSELF from a naked beast to a Civilized clothes-wearing city dweller, NOT the gods. He did this in the course of the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, the 10th-5th millenniums BCE, sophisticated cultured cities arising in the Early Bronze Age, the 5th-3rd millenniums BCE.
Genesis' notion that Man was initially naked and without knowledge of "good and evil" preserves somewhat the Sumerian notion that when the gods made man, they made him naked, and left him that way for a period of time, in other words, THE GODS AT FIRST DENIED MAN KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS WRONG TO BE NAKED, later, the gods (who wear clothes), decide to make naked man the brute _into a civilized human_, and teach him that to be naked is wrong, that is to say the KNOWLEDGE DENIED MAN BY THE GODS, is now given to him. He is civilized, he comes to work in the gods' gardens, wear clothes, lives in cities, and acquires the arts of civilization previously KNOWN ONLY BY THE GODS, that is to say _MAN BECOMES LIKE A GOD_, "knowing good and evil" (i.e., it is wrong to be naked), the LAWS and MORES that govern civilized life_, originally possessed ONLY by the gods, before man's creation AND INITIALLY DENIED HIM. According to these myths the gods also gave man the arts of civilization: law, metallurgy, music, mathematics, the fine arts, writing, and literature.
The main purpose of my website, titled "Bible Origins," (begun 17 Dec 2000) was _to identify_ "the pre-biblical origins" of religious concepts found in Genesis regarding its portrayal of man and his relationship with God.
Dear reader, you have now read what I regard as my most important article on this website. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all founded on the "myths" of Genesis, its naked Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden they were made to tend and till. Secular Humanism and its disciplines of Anthropology and Archaeology are RIGHT about man's "true origins" and Judaism, Christianity and Islam have got it ALL WRONG, along with the Sumerian priests: a God or Gods, did not make man to tend his/their garden on the earth. A god or Gods did not deny man the knowledge it was wrong to be naked. There was no "fall" from grace by a naked Adam and Eve, requiring Christ's intervention to save mankind from Adam's fall and sin.
Is there a "way out" of all this for Bible-believers ? Perhaps. They could argue that the Sumerian myths about gods making a naked mankind to roam edin the plain and having him tend their earthly garden in edin of Sumer, is nothing more than a "corrupted" pagan recollection of the "true circumstances" revealed by God to Moses when he allegedly wrote Genesis ca. 1446-1440 BCE (Ussher's chronology found in Protestant Bibles) during the 40 years of wandering accompanying the Exodus. As for the claims of archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists, etc. that man existed hundreds of thousands of years before Genesis' creation of Eden in 4004 BCE, what can mere mortals know about the truth of the Bible? The earth and the universe for some of these believers really is about 6,000 to 7,000 years old as preserved in the Jewish calendar (the Christian year 1988 A.D. being 5748 years since the earth's creation according to the Jewish Publication Society's 1988 version of the TANAKH).
Professor Cross on the importance in determing the origins of Israel's beliefs from a historical and non-theological point of view (which I have attempted at this website):
"If we propose to study the history of the religion of ancient Israel, we must be governed by the same postulates that are the basis of modern historical method. Our task must be a historical, not a theological, enterprise. We must trace the origins and development of Israel's religion, its emergence from its West Semitic, particularly Canaanite past, its continuities with the past, its innovations, individual or peculiar configurations, its new emergent whole, and its subsequent changes and evolution...The religion of Israel was born the child of ancient Near Eastern religion, and especially the religious culture of ancient Canaan...We wish first of all to understand the emergence of Israelite religion from its context and to follow its early development...The study of origins is always difficult but has a unique fascination. The possibility of such a study in concrete detail is recent. Little more than a century ago, the Hebrew Bible was an isolated artifact of Near Eastern civilization, a monument of faith without known context or ancestry. Historical questions of "origins" or "emergence" could not be answered satisfactorily and indeed were rarely addressed. Today, thanks to the archaeological exploration of Israel and neighboring lands, the history of Israel has become part of the history of the ancient Near Eastern world. Israel's ancient literature can be viewed increasingly as evolving out of the genres of kindred literatures. We possess Northwest Semitic epic literature from a century or so before Moses. The religion of Israel can now be described in its continuities with, and in its contrasts with, contemporary Near Eastern and especially West Semitic mythology and cult." (pp. 42-45. Frank Moore Cross. "The History of Israelite Religion, A Secular or Theological Subject ?" Biblical Archaeological Review. May/June 2005. Vol. 31. No. 3. Washington, DC)
It goes without saying then, that the Garden of Eden story (Ge 1-4) is a MYTH -a reworking of earlier Sumerian myths about man's creation- recalling man's transformation from naked beast to clothes-wearing civilized city-dwelling man. There is NO Adam, NO Eve, NO serpent, NO Garden of Eden, NO "fall from grace," and NO need for a God in heaven to send "his only begotten son" to the earth to save mankind from Adam and Eve's "fall" and "sin" passed on to all the generations of man as noted by the apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 RSV
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
Speaking from an Anthropological viewpoint, in reality, it was NOT a god or gods who taught man it was wrong to be naked, and provide him with clothes (as in the Sumerian Eridu Myth), nor was it the gods or a god who made man to tend his/their garden on the earth, teaching him "how" to be an agriculturalist. That great achievement was man's doing, not a god's. Man gave up being a nomadic "gatherer-hunter," gave up being naked, gave up roaming the wilds with animals. In Lower Mesopotamia he settled down, built canals, irrigation ditches, became an agriculturalist, raised food, grew plants which could be turned into cloth on looms. Man, via, experimentation, keen observation of nature (flora and fauna), and trial and error, developed Civilization and cities, NOT the gods or a god.
I understand with other scholars, that Genesis' myths regarding man's creation and being placed in a god's garden to till and tend it, in a state of nakedness, and then later leaving it to found cities (Cain) is nothing more than a "re-working" of earlier Sumerian motifs on how man came to be made, and cities and civilization came into being. The Sumerians possesed one of the world's earliest "great" civilizations with temples, ziggurats, canals, cities, writing, mathematics and calendars.
The Sumerians were WRONG, the gods did NOT teach their ancestors all this ("the arts of civilization"), man achieved all this ON HIS OWN ACCORD. So, in a sense the Sumerian myths about man's creation and his cites are recalling man's _EVOLUTION_ from a naked ANIMAL TO A CLOTHES-WEARING CIVILIZED HUMAN BEING dwelling in cities.
Thus _I understand_ Genesis' "Garden of Eden" and creation of man by God, although a later re-working of Sumerian creation myths of how mankind came to be made by the gods, is in reality, a recollection of the greatest achivement ever made by man, his self-transformation from a wandering naked animal to a settled agriculturalist and city dweller, all made possible by man's becoming an agriculturalist, creating wonderous gardens capable of creating a "food-surplus" freeing his fellow men, so that they could apply themselves to discovering and developing the "arts of civilization."
So, man _was robbed_ by "priests" of his greatest intellectual achievement, his SELF-TRANSFORMATION from a naked animal roaming edin-the-plain to a clothes-wearing civilized man dwelling in cities. The "priests" of Sumer ascribed man's "wearing of clothes" and "arts of civilization" to the gods teaching man that he should wear clothes, till and tend gardens and build cities. It would take some 6000 years for man's SELF-TRANSFORMATION from naked beast to clothes-wearing city-dweller to be _properly restored to man_ by the secular humanist disciplines of Archaeology and Anthropology, which arose in the course of the late 19th and 20th centuries, our modern era.
Why _did_ the Sumerian priests "concoct" these myths of man being created naked at first, roaming edin the steppe/flood-plain with wild animals for companions, unaware it was "wrong" to be naked, and why portray the cities and irrigated gardens as having been built originally by the gods for their sustenance _before_ man's creation and the gods then later taking man and placing him in their gardens to relieve themselves of agricultural toil upon the earth? The answer lies in "man's human nature" and Darwin's observation that life is about "the struggle of the species to survive."
By concocting these myths the priests assumed power over their fellow men. They claimed they received revelations from the gods, and if their fellowmen did not do the gods' bidding they would be punished with disease, poor harvests due to a violent Nature (storms, floods, drought) and war. In fear of the imaginary non-existent gods man became the servant of the priests. The priests demanded on the gods' behalf, food, clothing and a roof over their head (a temple for the gods to "dwell in" and priest's quarters). The priests were also useful to "the state": they supported the military might of the local strongman and his army claiming they could intercede via prayers and sacrifices with the gods to assure victory over the enemy. So a symbiotic relationship developed between the "con" of religion and "bogus revelations" from gods claimed by the priests. Religion supported the state (Government, King and Nobles) and the Government was the "muscle" or "enforcer" of religious law (which was in essence civil law as well) over the people. Things haven't changed much over the millennia. Even today the symbiotic relationship continues, religion is "the glue or mortar" supporting the State or Government and its laws to thereby govern people, and religion is thus protected by the State. A modern-day example: The recent furor over the 10 Commandments being removed from public buildings and offices is decried by the faithful, who assert our laws are founded upon the religious precepts appearing in the Bible, given by God to Israel at Mount Sinai. "In God We Trust" adorns our money. Today's churches still engage in special prayers beseeching God's favor and intervention for the well-being of the nation and its triumph over its foes.
In a sense the Sumerians were right, in the beginning man was a savage beast. Below, an excerpt from a Babylonian hymn called the Enuma Elish credits Marduk (the Bible's Merodach) the god of Babylon with the creation of SAVAGE-MAN to bear the work of the gods that they might enjoy eternal rest from their toil and labor upon the earth:
"In the heart of holy Apsu was Marduk created. He who begot him was Ea, his father...
Blood I will mass and cause bones to be. I will establish a SAVAGE, `man' shall be his name; truly, SAVAGE-MAN I will create. He shall be charged with the service of the gods that they might be at ease!"
The strong took from the weak of the species with no shame or regret. No law existed or concept of "right and wrong." By claiming invisible gods existed who wanted justice and the weak to be defended from the strong, the priests performed a valuable service to society. Laws were created to regulate human behavior. It wasn't deemed important that all this "was a con," society needed "boundaries" for acceptable and unacceptable conduct and what better a ruse to employ than to claim a "revelation" from a non-existant imaginary god of what those laws would consist of. There simply was no way for a _rational mind_ to "prove" the revelationary claim from a god was false, and really of an individual's self-deluded imagination. By claiming laws determing what constituted right and wrong behavior as being from "a god's revelation", public dissent was stifled as to what should constitute acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.
So, all religions are concerned with "the struggle of the self-will" (Darwin's "struggle of the species"), how to control human behavior "the self-will," and regulate it ? Recourse was to the "con" of imaginary gods "revealing their will" to certain pious individuals. In turn the "pious" informed their fellowmen that they must "subordinate their self-will to the will of the gods". With the police-support of the State, these priestly "imaginings" were translated into the Force of Law, Custom and Taboos. The reason why notions of right and wrong differ so much from society to society is that each in isolation of other societies in remote antiquity developed its own rules for regulating human behavior, not some imaginary god in heaven. Conflict understandably erupts when one society attempts to impose upon another its rules of conduct and religious beliefs claiming their religion is _the one-true-religion_ which "pre-empts" all other faiths.
George on the Mesopotamian conception of man and his relationship vis-a-vis the gods (Atram-hasis is also rendered Atrahasis or Atra-khasis by other scholars, he is the Mesopotamian "Noah"):
"In the ancient world religion permeated intellectual activity in a way that it does not now. Read as 'wisdom', ultimately the [Gilgamesh] epic bears a message of serious religious content. Its views on the proper duities of men and kings are strictly in line with the gods' requirements and conform to the religious ideology of ancient Mesopotamia: do the will of the gods, fulfil your function as they intended...We know from many ancient Mesopotamian sources, in Sumerian and in Akkadian, that the Babylonians believed the purpose of the human race to be the service of the gods. Before mankind's creation, the myth tells us, the cities of lower Mesopotamia were inhabited by the gods alone and they had to feed and clothe themselves by their own efforts. Under the supervision of Enlil, the lord of the earth, the lesser deities grew and harvested the gods' food, tilled the soil, and most exhaustingly, dug the rivers and waterways that irrigated the fields. Even the Tigris and Euphrates were their work. Eventually the labour became too much for them and they mutinied. The resourceful god Ea (called Enki in the poem Atram-hasis) devised first the technology to produce a substitute worker from raw clay and then the means by which this new being would reproduce itself. The first humans were duly born from the womb of the Mother Goddess and allotted their destiny, 'to carry the yoke, the task imposed by Enlil, to bear the soil-basket of the gods'. This act of creation could be repeated as neccessary...Enkidu is thus a replica of the first man, born without a mother's cries of pain." (pp. xxxvii-xxxviii. "Introduction." Andrew George. The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. London. Penguin Books. 1999.)
"There was a flaw built into Ea's creation of man, a flaw that explains how it was that something made by the gods for their own purposes was nevertheless a very imperfect tool. The clay that Ea gave to the Mother Goddess as the raw material from which she bore man was animated -given spirit- by mixing it with the shed blood of a god...he was the leader of the rebels, who had instigated a mutiny. Small wonder, then, that mankind should be wayward. Uta-napishtim tells his wife in Tablet XI, 'Man is deceitful, he will deceive you'...The innately rebellious and unruly nature of man encapsulated in this myth of creation also informs one tradition about early human history, first found in several Sumerian literary compositions, that in the beginning the human race roamed the land like the beasts of the field, naked but hairy, and for sustenance grazing on grass. According to Berossus, a Babylonian scholar of the fourth century BC who wrote in Greek, at this stage MAN 'LIVED WITHOUT LAWS JUST AS WILD ANIMALS', THAT IS, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, cities OR SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS...The civilization of mankind, according to Babylonian mythology, was the work of the gods, who sent kingship from heaven, and especially Ea, who dispatched the Seven Sages to Eridu and other early cities, and with them all the arts and crafts of city life." (pp. xxxix-xl. "Introduction." Andrew George. The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. London. Penguin Books. 1999.)
"The tradition that the first men roamed FREE and LAWLESS and were not subject to kings helped to give rise to a myth that kings were created as distinct beings, significantly different from other mortals in appearance, capabilities and duties...the principal duty of the Babylonian king was to oversee the repair and maintenance of the gods' cult centers and to ensure that they were stocked with foodstuffs and treasure...the god Ea organizes the world to ensure the gods' comfort in their houses. In doing so, 'he created the king for the task of provisioning, he created men to be the work force'." (pp. xli-xlii. "Introduction." Andrew George. The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. London. Penguin Books. 1999.)
Professor Tigay on echoes of man being created to provide food for the gods and Adam's work in the garden of Eden:
"Placing man in the garden "to till and tend it" faintly echoes the Mesopotamian creation stories according to which man was created to free the gods from laboring to produce their own food (Pritchard, Texts, 68; cf. W. G. Lambert, Atrahasis (1969), 42–67; A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (1942) 69–71; S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians (1963), 149–50). In the Bible this is not seen as the purpose of man's creation—in fact, the creation of man and the placing of him in the garden are separated by several verses; and there is no suggestion at all that God or the other heavenly beings benefit from man's labor." (Jeffrey Howard Tigay. "Paradise." http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/paradise.doc)
Finally, to answer the question posed by this article's title "Why a Naked Adam in Eden ?"
The Mesopotamian art forms of the 4th-3rd millennia BCE at times show man in a NAKED state "serving the gods." These scenes may explain why God (Yahweh-Elohim) in Genesis "keeps" Adam and Eve as his servants in a state of nakedness. I thus understand that the Hebrews are preserving Mesopotamian notions from the 4th/3rd millennia BC of CLOTHED Sumerian gods "keeping" man as their "servant" IN A STATE OF NAKEDNESS for a time _DENYING_ him the knowledge it is wrong to be naked; only later did he come to clothe himself as portrayed in Mesopotamian art forms of the 2d milllennium BCE and later periods (Man being portrayed _still serving_ the gods but now in a "clothed" state).
The question then arises as to WHY the gods were content to keep man in a state of NAKEDNESS as their servant. The answer lies with "the priests lively imagination". Man was created to be a lowly servant/slave of the gods. By portraying man in a naked state while serving clothed gods, the message was loud and clear that man was "just a beast" in the eyes of the gods. In other words man _was despised_ by the gods. So the above scenes of NAKED man serving the gods was to PUT MAN IN HIS PLACE, to humiliate him, to enforce upon him that he was "as NOTHING" in the gods' eyes. He was to SERVE and FEAR them and subordinate his will to THEIR WILL. There is another possible explanation for man the servant of the gods being presented in the above art forms in a state of nakedness as he carries out his duties before the fully clothed gods and goddesses: They are "having a private joke" at man's expense. Here he is, NAKED, serving fully clothed deities and all the while, it never enters his mind it is "wrong" to be naked. He never wonders "Why shouldn't I be clothed too?" This latter expanation however still portrays the gods "as contemptuous" of savage man who has the "naive innocence" of a small naked toddler playing amongst fully clothed adults, blissfully unaware it is wrong to be naked.
I understand Genesis is a polemic, deliberately challenging Mesopotamian views of the relationship between man and the gods. The challenege involves sometimes "inversions" and transformations of earlier concepts. (1) Gods become _a_god; (2) Failure to eat of the "bread of life" to obtain _immortality_ becomes failure to eat of a "tree fruit" to obtain immortality; (3) An event occuring in heaven -Adapa failing to eat the "bread of life" at Anu's heavenly abode- is placed on the earth in a fruit-tree garden; (4) The Sumerian portrayal of NAKED men and women as the gods' servants -they denying man the knowledge it is wrong to be naked- becomes Yahweh keeping Adam and Eve in a state of NAKEDNESS as his servants in Eden denying them the knowledge it is wrong to be naked; (5) The gods' intent to keep man _FOREVERMORE_ their agricultural servants working in their earthly city gardens in edin-the-floodplain becomes inverted into a wrathful god EXPELLING man from his garden; (6) The notion that Igigi gods rebelled over the onerous work conditions in the Anunnaki gods earthly gardens reveals _life was NOT idyllic_ in the gods' gardens vs. the Hebrew notion _life was idyllic_ then Adam sinned and was expelled from this idyllic world. So I see the Hebrew account of Adam and Eve and their expulsion as reformattings of Mesopotamian concepts of the relationships between the gods and man.
The Tree of Knowledge or Good and Evil does not exist as a motif to my knowledge in _any_ Ancient Near Eastern myths other than the Hebrews. _Nor_ does the Tree of Life appear in any ANE myths, its "bread of life" that bestows immortality in Mesopotamian belief, which interestingly resurrects itself later with Christ tearing apart _bread_ and telling his apostles to eat his bread/body to obtain immortality. These two trees are for me the Hebrews "unique" contribution to religious belief as they transform and challenge the earlier Mesopotamian myths regarding man's creation, to serve as a slave in the gods' gardens in edin-the floodplain of Sumer.
The Hebrew author may possibly have had some dim foggy tradition of a naked man and woman in a gods' garden serving the god in a state of nakedness and dreamed up a fruit-tree conferring knowledge to have the couple realize they are naked after eating of it. As my other articles point out, the Mesopotamian myths do mention eating of a tree to acquire knowledge. In one case the knowledge is sought by Enki inorder to decree the fruit's usefulness to man and the gods, in another case, the fruit of the trees gives Inanna sexual knowledge. My research is directed at attempting to determine the _original_ Mesopotamian themes and motifs and how the Hebrews later transformed them as a challenge to Mesopotamian belief about the relationship between god and man.
Genesis sees man in a somewhat different light, he is _beloved_ of God and "the pinnacle" of his creation. I call this an "inversion or reversal" (a 180 degree reversal) of the Mesopotamian concept of man's relationship with the gods. I understand that many of Genesis' notions about God and man are _DELIBERATE reversal/inversions_ of Mesopotamian concepts of the relationships between the gods and man. The Hebrews were doing nothing new here in giving NEW TWISTS TO OLD IDEAS, they were following along in the footsteps of their Mesopotamian predecessors, as noted by Professor Lambert.
Lambert, has made a very important observation regarding the manner in which Mesopotamian mythographers worked:
"The authors of ancient cosmologies were essentially compilers. Their originality was expressed in new combinations of old themes, and in new twists to old ideas." (p.107, Wilfred G. Lambert, "A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis," [1965], in Richard S. Hess & David T. Tsumra, Editors. I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood. Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 1994)
I believe Lambert's observation can be applied to the Hebrews who were combining old themes and putting "new twists" to old ideas. My research indicates that, at times,"reversals" or "inversions"are occurring in the Hebrew transformation and reinterpetation of the Mesopotamian Creation Myths which sought to explain the origins of the Earth and of Mankind and why the gods sought man's demise in a Flood. These "reversals," as I call them, can take the form of different characters, different locations for the settings of the stories, and different morals being drawn about the nature of God and Man's relationship.
It is my understanding that the three great monotheistic faiths of the Western World, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are each employing similar techniques. THEY EACH IN TURN ARE CHALLENGING EARLIER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND VIEWS REGARDING MAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. The observations by Professors Wenham and Kramer are important here:
Professor Wenham, (Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies at the College of St. Paul and St. Mary in Cheltenham, England) has done a brilliant presentation, in my opinion, on explaining what Genesis is _really all about_, in its transformation and reinterpretation of the Ancient Mesopotamian concepts regarding the relationship between man and god. IT IS A POLEMIC, A CHALLENGE OF THE VIEWS held by the Mesopotamians of God's relationship with man, A CHALLENGE OF THE MESOPOTAMIAN VIEWS ON HOW MAN CAME TO BE MADE AND WHY HIS DEMISE WAS SOUGHT IN A FLOOD: THIS 'CHALLENGE' IS IN FACT _A DENIAL OR REFUTAL_ OF MESOPOTAMIAN BELIEFS.
Wenham (Emphasis mine in capitals and italics):
"Though Genesis shares many of the theological presuppositions of the ancient world, most of the stories found in these chapters are BEST READ AS PRESENTING AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW TO THOSE GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST. Genesis 1-11 is a tract for the times challenging ancient assumptions about the nature of God, the world and mankind. (p. xlv) An understanding of ancient oriental mythology is essential if we are to appreciate the points Genesis 1-11 was making then (p. xlvi)...It is my conviction that many of our problems are caused by misunderstanding the original intentions of Genesis...many of the individual episodes in Genesis 1-11 may be seen to have a distinctly POLEMICAL THRUSTpolemical thrust in their own right, particularly AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS IDEAS ASSOCIATED MOST CLOSELY WITH MESOPOTAMIA (p. xlviii)...Viewed with respect to its negatives, Genesis 1:1-2-3 is A POLEMIC AGAINST THE MYTHICO-RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS OF THE ANCIENT ORIENT...the seventh day is not a day of ill omen as in Mesopotamia, but a day of blessing and sanctity on which normal work is laid aside. In contradicting the usual ideas of its times, Genesis 1 is also setting out a positive alternative (p. 37)...We have noted that the overall structure of the material in Genesis 1-11 finds its closest parallels in the Sumerian flood story and the Sumerian king list and in the Atrahasis Epic, all dated to 1600 BC or earlier (p. xliv)...This is not to say that the writer of Genesis had ever heard or read the Gilgamesh Epic: these traditions were part of the intellectual furniture of that time in the Near East, just as most people today have some idea of Darwin's Origin of the Species, though they have never read it." (p. xlviii. Gordon J. Wenham. Word Biblical Commentary, Genesis 1-15. Waco, Texas. Word Incorporated. 1987)
"The ancient oriental background to Genesis 1-11 shows it to be concerned with rather different issues from those that tend to preoccupy modern readers. It is affirming the unity of God in the face of polytheism, his justice rather than his caprice, his power as opposed to his impotence, his concern for mankind rather than his exploitation. And whereas Mesopotamia clung to the wisdom of the primeval man, Genesis records his sinful disobedience. Because as Christians we tend to assume these points in our theology, we often fail to recognize the striking originality of the message of Genesis 1-11..." (p. 1. Wenham)
"In all these cases there is no evidence of simple borrowing by the Hebrew writer. It would be better to suppose that he has BORROWED various familiar mythological motifs, TRANSFORMED them, and integrated them into a fresh and original story of his own. Whereas Adapa heeded the word of the god Ea and did not eat the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve rejected the Lord's command and followed the serpent." (p. 53. Wenham)
"If it is correct to view Genesis 1-11 as _AN INSPIRED RETELLING_ of ancient oriental traditions about the origins of the world with a view to presenting the nature of God as one, omnipotent, omniscient, and good, as opposed to the fallible, capricious, weak deities who populate the rest of the ancient world; if further it is concerned to show that humanity is central in the divine plan, not an afterthought; if finally it wants to show that man's plight is the product of his disobedience and indeed is bound to worsen without divine intervention, Genesis 1-11 is setting out a picture of the world that is at odds both with the polytheistic optimism of ancient Mesopotamia and the humanistic secularism and the modern world.
Genesis is thus a fundamental CHALLENGE to the ideologies of civilized men and women, past and present, who like to suppose their own efforts will ultimately suffice to save them. Genesis 1-11 declares that mankind is without hope if individuals are without God." (p. liii. Wenham)
Wenham's _penetrating analysis_ of Genesis being a CHALLENGE of Mesopotamian religious belief is echoed by Professor Kramer:
The Late Professor Kramer (Curator Emeritus of the Cuneiform Tablet Collection at the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania and Clark Research Professor Emeritus) using "politically correct" uncontentious and neutral scholarly language, alludes to the Sumerian god En-ki's "survival" in today's gods, Yahweh, Christ and Allah :
"Ideas do not necessarily die when the civilization that nurtured them expires. Eridu declined, and Sumerian, like Latin in the West many centuries later, was maintained only by an educated, literate elite. The great empires of Akkad, Assyria, and even Babylon were brought down- Assyria in the late seventh century BC, Babylon less than a century later. Persians, Macedonians, Seleucids, Arsacids, Sassanians, Ummayyad and Abbasid caliphs and later dynasties excercised lordship in Mesopotamia, JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM were deeply rooted in the Near East, and as often as not CHALLENGED THEIR PREDECCESSORS . Enki survived, if at all, in new guises, under different names...If Enki and his city-state had all but disappeared, literary traditions and religious syncretism kept something of them alive. The two traditions that formed the basis of Western civilization, Greek and Biblical, appear to know stories of Enki, in much disguised form. For various reasons, orthodox and official streams of those traditions ignored or denounced outside influences. Because- with rare exception- Sumerian names do not appear, much of the tracing that follows here is necessarily speculative. In one sense we are very much the inheritors of civilization in its early, Sumerian, forms; but in another sense we will always have a difficult time recognizing such early debts." (p. 154. "Traces of the Fugitive God." Samuel Noah Kramer and John Maier. Myths of Enki, the Crafty God. New York and Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1989)
I understand the "challenges of earlier faith systems" posed by Judaism, Christianity and later Islam, at times involves _the deliberate nullification_ of certain beliefs held by their predeccessors. In no case is this a 100% nullification of _all_ previously held beliefs by the earlier religion being challenged. In some cases the earlier beliefs are re-worked and transformed and given new meanings or interpretations. At times some earlier beliefs remain intact and are accepted into the "new" faith which challenges its predeccessors. I understand that at times deliberate "reversals" or "inversions" are employed to nullify or modify earlier concepts, beliefs, events, motifs, reinterpreting them and transforming them for the new religion.
The above "exposition" on WHY A NAKED ADAM ? is but just one of many aspects of the CHALLENGE Judaism raised in defining itself against its predeccessor, the Mesopotamian gods at first worshipped by Terah and Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees. A Jewish savant writing at the time of the Hasmoneans (2d century BCE) notes these two FLED Ur of the Chaldees, when their CHALLENGE was "rejected" by the populace. Note that this author understands his ancestors were ORIGINALLY CHALDEANS _NOT_ARAMEANS, and that ORIGINALLY THEY LIVED IN CHALDEA _NOT_ ARAM (Syria and Haran, here rendered "Mesopotamia")). He also understands that as CHALDEANS THEY WORSHIPPED MANY GODS, but while in CHALDEA they came to be aware that there was only ONE GOD, and they were driven from Chaldea (Babylonia) by their kinsmen for refusing to worship any longer the gods:
Judith 5:5-9
"Then Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites, said to him, "Let my lord now hear a word from the mouth of your servant, and I will tell you the truth about this people that dwells in the nearby mountain district. No falsehood shall come from your servant's mouth. THIS PEOPLE IS DESCENDED FROM THE CHALDEANS. At one time they lived in Mesopotamia, because THEY WOULD NOT FOLLOW THE GODS OF THEIR FATHERS WHO WERE IN CHALDEA. FOR THEY HAD LEFT THE WAYS OF THEIR ANCESTORS, and they worshipped THE GOD of Heaven, THE GOD they had come to know; hence THEY DROVE THEM OUT FROM THE PRESENCE OF THEIR GODS; and THEY FLED TO MESOPOTAMIA, and lived there a long time. Then their God commanded them to leave the place were they were living and go to the land of Canaan. There they settled, and prospered..." (Herbert G. May & Bruce M. Metzger. Editors. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. [Revised Standard Version]. New York. Oxford University Press. 1977)
Reflecting on the above observation of Terah and Abraham being rejected and driven from Ur of the Chaldees because of their religious CHALLENGE, it would seem history has a way of repeating itself. In the first century CE (AD) a NEW CHALLENGE AROSE, Christians were driven from the Synagogues by the Jews who had rejected their views. Then arose ANOTHER CHALLENGE, Islam, as preached by Mohammed the Prophet. He was rejected by Jew and Christian and fled from Mecca to Medina, rejected by some of his own people. CHALLENGE VIA REDEFINITIONS, REJECTION, FLIGHT, RE-GROUPING, the never-ending saga of man's spiritual quest or odyssey. TODAY'S CHALLENGE ? Secular Humanism (which I embrace) declares there are no gods, they are of man's making, Humanism seeks the pre-empting of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, freeing man of superstition and belief in non-existant gods, devils and demons.
I understand that Genesis is _denying, refuting and challenging_ the Mesopotamian myths' explanation of how and why man came to made, what his purpose on earth is, and why his demise was sought in a flood. This "_denial_" is for me accomplished by taking Mesopotamian motifs from a varety of myths and giving them "new twists" by changing the names of the characters, the locations, and sequences of events.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) My Second-most "important article" at this website is regarding The TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL in the Garden of Eden. Please click here to access that article. Below is an "excerpt":
"Genesis opens with the story of God's having planted a garden in the East in a place called Eden. He evidently places two trees within this garden, one is "the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", the other is "the Tree of Life". God then stations the Cherubim to deny access to the latter tree by man. This brief article, employing a Secular Humanist and Anthropological point of view, will explore the Ancient Near Eastern motifs and concepts possibly lying behind Genesis' portrayal of the events.
After _eating_ of the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE, Adam and Eve's eyes are opened and they realize THEY ARE NAKED, in SHAME they cover themselves. Many have wondered, WHY did God keep "grown" adults as his "servants" in a STATE OF NAKEDNESS AND NOT CLOTHE THEM ? No explanation makes sense for Yahweh's behavior, especially in light of the condemnation of nakedness as being "shameful" throughout the Bible.
The Mesopotamians had several CONTRADICTING accounts of man's creation and where this event took place. One account has him made and "left" a wanderer with wild animals in a desert-like plain or steppe called in Sumerian the edin (edinnu, edin-na). Another account has him made at Nippur to be an agricultural servant, working in a god's city-garden (Enlil); yet another account has man being made at Eridu to work in a god's city-garden (Enki).
According to several ancient Mesopotamian myths (Ewe and Wheat, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the so-called Eridu Genesis myth) when the gods made man, they left him to wander NAKED a desert-like plain or steppe called in Akkadian seru (which came to replace Sumerian edin) with only wild animals for companions. Later man is brought to the cities the gods have made for themselves in the edin (the semiarid desert-like plain of Iraq, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers called Sumer) to be their servant. Man will tend their city gardens raising food for them to consume in the temples. The Sumerian art forms of the 3rd millennium BCE show NAKED MEN serving beverages to seated, clothed gods and goddesses. I understand that the gods at first DENIED MAN THE KNOWLEDGE IT WAS WRONG TO BE NAKED: (1) he wanders NAKED in the edin/seru or "steppe" with animals and (2) later is made a "servant of the gods" and SERVES THEM IN A STATE OF NAKEDNESS.
I suspect the Hebrew author possessed traditions of man being naked with animal companions and serving a clothed god in a state of nakedness (who, for him, is Yahweh). The Mesoptamian myths explain that man is eventually taught by the gods how to make and wear clothing, how to spin wool and weave it, how to process plant fibers and make them into fine cloth.
For the Mesopotamians MAN'S NAKEDNESS was _symbolic of_ man's ORIGINAL BEASTIAL STATE AND IGNORANCE. He was a savage brute who's only intelligence or knowledge was that of an animal, like an animal he ate grass and lapped water with NAKED animals at watering-holes in the wilderness; AND LIKE A "LAWLESS" ANIMAL OR BEAST HE HAD _NO_ CONCEPT OF GOOD AND EVIL OR RIGHT AND WRONG. Primitive savage naked man would acquire "knowledge of good and evil" (right and wrong) _later_ from the gods when he became their servant and was taught the "Arts of Civilization" including the LAW codes the gods used to regulate godly behavior among themselves.
The Book of Ecclesiastes makes a remarkable observation of man being wicked and like a beast, which recalls for me the Mesopotamian creation myths portraying man in the beginning as being like a beast:
Eccles. 3:16-21 RSV
"Moreover, I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness, and in the place of righteousness, even there was wickedness...I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men that God is testing them TO SHOW THEM THAT THEY ARE BUT BEASTS..."
Today Darwinist or Evolutionist Scientists (Anthropologists) understand man in the beginning was a naked beast somewhat affirming the Mesopotamian myths portraying man as a beast or animal.
For the Mesopotamians their gods were _distinguished from_ NAKED SAVAGE MAN by their possessing _TWO TRAITS_ DENIED MAN BY THE GODS:
(1) KNOWLEDGE (The gods KNOW it is "wrong to be naked", for ONLY they wear clothes; they also have
KNOWLEDGE of GOOD AND EVIL, for they have created LAWS (Sumerian me) governing appropriate
and inappropriate conduct; for example Enlil is "banished" by his fellow gods from Nippur for raping Ninlil
BEFORE man's creation).
(2) IMMORTALITY (Only the gods possess it).
I understand that Genesis is recasting THE ABOVE _TWO TRAITS_ by ASSOCIATING THEM WITH TWO TREES, a TREE OF KNOWLEDGE and a TREE OF LIFE (IMMORTALITY).
The _TREE OF KNOWLEDGE_ becomes the "vehicle" or "mechanism" for the Hebrews whereby man comes to realize HE IS NAKED, and faced with SHAME, DESIRES TO BE CLOTHED _LIKE A GOD_. BY WEARING CLOTHING HE TAKES ON THEN A GODLY ASPECT, he has also acquired the GODLY KNOWLEDGE IT IS WRONG TO BE NAKED initially DENIED MAN BY YAHWEH AND THE MESOPOTAMIAN GODS.
From a Mesopotamian point of view man's acquistion of clothing "symbolizes" his existence as a beast _ending_ and his _BECOMING LIKE A GOD_. For the gods not only wear clothes, they have built for themselves BEFORE man's creation cities to dwell in with city-gardens full of fruits, vegetables and wheat for bread to nourish themselves, all these crops are fed by irrigation canals. The gods _ONLY_LATER_pass on to man their GODLY KNOWLEDGE: "the Arts of Civilization": LAW (codified statements of what constitutes good and evil, right and wrong), metallurgy, weaving of cloth, animal husbandry (shepherding), music, art, literature, writing, etc. ALL THIS GODLY KNOWLEDGE "IN THE BEGINNING" _WAS DENIED MAN_ BY THE GODS, _ONLY_LATER_ DOES MAN OBTAIN ALL THIS. For further in-depth details along with pictures of Mesopotamian NAKED MEN AND WOMEN SERVING GODS AND GODDESSES PLEASE CLICK HERE.
The gods did NOT "later" give man the knowledge _initially_ denied him as an act of love and caring. They had created man to exploit him, he was to replace the gods who toiled upon the earth. These gods, according to myths, in the beginning were like man, naked, eating grass and lapping water at watering holes with wild animals. Eventually the gods "discover" for themselves the arts of civilization, how to make clothes on looms, plant gardens, domesticate animals, build irrigation ditches and canals. The gods do NOT want their "standard of living" REDUCED. When they take man the ignorant animal from his wild animals companions of edin to serve them, they MUST TEACH MAN the arts of civilization, they do not want to have to eat grass again as in the beginning. So man aquires "previously denied knowledge" from the gods inorder to better meet the gods' needs and higher standard of living. Man's life is improved by becoming the gods' slave or servant, but they did not give this previously forbidden knowledge to man because they loved him and wanted a better life for him, they were looking out for themsleves.
Because I understand Genesis is a _challenge, refutal and denial_ of Mesopotamian beliefs regarding man's origins and his relationship with the gods, it is my proposal that various Mesopotamian motifs have been "recast", transformed and reinterpreted for a "NEW STORY" of why God made man and what man's relationship is with the deity. That is to say I DO NOT EXPECT the details to be identical or even "close" between Genesis and the Mesopotamian myths, the Hebrews are CHANGING the myths, refuting and denying them. For me the Hebrews are being very creative, and innovative in their transformation of the Mesopotamian myths their ancestors Terah and Abraham once embraced while dwelling in Ur of the Chaldees (Tell Muqqayar in Lower Mesopotamia).
In REFUTING or DENYING the Mesopotamian myths Genesis presents man ILLEGALLY obtaining KNOWLEDGE from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, WHEREAS in the Mesopotamian myths although man IS INITIALLY DENIED KNOWLEDGE by the gods and kept in a state of nakedness as the gods' servant, _EVENTUALLY_ THE GODS _DO GRANT MAN_ THE KNOWLEDGE IT IS WRONG TO BE NAKED. That is to say, MAN IN THE MESOPOTAMIAN MYTHS DOES _NOT_ ACQUIRE THE KNOWLEDGE IT IS WRONG TO BE NAKED _ILLEGALLY_.
The Mesopotamian myths do NOT trace mankind's SINFULNESS to an act of rebellion against the gods by disobeying them. For the Mesopotamians man's SINFULNESS comes from the fact that HE IS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF THE GODS, HE CAN BE NO BETTER THAN HIS CREATOR, for the gods are portrayed as jealous, petty, arrogant, deceitful, and egotistical as well as merciful, loving, kind, and compassionate. The Mesopotamian myths also state that IN THE BEGINNING THE ANUNNAKI GODS (the senior gods) who dwelt on the earth at first WERE LIKE BEASTS, they roamed NAKED, ate grass, and lapped water at watering holes with the NAKED ANIMALS. Only "later" do the gods learn "the Arts of Civilization", HOW TO MAKE CLOTHING, how to domesticate animals how to plant crops, create cities, and engineer irrigation systems.That is to say the Hebrews in _recasting_ the Mesopotomian beliefs or motifs DENY THIS PORTRAYAL OF GOD AND MAN.
According to one Mesopotamian myth man is created by the god Enki to replace the junior Igigi gods who toil in the garden of a god at Nippur. The Igigi revolt because they have been given NO REST from agricultural toil. To stop the revolt, Enlil, the god of Nippur, summons his brother-god Enki from Eridu asking what can be done to appease the Igigi? Enki suggests the making of man to replace the Igigi. Enlil gives his assent. Man is made from clay mixed with the FLESH AND BLOOD of Aw-ilu the leader of the Igigi revolt. It is this god's life-force (flesh and blood) which gives life to man. Man's "rebelliousness against god" is accounted for in Mesopotamian myths as man possessing the "rebellious spirit" of the slain rebel leader of Igigi revolt against Enlil (Note: In myths it is Enlil who is the "principal instigator" who decides to send a flood to destroy mankind for violating his rest). Man's sinfulness and rebellious is NOT traced to a man willfully disobediant of his god in eating of a forbidden tree fruit to acquire knowledge and become like a god. Man's DECEITFULNESS or LYING was another GODLY QUALITY passed on to man, the god Enki is famed for his decitfulness, cunning, knavery and trickery on fellow gods as well as man (Note: In myths its is Enki who warns one man of the Flood to be sent to destroy man, telling him to build a boat and save self, family and animals).
Foster noted that the Mesopotamians understood man's "lies and falsehood" were implanted in man at his creation by the gods Enlil and Ea and the birth goddess Mami:
"Enlil, king of the gods, who created teeming mankind,
Majestic Ea, who pinched off their clay,
The queen who fashioned them, mistress Mami,
Gave twisted words to the human race,
They endowed them in perpetuity with lies and falsehood."
(p. 323. "The Babylonian Theodicy." Benjamin Read Foster. From Distant Days, Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia. Bethesda, Maryland. CDL Press. 1995. ISBN 1-883053-09-9)
So, in the Mesopotamian myths man was created to work in a city-garden of a god, Enlil, at Nippur, by Enki, and he was to work in the god's city-garden FOREVERMORE, giving the Igigi gods an eternal rest from agricultural toil as was already enjoyed by the senior gods, the Anunnaki (Enlil and Enki). The Mesopotamians had _NO CONCEPT OF A WRATHFUL GOD EXPELLING MAN FROM HIS EARTHLY GARDEN_, man had been created to toil for all eternity in the gods' gardens. Genesis' notion that Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden in Eden is then a REFUTAL OR DENIAL of the Mesopotamian's understanding of the gods' purpose in creating man. The gods NEEDED MAN TO WORK IN THEIR GARDENS, if there was no man to work the gardens of the gods they would have to work the gardens themselves, an onerous task they did not relish. Because the gods could die at the hands of fellow gods, I draw the assumption that they could also starve to death if not fed, for the purpose in eating and drinking is to sustain life; that is to say, if the gods are truly immortal there should be no need for them to eat and drink. I thus understand that the gods' "immortality" was dependant upon (1) Their not being slain by their fellow gods and (2) their being able to eat daily the food raised in their earthly city-gardens in the edin (the desert-like steppe or plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers) and presented them for their nourishment by man (priests) in the temples and shrines.
It is my understanding that Genesis has transformed certain motifs appearing in the Epic of Gilgamesh (which was a story about a man's unsuccessful search for immortality). Enkidu has been recast as Adam and Shamhat as Eve. Shamhat's urging Enkidu to eat the bread and drink set before him at the shepherd's camp becomes Eve urging Adam to eat forbidden food. The god Shamash (Enkidu's patron-god) apparently is NOT upset that naked man (Enkidu) who roamed the steppe near Uruk with wild animals for companions has "learned it is wrong to be naked" from Shamhat who clothes him before leaving the steppe (Akkadian seru, seri, serim, which replaced the earlier archaic Sumerian term edin), for he reminds Enkidu he should be grateful for the harlot's having given him a garment of fine quality, and food fit for a god. That is to say, I understand the Hebrews, employing "new twists" to old motifs, have transformed this story into a wrathful, vindictive God, Yahweh-Elohim, who is so upset over man's _acquiring knowledge_ ("it is wrong to be naked") that he curses the naked woman, Eve (Shamhat is naked when she lays with Enkidu), and he curses the ground Adam will till. I understand that Enkidu's curse for the Hunter and Shamhat was given a "new twist" by the Hebrews and transformed into Yahweh-Elohim cursing the ground for Adam's sake and Eve with subservience to man. If my "hunches are correct, what a shame that for 3,000 years womankind as well as mankind (Judaism, Christendom, Islam), have been needlessly beating themselves up over a terrible "make-believe" guilt burden Genesis lays on Adam and Eve and their progeny. That is to say, the Bible is NOT the word of God, the Book of Genesis and its Garden of Eden motifs are nothing more than reworked Mesopotamian myths. So, Shamash the sun-god who was Enkidu's patron, who watched over him, was NOT vindictive over Enkidu's acquiring the knowledge it was wrong to be naked. Shamash has been recast as Yahweh (with "new twists") and _an inversion has occurred_, instead of an formerly naked male ingrate (Enkidu) cursing a woman and blaming her for his imminent death and robbing him of his innocence, a God in the mythical Garden of Eden does the cursing.
Gardner and Maier (Emphasis mine):
"Shamash heard, opened his mouth,
and from afar...from the heavens called to him:
"Why, Enkidu, do you curse the love-priestess, the woman
WHO WOULD FEED YOU WITH THE FOOD OF THE GODS,
and would have you drink wine that is the drink of kings,
and WOULD CLOTHE YOU IN A GREAT GARMENT,
and would give you beautiful Gilgamesh as a companion?"
(p. 275. "Gilgamesh VII.iii.33-48." John Gardner & John Maier. Gilgamesh, Translated from the Sin-leqi-unninni Version. New York. Vintage Books, a division of Random House 1985. First printing: 1984 Alfred A. Knopf)
Foster (Emphasis mine):
"When Shamash heard what he said,
From afar a warning voice called to him from the sky:
O Enkidu, why curse Shamhat the harlot,
WHO FED YOU BREAD, FIT FOR A GOD,
Who poured you beer, fit for a king,
WHO DRESSED YOU IN A NOBLE GARMENT,
And gave you handsome Gilgamesh for a comrade?
(p. 56. "Tablet VII." Benjamin R. Foster. The Epic of Gilgamesh. New York & London. W. W. Norton & Co. 2001. A Norton Critical Edition)
George (Emphasis mine):
"O Enkidu, why curse Shamhat the harlot,
WHO FED YOU BREAD THAT WAS FIT FOR A GOD,
and poured you ale that was fit for a king,
WHO CLOTHED YOU IN A SPLENDID GARMENT,
and gave you as a companion the handsome Gilgamesh?"
(p. 58. "The Standard Version, Tablet VII." Andrew George. The Epic of Gilgamesh. London. Penguin Books. 1999)
The Ur Tablet, found at Ur of the Chaldees by Sir Leonard Wooley recalls Enkidu's curse for the Hunter and Harlot. Of interest here is the Bible suggests Abraham was of Ur of the Chaldees. Did Abraham recast Enkidu's curse for the Hunter and Shamhat into Yahweh's curse for Adam and Eve? Is the earth's diminshed yield for Adam a recast of the diminished profit for the Hunter? Enkidu blames the Hunter and Shamhat for robbing him of his innocence. Did this become Eve robbing Adam of his innocence, urging him to eat forbidden fruit? Has the Hunter been transformed into Yahweh who brought a naked Eve to Adam, who would ensnare Adam with forbidden fruit?
Enkidu's curse for the Hunter and Harlot:
"Enkidu raised his head, weeping to Shamash...
"I appeal to you, Shamash, on account of the hunter, the
trapper-man.
As for "the shackler," who let me not be as great as my friend,
may the hunter be not as great as his friend!
May his profit be cut! Diminish his income!
May his share be cut in your presence!"
After he had cursed the hunter to his heart's content,
he decided to curse the harlot also.
"Come, Shamhat, I will fix your destiny,
I will curse you with a mighty curse,
my curses shall afflict you now and forthwith!"
(pp. 128-129. "The Ur Tablet." Andrew George. The Epic of Gilgamesh. London. Penguin Books. 1999)
"[Because] you made me weak, who was undefiled!
[Yes,] in the wild you weakened me, who was undefiled!"
(p. 129. "The Ur Tablet." Andrew George. The Epic of Gilgamesh. London. Penguin Books. 1999)
"Because you diminished me, an innocent,
Yes me, an innocent, you wronged me (?) in my steppe."
(p. 56. "Tablet VII." Benjamin R. Foster. The Epic of Gilgamesh. New York & London. W. W. Norton & Co. 2001. A Norton Critical Edition)
The "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" does _not_ exist as a motif _to my knowledge_ in any Ancient Near Eastern myths other than the Hebrews' Genesis account. Nor does the "Tree of Life" appear _to my knowledge_ in any Ancient Near Eastern myths, it is "bread of life" and "water of life" that bestows "immortality" on man in Mesopotamian belief, which interestingly resurrects itself later with Christ tearing apart _bread_ and telling his apostles to eat his bread/body and drink his blood/wine to obtain immortality."
Although the Mesopotamian myths do NOT make any mention of a "tree of knowledge of good and evil," they do suggest that knowledge is obtainable from eating of a tree. In the myth of Inanna ("lady of heaven") and her brother Utu (the sun-god), they descend to the earth from heaven to acquire knowledge by eating of a cedar and cypress tree. The knowledge desired by Inanna is how to make love and have sex with her recent bridegroom, Dumuzi (biblical Tammuz). Inanna also bears the Sumerian epithet Inanna-edin-na "Inanna of the steppe," and Nin-edin-na "Lady of the Steppe." Her bridegroom Dumuzi is called Mulu-edin-na, "the man of the steppe" or "lord of the steppe." Both also bear the Sumerian epithet ama-ushumgal-an-na, meaning "the mother is a great serpent-dragon of heaven". So "the man of edin" had a wife who sought sexual knowledge by eating of cedar and cypress trees growing on the earth, and she was called "the lady of edin." One of Inanna's principal shrines was at Uruk and a priestess-harlot from that city (perhaps in service to Inanna?) was taken to a watering hole in the nearby seru/edin to seduce and undo a naked wild savage man whose companions were wild animals, Enkidu of the Epic of Gilgamesh. She succeeds in her mission and she clothes the naked savage before departing the edin and its watering hole with him, bringing the savage to Uruk to meet Gilgamesh. That is to say, I understand that Eve is a fusion of several characters, Shamhat and Inanna, while Adam is a fusion of several characters, Enkidu and Adapa of the Adapa and the South Wind myth. The "lady of edin" (Inanna) who ate of trees to acquire knowledge became Eve the "lady of Eden" who ate of a tree's fruit and then encouraged her help-mate "husband" Adam to eat of a tree too (just as Shamhat tells Enkidu to "eat the bread and drink the wine" set before him by the shepherds of edin, said food being initally rejected by Enkidu).
Perhaps Enkidu's Sumerian epithet lullu "primordial man," or "savage man" points the way to his being later recast by the Hebrews as Adam, Genesis' "primordial man" ? The "early life of mankind" also points the way to Enkidu's transformation into Adam, "man-as-he-was-in-the-beginning"? Shamhat has been transformed into Eve. Adam's animal companions not being a fit help-mate introduces Eve brought to Adam by God (The Hunter who brought Shamhat or "the woman" to the watering hole to ensnare him with sex and separate him from his animal companions).
Gardner and Maier:
"That the story of Enkidu is the story of the early life of mankind is suggested by the epithet given him here, lulla-amelu...The lullu, borrowed from the Sumerian lu-u-lu, is "primordial" mankind, before humanizing and civilizing habits are learned...Hence "man-as-he-was-in-the-beginning" here and "man-as-he-was" in line 3 below." (p. 79. "Notes to Tablet I Column iv." John Gardner & John Maier. Gilgamesh Translated from the Sin-Leqi-unninni Version. New York. Vintage Books. A Division of Random House. 1985)
"The animals came; their hearts grew light in the waters.
And as for him, Enkidu, child of the mountain,
he who fed with gazelles on grass,
he drank with the wild beasts at the watering place
and with the hurrying animals his heart grew light in the waters.
The woman saw him, the man-as-he-was-in-the-beginning,
the man-and-killer from the deep wilderness.
"Here he is, courtesan; get ready to embrace him.
Open your legs, show him your beauty.
Do not hold back, take his wind away.
Seeing you, he will come near.
Strip off your clothes so he can mount you.
Make him know, this man-as-he-is, what a woman is.
His beasts who grew up in his wilderness will turn from him.
He will press his body over your wildness."
(p. 77. "Column iv." John Gardner & John Maier)
After sating himself for six days and seven nights of sex, Enkidu rises to rejoin his animal companions. They flee from him, he returns to the harlot who tells him he has become wise, like a god. Perhaps these lines paved the way for Enkidu's transformation into Adam who acquires wisdom like a god via his contact with a naked Eve (the naked Shamhat).
"After Enkidu was glutted on her richness
he set his face toward his animals
Seeing him, Enkidu, the gazelles scattered, wheeling:
the beasts of the wilderness fled...
His animals had turned from him.
Enkidu grew weak; he could not gallop as before.
Yet he had knowledge, wider mind.
Turned around, Enkidu knelt at the knees of the prostitute.
He looked up at her face,
as the woman spoke, his ears heard.
The woman said to him, to Enkidu:
"You have become wise, like a god, Enkidu.
Why did you range the wilderness with animals?
Come, let me lead you to the heart of Uruk...
where Gilgamesh lives..."
(pp. 77-78. "Column iv." John Gardner & John Maier)
Is Enkidu's lustful embrace for 6 days and seven nights with Shamhat being reformatted in Genesis as " a man leaves...and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Ge 2:23)? Is Adam's sleep a reformatting of Enkidu and Shamhat "sleeping together" for six days and seven nights? Is Eve's being taken from Adam's side (rib) recalling Enkidu and the Harlot sleeping side-by-side with each other and engaging in sex, then his rising from her side to rejoin his animal companions?
Shamhat's statement that Enkidu has become "like a God" (now possessing wisdom) may have been recast into the Edenic serpent's statement that Eve (and consequently, Adam) "you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Ge 3:5); God saying "Behold he has become like one of us, knowing good and evil" (Ge 3:22).
Interestingly, Eve is a pawn used by the serpent, to bring about Adam's downfall. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Shamhat is a pawn used to bring about Enkidu's downfall. Gilgamesh instructs the Hunter to take the harlot to the watering hole and let Enkidu have sex with her, his animal companions will then abandon him, and he will seek companionship with womankind and civilized men. When Gilgamesh later overpowers Huwawa of the Cedar mountain he is described as "conning" Huwawa inorder to disarm him and then striking him "like a serpent." Is Gilgamesh who attacked the guardian of the Cedar Trees "like a serpent," being recast into Eden's serpent associated with forbidden access to trees who will strike mankind? Huwawa's task was to deny man access to the Cedar mountain and its aromatic trees (Gilgamesh and Enkidu take these trees in the form of logs down the Euphrates to Uruk to build temples and palaces). Perhaps Huwawa has been recast as the Cherubim who guard the Tree of Life? Man's (Enkidus' and Gilgamesh's) successful access of forbidden trees has been recast as unsuccessful. The guardian (Huwawa) who is slain is recast as a being (Cherub) that cannot be slain?
Shamhat is cursed by Enkidu, he blaming her for his imminent death. She is to be subordinated to the painful abuse of men in her role as a harlot, she will have no children, perhaps an inversion whereby Eve was cursed (She will have children but in pain and be subordinated to Adam).
God's statement "Who told you that you were naked?" May allude to Shamhat's giving Enkidu clothing to cover his nakedness, he agrees to wear the clothing for now he has wisdom like a god (he KNOWS he cannot ever return to his animal companions). Eve and Adam leaving the garden of eden clothed may recall Shamhat and Enkidu leaving the watering hole clothed. It is after eating bread and drinking alcoholic drink at the shepherd's camp at Shamhat's urging that Enkidu becomes fully human and no longer primordial man or "man-as-he-was-in-the-beginning." Has Shamhat's telling Enkidu to "eat bread" been recast as Eve encouraging Adam to eat forbidden fruit (wild animals are not allowed to forage in the god's city-gardens, the food is forbidden to them)? God's statement to Adam "you shall eat bread..." (Ge 3:19) might also be a recast of Enkidu's eating bread?
Gardner and Maier (emphasis mine):
"He heard her words and listened to what she said.
The advice of a woman
came into his heart.
She took off a part of her clothing
and covered him;
and another part
she kept on herself.
She took his hand
and led him like a child
to the shepherd-house
the place of the sheepfold..."
The milk of wild cattle
he was used to sucking.
They set bread before him.
He gagged, gaped at it,
stared.
Enkidu had not known
about eating cooked food.
About drinking strong wine
no one had taught him.
The love-priestess opened her mouth,
said to Enkidu:
"EAT THE FOOD, ENKIDU,
as life requires.
Drink the wine as is the custom of the land."
ENKIDU ATE THE FOOD...
He drank the wine...
HE BECAME A MAN."
(pp. 91-93. "Tablet II. Column i." John Gardner & John Maier)
Crawford on ancient Sumer's GARDENS possessing Date-palms, FRUIT-TREES and VEGETABLES (emphasis mine):
"So far we have been considering the relationships of settlements to the landscape and to each other, but each of these settlements was supported by its own agricultural hinterland, irrigated by canals, which separated it from its neighbours and provided the vital foodstuffs and fuel on which its survival depended. The utilised land can be divided into three categories: the intensively cultivated GARDENS, which often lay within the boundaries of the settlement on the banks of the water courses; the irrigated fields lying in a band parallel to the waterways and producing the bulk of the staple crops; and the land further from the water supply which was used as grazing, for collecting fuel, for hunting, and occasionally for catch crops when conditions were favorable...The most important crop produced by the GARDEN plots south of the Hit-Samarra line in the third millennium was almost certainly dates, although the archaeological and textual evidence for the production of dates at this time is surprisingly flimsy. Date stones are reported in late Ubaid context at Eridu (Wright 1981:324)...More date stones were found in the grave of the lady Puabi in the Royal Cemetery at Ur...There are also reports of the import of special sorts of date from Dilmun...The date palm is ideally suited to the conditions in south Mesopotamia: it flourishes with its roots in stagnant, salty water and...can be relied on to produce heavy crops south of the 35th parallel. As far north as Qurna it is not even necessary to irrigate because of the backup from the tidal regime on the head of the Gulf. The trees not only produce a highly nutritious food which is a staple part of the diet, but the sap provides a useful sweetner and can also be used to make a sort of fermented date wine...Just as important to the farmer was THE SHADOW CAST BY THE DATE PALM. This ALLOWED allowed more tender plants, such as FRUIT TREES, pomengranates, FIGS, APPLES and even vines, TO GROW IN ITS SHADE. In the deeper shade below the fruit trees were the GARDEN plots, which produced vegetables such as onions, garlic and cucumbers...These plots required much labour, but were amazingly productive. The irrigated arable land, much of it owned by the great public households of the temple and the palace, formed by far the most important category of land in terms of both area and productivity." (pp. 52-54. "Patterns of settlement and agriculture." Harriet Crawford. Sumer and the Sumerians. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press. 1991, 2004)
Note: Genesis does not identify what tree was the "Tree of Knowledge" or what tree was the "Tree of Life." Some scholars have suggested that as Adam and Eve are portrayed covering their nakednes with FIG LEAVES (Genesis 3:7) after eating of the "Tree of Knowledge" that perhaps it is the FIG TREE. Elsewhere in the Bible, we are told that Solomon had his temple decorated with cherubim and palm-trees (1 Kings 6:32, 35). Perhaps this is an allusion to the "Tree of Life" that God sets the cherubim to guard in the garden of Eden (Ge 3:24)? If so, then the DATE-PALM was probably the "Tree of Life." Of interest here is Crawford's _above_ observations about date-palm gardens (date-palm plantations) and fig trees growing in the shade of the date palms. Is Genesis recalling a fig tree (as the "Tree of Knowledge") because in Mesopotamian gardens the fig tree grew _NEAR_ the date-palm (the "tree of life"), THRIVING IN ITS SHADE? Was the date-palm seen "as a tree-of-life" because (1) its dates were a staple food for all, both rich and poor, and (2) its "life-giving-shade" allowed smaller fruit trees to flourish, who's shade, in turn, allowed vegetables to flourish as well?
Crawford on THE EDIN, "uncultivated land" surrounding the Mesopotamian city gardens and irrigated fields being utilized by shepherds to graze their flocks and herds (emphasis mine):
"The third category of land which we listed at the beginning of this section was the unirrigated land, which lay furthest from the waterways, and which merged into the unused land referred to in the texts as THE EDIN. This empty land formed a buffer between one settled enclave and another. It also had a considerable economic role. For much of the year it provided valuable grazing for the sheep and goats, which supplied both meat and dairy produce, as well as wool for the important textile industry. In the summer months the land yielded nothing more than a little scrub, but plants with deep roots, such as prosopis, survive on very little moisture and provide not only a little meager grazing, but also small quantities of fuel, as does the dung dropped by the animals. This is mixed with chopped straw and dried and today provides a major source of fuel IN A VIRTUALLY TREELESS ENVIRONMENT." (pp. 57-58. "Patterns of settlement and agriculture." Harriet Crawford. Sumer and
the Sumerians. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press. 1991, 2004)
Genesis suggests God plants a garden _in_ Eden with fruit trees (Ge 2:8-9). Crawford's above observation of THE EDIN BEING A TREELESS STEPPE OR PLAIN, which SURROUNDS AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE GARDENS OF THE GODS WHICH POSSESS FRUIT-TREES, APPEARS TO ME TO BE A MIRROR-IMAGE OF GENESIS' GARDEN. IN THE MESOPOTAMIAN MYTHS IT IS THE GODS WHO PLANTED THESE GARDENS _IN_ THE EDIN _BEFORE_ MAN'S CREATION. THE GODS PLANTED THESE GARDENS TO PROVIDE FOOD FOR THEMSELVES AS THEY HAVE BUILT CITIES IN THE EDIN TO DWELL IN. AFTER 'TIRING' OF ALL THIS LABOR, BUILDING IRRIGATION CANALS AND DREDGING THEM THEY CREATE MAN TO WORK IN THEIR STEAD, MAN WILL CARE FOR THE GOD'S CITY GARDENS WHICH ARE FILLED WITH FRUIT-TREES. I understand the Hebrews are "refuting" these Mesopotamian myths regarding how the gods came to create man and place him in their city-gardens to grow food and feed them.
Woolley on Sumer's extensive date palm gardens, and the fact that the date was a "staple" food of the people. Could perhaps the date's being a "staple food" for the Sumerians account for why it became Genesis' "tree of life"? (emphasis mine):
"The prosperity of Sumer depended on its agriculture and on its commerce. The carefully irrigated fields produced amazing crops of barley and spelt, onions and other vegetables grew along the canal banks, and as early as 2800 BC the DATE-GARDENS were very extensive -a number of varieties of dates were cultivated, and the harvest afforded one of THE STAPLE FOODS of the people." (p. 112. "Sumerian Society." Sir Charles Leonard Woolley. The Sumerians. Oxford, England. The Clarendon Press. 1928, 1929)
Woolley on grain being grown in Sumer for BREAD (Adam apparently grows grain in Genesis, being told by God he will earn his bread by the sweat of his brow (Ge 3:19) (emphasis mine):
"The grain was used for BREAD ground to flour between flat rubbing-stones, or was parched and bruised for a kind of porridge or brewed into beer; wine was manufactured from dates as well as from grapes..." (p. 114. "Sumerian Society." Sir Charles Leonard Woolley. The Sumerians. Oxford, England. The Clarendon Press. 1928, 1929)
Genesis' Garden of Eden and its motifs are then identified as reworked or recast motifs from several Mesopotamian myths, Adapa and the Southwind, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Atrahasis Epic, Utu and Inanna , Ewe and Wheat and others.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(3) My Third-most Important Article: "Adam's 'Fall From Grace' and the Mesopotamian Myths"
Christianity teaches that all is "not well" between Man and God. Man since Adam has "fallen from grace", he was EXPELLED from the Garden of Eden by God and the Cherubim. Christianity teaches that Christ was born and died on the cross in order to "restore" man to God's good graces, and holds out the promise man will once more be allowed "back" into the Garden of Eden, to eat of the Tree of Life and know God's fellowship (Revelation 22:1-2, 14). These teachings were not a part of Mesopotamian belief. They saw nothing "wrong with the world" that needed a "restoration" of man's relationship vis-a-vis the gods.
Mesopotamian myths understand that the gods (Enlil of Nippur and Enki of Eridu) created man to work in their earthly city gardens to relieve the junior gods called the Igigi of onerous working conditions which they protested and rebelled against. Later, Enlil (Ellil), enraged that he can get no rest by day or sleep by night because of the noise of man, decides to send a flood to destroy all mankind. Ea (Enki), defying Enlil, warns one man, Ziusudra of Shuruppak, of the coming flood and to build a boat to save self, family and animals, he does so. The flood lasts 7 days and nights in one account, another has six days and nights yet another six days and seven nights. After the flood HUNGRY gods gather "like flies" to consume the sacrifice of Ziusudra in their honor, for during the course of the Flood they have had no meals fed them by man.
The gods had learned an important lesson. It was foolish to send another flood to destroy all mankind. Who would take care of the gods' earthly city gardens if man was exterminated? The gods would have to return to the earth to hoe their own gardens! Who would feed the hungry gods in the temples if man was no more ? The gods would have to feed themselves!
Genesis portrays an outraged God EXPELLING man from his earthly garden. This concept was UNKNOWN to the Mesopotamians. They understood man had been created to work the gods' gardens FOREVERMORE AS THEIR AGRICULTURAL _SLAVE_, relieving the junior gods, the Igigi, of agricultural toil. Genesis is then DENYING OR REFUTING Mesopotamian understandings of HOW and WHY man was created. Yahweh does NOT NEED MAN to take care of his earthly garden, Yahweh does NOT NEED MAN TO FEED HIM the produce from his earthly garden, yet Yahweh DEMANDS TWO MEALS A DAY _LIKE A MESOPOTAMIAN GOD_ OF HIS PEOPLE at Mount Sinai and the Temple at Jerusalem! Other Mesopotamian myths have man created and abandoned initially by the gods as a naked wild animal wandering the steppe, seru/edin. Man did NOT begin life in an idyllic paradisiacial setting, he began life as a naked animal wandering about in a hell-hole, the desolate edin and he is also portrayed as being created to serve as a slave in the gods' city-gardens. Man's life IMPROVES when the gods introduce the arts of civilization to him and cause him to dwell in their cities and become their servant. There is NO FALL OF MAN into a life of sin, corruption and depravity in the Mesopotamian myths, only an IMPROVEMENT OF MAN'S LOT IN LIFE when he becomes the gods' slave and servant, learning to live like a god by wearing clothes. The Hebrews are refuting these notions.
Christianity's notion that all is NOT WELL because man has been expelled from the Garden of Eden and has lost Gods' "favor" is then a REFUTATION OF MESOPOTAMIAN UNDERSTANDINGS of the relationship between the gods and man.
THE GODS NEVER INTENDED TO EXPEL MAN FROM THEIR EARTHLY GARDENS, FOR THEN THE GODS WOULD HAVE TO HOE THEIR GARDENS THEMSELVES, something they dreaded, hence the reason they made man in the first place, to replace themselves as an agricultural servant.
Genesis' portrayal of Yahweh-Elohim EXPELLING man from his earthly garden is then a Hebrew REFUTATION or DENIAL of the beliefs held by the Mesopotamians regarding the relationship between man and his god.
The Mesopotamian myths noted that before man's creation the junior gods called the Igigi toiled in the earthly gardens of the senior gods called the Anunnaki. Enlil of Nippur and Enki of Eridu are identified as being Anunnaki gods and Nippur and Eridu are identified as lying in a desert-like steppe or plain called in Sumerian edin.
The Nippur myth regarding how man came to be made stressed that for 40 years, night and day -WITHOUT ANY REST- the junior gods called the Igigi toiled in Enlil's garden, making mountains of the dredged earth or sediments continually clogging up the irrigation canals providing water for the crops. The Igigi constantly "clamored" about their grievous toil but to no avail, the Anunnaki gods ignored them. Only when the Igigi revolt, burning their tools and surrounding the house of Enlil do they get attention. Enki is summoned from Eridu and with Enlil's assent it agreed that the Igigi's complaints of years of onerous toil and their clamor was deliberately ignored. To "right" the situation, man will be created to replace the Igigi. Man will toil in _a_ god's (Enlil's) city-garden at Nippur. The Igigi are estatic ! They have been "removed" from _a_ god's garden and "replaced" by man. Now the Igigi will be free from agricultural toil like the Anunnaki gods (Anu, Enlil and Enki).
The Mespotamian myths explained that the Flood which destroyed all mankind had been brought about because man's "noise or clamor" was disturbing the god's rest by day and sleep by night, year after year without let-up. These myths also noted that in the beginning the 7 great Anunna Gods had imposed back-breaking labor making and clearing irrigation ditches, by day and by night -WITHOUT ANY REST- on the Igigi gods confined to the gods' earthly city-gardens. These gods are described as muttering, complaining and constantly creating "a clamor," which at first is ignored by the Anunna (Anunnaki) gods. The threatened rebellion by the Igigi gods is forstalled by making man from the ringleader of the Igigi, slaughtering him and mixing his flesh and blood with the clay. The myths at this point stress that with the making of man, not only do the Igigi gods get to enter into "the rest from toil," enjoyed by the Anunna gods, but that "their clamor," their noisey complaining about hardwork is transferred to man. In otherwords, man's "noise" is because HE IS OVERWORKED and NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A REST from his god-imposed toil (cf. pp.52-62, "The Story of the Flood," [The Atrahasis version], Benjamin R. Foster. From Distant Days, Myths Tales and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia. Bethesda, Maryland, CDL Press, 1995, ISBN 1-883053-09-9, paperback)
Foster:
"When the gods were man, they did forced labor, they bore drudgery. Great indeed was the drudgery of the gods, the forced labor was heavy, the misery too much: The seven (?) great Anunna-gods were burdening the Igigi gods with forced labor...[The gods] were digging watercourses, canals they opened, the life of the land...They heaped all the mountains. [ years] of drudgery, [ ] the vast marsh. They counted years of drudgery, [and] FORTY YEARS too much ! [ ] FORCED LABOR THEY BORE NIGHT AND DAY. They were complaining, denouncing, muttering down in the ditch, "Let us face up to our foreman the prefect, He must take off this our heavy burden upon us ! (pp.52-3, Foster)
The Anunna gods acknowledge the burden of the Igigi and their "clamor":
"Ea made ready to speak, and said to the gods [his brethren], what calumny do we lay to their charge ? Their forced labor was heavy. [their misery too much] ! Every day [ ] the outcry [was loud, we could hear the clamor]. There is [ ] [Belet-ti, the mid-wife], is present. Let her create, then a human, a man, let him bear the yoke...[let man assume the drud]gery of god...She summoned the Anunna, the great gods...Mami made ready to speak, and said to the great gods, "You ordered me the task and I have completed (it) ! You have slaughtered the god, along with his inspiration. I have done away with your heavy forced labor, I have imposed your drudgery on man. You bestowed (?) clamor upon mankind..." (pp.58-59, Foster)
The Igigi gods in gratitude fall at her feet, kissing them, she having freed them from toil, and declare a new name for her "Mistress of All the gods" (Belet-kala-ili).
Now the gods complain that man's "clamor" disturbs them, resulting in a decision to send a Flood to destroy man and obtain peace and quiet and their longed-for "rest."
:
"Twelve hundred years had not gone by, the land had grown wide, the peoples had increased, the land bellowed like a bull. The god was disturbed with their uproar, Enlil heard their clamor, he said to the great gods, The clamor of mankind has become burdensome to me..." (p.62)
"I am disturbed at their clamor, at their uproar sleep cannot overcome me..." (p.65)
The gods try various ways to reduce mankind's clamor by decimating mankind's numbers, and in the end they resolve upon a Flood to destroy them all. However, one god stands apart as man's friend, he is Enki. An enraged Enlil accuses Enki of thwarting the agreed-upon plan of the gods, that man should toil ceasely, he accuses him of lightening man's burden, allowing him to enjoy the fruits of his labor, the fruits to be harvested for the god's food, and providing shade for him as he toils in the hot sun :
"All we great Anunna-gods resolved together on a rule. Anu and Adad watched over the upper regions, I watched over the lower earth. You went, you released the yoke, you made restoration. You let loose produce for the peoples. You put shade in the glare (?) of the sun." (pp.69-70)
Enlil, not trusting Enki, tries to get him to swear an oath not to betray the god's plan to destroy man with a flood. Enki agrees, but slyly lets Atrahasis (Utnapsihtim) know by addressing "the wall" of the house he lives in, thus not directly revealing the flood decision to a man, "face to face." (p.71, Foster)
Dalley on Ea's (Enki's) speaking to "a reed hut and brick wall" to warn Utnapishtim :
"Ut-napishtim spoke to him, to Gilgamesh...let me tell you the secret of the gods. Shuruppak is a city that you yourself know,situated [on the bank of] the Euphrates. The city was already old when the gods within it decided that the great gods should make a flood. There was Anu their father, warrior Ellil their counselor...farsighted Ea swore the oath (of secrecy) with them, so he repeated their speech to a reed hut, "Reed hut, reed hut, brick wall, brick wall, listen reed hut and pay attention brick wall: (This is the message:) Man of Shuruppak, son of Ubara-Tutu, dismantle your house, build a boat. Leave possessions, search out living things. Reject Chattels and save lives ! Put aboard the seed of all living things, into the boat." (pp. 109-110. "Gilgamesh Tablet XI." Stephanie Dalley. Myths From Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and Others. New York. Oxford University Press. 1989, 1991. ISBN 0-19-281789-2. paperback)
A CAVEAT ("WARNING"):
As can be seen from Professor Foster's above translation the Igigi gods are objecting to the making of watercourses and canals, NOWHERE does the text say they are working in the Anunnaki gods' city-gardens ! So, why am I claiming the Igigi worked in the Anunnaki gods' gardens ?
I am stepping back and looking at the "big picture," or to put it another way "connecting the dots" (making INFERENCES)! We have two sets of gods dwelling in cities they have made for themseleves on the earth, the senior gods called the Anunnaki or Anunna and the junior gods called the Igigi. The Anunnaki are making the Igigi do the work. What is the purpose of canals and watercourses in Mesopotamia ? Its not to water the grass lawns near the temples. The cities of Lower Mesopotamia are habitable only if a food-supply is available for the occupants.
The watercourses, canals and irrigation ditches MAKE POSSIBLE THE CITY-GARDENS OF THE GODS. Thus I INFER that when the Anunnaki sit down to a meal, they as the senior gods are not out in the hot sun planting the crops, nor are they hoeing out the weeds, nor are they harvesting the crops, nor are they preparing the crops for the table. The Anunnaki are eating the garden-produce, and someone has to make all this "happen."
According to the myths Man has not yet been created, so that leaves the Igigi gods as bearing these burdens. That is to say it is my understanding that they not only are digging-out watercourses and canals, but irrigation ditches, and planting, hoeing and harvesting the crops to feed the Anunnaki as well as themselves.
When it is at last decided to REPLACE THE IGIGI WITH MAN, it is man who will now dig watercourses, canals, irrigation ditches and plant the crops, hoe them of weeds and harvest them and present them as food in the temples and shrines to the Anunnaki and the Igigi. Hence the reason I understand that the Igigi were burdened with toil in the gods' gardens. The gods' gardens cannot exist without water from man-made watercourses, canals and irrigation ditches.
George (a Professor of Babylonian at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies) suggests that THE IGIGI WERE TASKED WITH GARDENING DUTIES: planting, harvesting and preparing crops for the table in addition to making canals and irrigation ditches. Note that the Igigi TILLED the soil and Adam is portrayed as TILLING the Garden of Eden (Emphasis mine):
"We know from many ancient Mesopotamian sources, in Sumerian and in Akkadian, that the Babylonians believed the purpose of the human race to be the service of the gods. BEFORE MANKIND'S CREATION, the myth tells us, the cities of lower Mesopotamia were inhabited by the gods alone and they had to feed and clothe themselves by their own efforts. Under the supervision of Enlil, the lord of the earth, THE LESSER DEITIES GREW AND HARVESTED THE GODS' FOOD, TILLED THE SOIL and most exhaustingly, dug the rivers and waterways THAT IRRIGATED THE FIELDS...Eventually the labour became too much for them and they mutinied." (p. xxxvii. "Introduction." Andrew George. The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. London. Penguin Books. 1999)
Genesis 2:5, 15 RSV
"...there was no man TO TILL THE GROUND...The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden TO TILL IT and keep it."
Below, is another mythical variation of how and why mankind came to be created by Enki. In this account he is sleeping through the commotion on the earth's surface, caused by the earth-dwelling junior gods called the Igigi who labor ceaselessly to provide food for the senior gods called the Anunnaki or Anunna (Enki or Ea is an Anunna god). He is awakened from his sleep in his underwater Abzu dwelling called the E-engur, by his mother who asks him to end the commotion. He creates man from clay above the Abzu transfering the burden of agricultural toil from the earth-dwelling gods to mankind. In the Bible God makes man of dust and places him in Eden to tend God's garden. Enki's "sleeping" recalls to mind the Psalmist portraying Yahweh-Elohim "sleeping" while Israel's enemies destroy her (cf. Ps 44:23; 78:65)
"The Enki and Ninmah Myth:
In those days, in the days when heaven and earth were created; in those nights, in the nights when heaven and earth were created; in those years, in the years when the fates were determined; when the Anunna gods were born; when the goddesses were taken in marriage; when the goddesses were distributed in heaven and earth; when the goddesses ...... became pregnant and gave birth; when the gods were obliged (?) ...... their food ...... for their meals; the senior gods oversaw the work, while the minor gods were bearing the toil. The gods were digging the canals and piling up the silt in Harali. The gods, dredging the clay, began complaining about this life.
At that time, the one of great wisdom, the creator of all the senior gods, Enki lay on his bed, not waking up from his sleep, in the deep engur, in the flowing water, the place the inside of which no other god knows. The gods said, weeping: "He is the cause of the lamenting!" Namma (Nammu), the primeval mother who gave birth to the senior gods, took the tears of the gods to the one who lay sleeping, to the one who did not wake up from his bed, to her son: "Are you really lying there asleep, and ...... not awake? The gods, your creatures, are smashing their ....... My son, wake up from your bed! Please apply the skill deriving from your wisdom and create a substitute (?) for the gods so that they can be freed from their toil!"
At the word of his mother Namma, Enki rose up from his bed. In Hal-an-kug, his room for pondering, he slapped his thigh in annoyance. The wise and intelligent one, the prudent, ...... of skills, the fashioner of the design of everything brought to life birth-goddesses (?). Enki reached out his arm over them and turned his attention to them. And after Enki, the fashioner of designs by himself, had pondered the matter, he said to his mother Namma: "My mother, the creature you planned will really come into existence. Impose on him the work of carrying baskets. You should knead clay from the top of the Abzu; the birth-goddesses (?) will nip off the clay and you shall bring the form into existence. Let Ninmah act as your assistant; and let Ninimma, Cu-zi-ana, Ninmada, Ninbarag, Ninmug, ...... and Ninguna stand by as you give birth. My mother, after you have decreed his fate, let Ninmah impose on him [mankind] the work of carrying baskets." ( "Enki and Ninmah." <http://theoldpath.com/senkimah.htm> cf. also Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Robson, E., and Zólyomi, G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, Oxford. 1998.)
Clifford noted in the below Sumerian Creation text that the gods CREATED MAN TO WORK THEIR FIELDS near the cities the gods dwelt in. _I infer_ "fields" to mean THE GODS' GARDENS, for these fields produce food items or plants like wheat, barley, fruits, vegetables and animals like sheep, goats, and cattle to be served up by man to the gods in their temples and shrines. The below verses suggest that man is created at Nippur (WHICH LIES IN EDIN, a Sumerian word meaning "desert-like steppe" or "plain" lying in Iraq BETWEEN THE TIGRIS AND EUPHRATES RIVERS) where dwells the Sumerian god Enlil ("lord wind") who rules the earth. However several gods are enumerated in the decision to make man of two slain minor gods. The gods BEFORE MAN'S CREATION have created cities for themselves to dwell in and have dug rivers, canals and irrigation ditches to provide water for their city-gardens or "fields." The Gods BEFORE MAN"S CREATION planted these gardens now they will "transfer the burden of physical toil and labor" (the CORVEE "assigned labor") of maintaining THEIR GARDENS OR FIELDS to man, who will plant, hoe weeds, maintain canals and irrigation ditches, and harvest food to present in temples or shrines ("The House of the Gods") FOR THE GODS TO CONSUME (emphasis mine in CAPITALS):
"After the gods had established the plan of the universe,
And, to prepare the irrigation system,
Had determined the course of the Tigris and Euphrates...
What are we to make now?
O Anunna, great gods, what are we going to do now?
What we going to create?
And the great gods who were present there,
With the Anunna who assign destinies,
Responded in chorus to Enlil:
"In the 'Flesh-Growing Place' of Duranki (Nippur),
We are going to slay two divine Alla (Nagar, reading uncertain),
And from their blood GIVE BIRTH TO HUMAN BEINGS !
The corvee of the gods will be their corvee:
They will fix the boundaries of the fields once and for all,
And take in their hands hoes and baskets,
To benefit the House of the gods,
Worthy of their high Dais!
They will add plot to plot:
They will fix the boundaries of the fields once and for all.
They will install the irrigation system
[They will fix the boundaries of the fields]
To provide water everywhere
And thus make all kinds of plants grow...
and pile up sheaves.
Thus THEY WILL CULTIVATE THE FIELDS OF THE ANUNNA,
Increasing the riches of the land,
And diverting the freshwater to the Great Residence,
Worthy of the high Dais!
They will be called Ullegarra and Annegarra [=FIRST HUMANS].
And they will multiply, for the prosperity of the land,
Cattle, sheep, (other) animals, fish, and birds...
THEN WILL BE CELEBRATED worthily, DAY and NIGHT,
THE _FEASTS_ OF THE GODS,
According to the full plan that they have established-
An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninmah, the chief gods."
And right there where human beings had been created,
Nisaba was installed as their sovereign [=grain goddess].
-It is there a secret doctrine:
One ought to speak of it only among the initiate."
(pp. 49-51. "D. Kar 4: A Unique Text." Richard J. Clifford. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. Washington D.C. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 26. 1994. ISBN 0-915170-25-6. paperback)
Below, Professor Thorkild Jacobsen's translation of the "Eridu Genesis myth" which CONTRADICTORILY has men making cities for the gods to dwell in opposition to other myths claiming the gods made the cities before man's creation and planted city-gardens for themselves:
Mesopotamian myths (The Eridu Genesis myth) speak of naked man wandering the steppe with animals for companions. He knows no fear, because no animals exist "yet" to harm him like lions, hyenas, and snakes. In the below myth Nintur takes man from his wanderings in the setppe and has him build cities for the gods in high desert (edin the steppe/plain):
"Mankind's trails when forgotten by the gods were in the high (i.e., not subject to flooding) desert. In those days no canals were opened, no dredging was done at dikes and ditches on dike tops. The seeder plow and plowing had not yet been instituted for the knocked under and downed people. Mankind of (those) distant days, since Shakan (the god of flocks) had not (yet) come out of the dry lands, _did not know arraying themselves in prime cloth_, MANKIND WALKED ABOUT NAKED. In those days, there being NO SNAKES, being no scorpions, being no lions, being no hyenas, being no dogs, being no wolves, MANKIND HAD NO OPPONENT, FEAR AND TERROR DID NOT EXIST. [The people had as yet no] king. Nintur was paying attention: Let me bethink myself of my mankind, (all) forgotten as they are; and mindful of mine, Nintur's creatures let me bring them back, let me lead the people back from their trails. MAY THEY COME AND BUILD CITIES and cult-places, that I may cool myself in their shade; may they lay the bricks of the cult-cities in pure spots, and may they found places for divination in pure spots ! She gave directions for purification, and cries for quarter, the things that cool (divine) wrath, perfected the divine service and the august offices, and said to the (surrounding) regions: "Let me institute peace there !" When An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursag fashioned the darkheaded (people) they had made the small animals (that came up) from (out of) the earth in abundance and had let there be, as befits (it) gazelles, (wild) donkeys, and fourfooted beasts in the desert...he (i.e., the king)...laid the bricks of those cities...The firstling of those cities, Eridu she [Nintur] gave to the leader Nudimmud [Enki/Ea]...[man] dredged the canals, which were blocked with purplish (wind-born) clay, and they carried water. Their [man's] cleaning of the smaller canals established abundant growth." (pp. 160-161. Patrick D. Miller, Jr. "Eridu, Dunnu and Babel: A Study in Comparitive Mythology." pp. 143-168. Richard S. Hess & David Toshio Tsumura. Editors. I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood, Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11. Winona Lake, Indiana. Eisenbrauns. 1994. ISBN 0-931464-88-9, citing from Professor Thorkild Jacobsen's translation. 1981. "The Eridu Genesis.")
The Mesopotamian myths have man's life IMPROVING when he is settled in cities, becoming a servant of the gods, who introduce to him the arts of civilization making life pleasant and bearable. Genesis suggests, CONTRA the Mesopotamians, that man's life DETERIORATES into a life of never-ending "murder and mayhem" after he is expelled from God's garden to eventually live in cities founded by the world's first murderer, Cain (Ge 4:17), and his murderous descendants (Lamech, Ge 4:23-24) .
Prior to man's being placed in cities made by the gods (originally built for themselves before man's creation according to some myths), man was characterized as a naked wild savage or beast who ate grass and lapped water at watering holes in the seri "steppe" (Note: seri is an Akkadian/Babylonain term that over time came to replace the older Sumerian word for "uncultivated steppe land," the edin or edin-na) with naked wild animals for companions. Genesis, in refuting this notion of man's beginnings, shows life as idyllic in a God's garden _LOCATED_IN_EDEN_ (Ge 2:8) for primitive man and his animal companions, . Genesis does NOT portray God's garden as being a city-garden as in the Mesopotamian myths, which the gods created man for the purpose of tilling and tending, relieving the Igigi gods of their earthly toil in the cities of Eridu and Nippur. For me Genesis is point-by-point refuting the Mesopotamian notions regarding where, when, how and why man came to be made and his life later sought in a flood.
Campbell's (1964) observation that the Mesopotamian myths have been transformed by the Hebrews in Genesis TO RENDER AN ARGUMENT CONTRARY TO THE OLDER MESOPOTAMIAN FAITH (by 180 degrees) IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, for it "aligns" with Batto's observation that life for primitive man in the Mesopotamian beliefs was NOT idyllic in the gods' city-gardens (Emphasis mine):
"No one familiar with the mythologies of the primitive, ancient, and Oriental worlds can turn to the Bible without recognizing COUNTERPARTS on every page,TRANSFORMED, however, TO RENDER AN ARGUMENT CONTRARY TO THE OLDER FAITHS. (p. 9. "The Serpent's Bride." Joseph Campbell. Occidental Mythology, The Masks of God. Arkana. New York. Viking Penguin Books. 1964, 1991 reprint)
Walton on the Mesopotamian vs. Hebrew "contrary" notions of man:
"The fact that the Israelites viewed man as the centerpiece of creation afforded him a certain dignity, undergirded by the fact that he was created in the image of God. In contrast, Mesopotamians did not see man as created with dignity...In Israelite thought, the created world was man-centered. This was not the case in Mesopotamian thinking...cities and civilization were seen to have been created by the gods before humans appeared. Humanity was an unplanned afterthought, created for the sake of convenience. This is contrary to the biblical viewpoint in every way." (pp. 29-30. "Cosmology." John H. Walton. Ancient Israelite Literature In Its Cultural Context, A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing House. 1989. 1990 Revised Edition)
Below, Gaster on the Gods of Mesopotamia and Yahweh requiring morning and evening feedings via sacrifices OR FEASTS (Emphasis mine in CAPITALS):
"It was a belief of the Semites, as of other ancient peoples, that the immortal and supramundane quality of the gods was sustained by their eating special food or imbibing special drink in heaven. Such celestial "food of life" (akal balati) and "water of life" (me balati) play a significant role in the Mesopotamian myth of Adapa...THE BELIEF IS ATTESTED AMONG THE HEBREWS by Pss. 78:25; 103-:40; Wisd. Sol. 16:20...Accordingly, when the gods came down to earth and sojourned among men, they were temporarily deprived of that substance, and therefore stood in need of constant refreshment by more mundane life-giving substances. Such were, above all, the blood and suet of earthly creatures, for these were considered the primary seats of vitality and energy...Hence, another of the primary purposes of sacrifice was to supply the gods, while on earth, with blood and suet; AND THIS SURVIVED ATAVISTICALLY IN THE HEBREW SYSTEM BY RESERVING TO YAHWEH JUST THOSE ELEMENTS of the offertory victims (cf. Ex 24:5 ff; Lev 3:14; De 32:37-38; I Sam 2:15).
Daily Fare of God...the primary purpose of man's creation is said to be the provision of a robot who might perform menial chores (dullu) for the gods. In this context, sacrifices and offerings provided the daily victuals of the deity.
The continual offering. IN THE HEBREW SYSTEM THE DAILY SUSTENANCE OF GOD on earth was provided principally by the so-called "continual offering" which consisted of an immolated beast offfered whole, together with a meal or cereal offering and a libation (cf. Ex 29:38-42' Lev 6:13; 24:3-4, 8; Nu 28:3, 6; I Kings 18:29-36; II Kings 25:29-30...)....The rules concerning it seem, however, to have varied at different periods. In I Kings 18:19-36 and later in Ezra 9:4; Daniel 9:21, the immolation takes place in the morning, and the cereals are offered in the late afternnon. On the other hand, in Exodus 29:38; Nu 28:1-8; Dan 8:11-14, both are presented alike in the morning and in the evening.
This last is paralleled in Babylonian practice, for a ritual calendar from Uruk...prescribes a "heavy meal" (naptanu rabu) and a "light meal" (naptanu quttinu) alike in the morning and in the evening."
(pp. 149-150. Vol. 4. T. H. Gaster. "Sacrifices." George Arthur Buttrick. Editor. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, An Illustrated Encyclopedia. Nashville & New York. Abingdon Press. 1962)
Regarding Gaster's above observations on Yahweh-Elohim's daily feeding by the priests: The Mesopotamian myths portray the gods killing each other. Enki slays his ancestor Apsu; Enki's son Marduk slays his ancestress Tiamat and her new husband Kingu. Inanna is slain by by her sister Ereshkigal in the underworld. An Igigi god called Weila is slain by Enki to give life to man (animating the lifeless clay with the god's flesh and blood). These myths reveal that the gods could be slain and die and the gods NEEDED TO EAT DAILY to sustain their lives. Their city-gardens provided them their food BEFORE MAN"S CREATION. Man's purpose in life is to meet the gods' needs by providing them shelter, clothing and food. THE BIBLE _NEVER_ TELLS US WHY YAHWEH MUST BE FED TWICE A DAY, THE MESOPOTAMIAN MYTHS DO TELL US THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION. A god that needs to eat, is a god that can be slain. The purpose in eating is to sustain life, a being that is "immortal" should NOT need to be fed by man! Yahweh-Elohim then is not a real god, he is just like the "mythical" Mesopotamian gods who need to be fed twice daily by their priests!
Professor Bottero (Emeritus Director of l'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, quatrieme section, Paris, France, Dean of Assyriology) on the Mesopotamian gods being feared by man rather than loved:
"There was absolutely nothing "mystical" about Mesopotamian religion. Its gods were considered to be very high "authorities"...upon whom one depended in complete humility, obligated to serve them: they were distant and haughty "bosses," masters and rulers, and above all not friends! One submitted to them, one feared them, one bowed down and trembled before them: one did not "love" or "like" them." (p. 37. "Religious Sentiment." Jean Bottero. Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 2001 [a translation from the French, published as La plus vieille religion: En Mesopotamie. Editions Gallimard. 1998])
"Reverence, admiration, and self-effacement with respect to the gods dominate the texts. I know of no text that represents another side of religious sentiment: the tendency to get closer to the divine, to seek it out as a possible source of happiness, a strictly "mystical" attitude...The gods...resided in heaven, on earth, under earth, in their temples, and in their statues but never in the heart or spirit of a person..." (pp. 40-41. Bottero)
For the Igigi then, their REMOVAL from _a_ god's garden (Enlil at Nippur and Enki at Eridu) BECAUSE OF THEIR REBELLION was regarded as a _BLESSING_. Work in _a_ god's earthly city-garden in Edin-the-plain/steppe of Sumer and Akkad is a BACK-BREAKING HELL !
The Christian understanding of the garden of Eden from which Adam and Eve are expelled BECAUSE THEY REBELLED AGAINST GOD is seen as a _CURSE_. Man will now "LOOSE FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD" with his REMOVAL from God's garden. Man's work in the garden of Eden is NOT portrayed as a back-breaking hell dredging day and night the irrigation ditches. God LOVES man whereas the Anunnaki gods, Enlil and Enki who are portrayed making man to work in their earthly garden were RUTHLESSLY EXPLOITING their garden-laborers, the Igigi, ignoring their pleas for a release from servitude and a need for some rest from their labors.
That is to say Christianity's notion that MAN'S EXPULSION FOR REBELLION AGAINST THE GOD owning the garden of Eden as being a CURSE, is in the earlier Mesopotamian myths a BLESSING ! The Igigi _LIKE_ Adam and Eve REBELLED against _A_ GOD IN HIS GARDEN (Enlil of Nippur and Enki of Eridu). LIKE Adam and Eve, because of their rebellion they are REMOVED from _a_ god's garden. However, UNLIKE Adam and Eve the Igigi's REMOVAL is a _BLESSING_NOT_A_CURSE, for now the Igigi ATTAIN FELLOWSHIP with the Anunnaki, they will now "lay about in indolent leisure" free of agricultural toil LIKE THE ANUNNAKI, for man will now serve both the Igigi and the Anunnaki gods. MAN'S FATE IN THE MESOPOTAMIAN MYTHS IS TO TOIL FOREVER IN THE GODS' CITY-GARDENS OF EDIN !
Christianity's understanding of Adam and Eve's expulsion being a CURSE appears to be an _inversion or reversal_ of the 'original" Mesopotamian myths regarding how man came to be made and placed in a god's garden and how REBELLION in a god's garden resulted in a REMOVAL from that garden for all eternity of it's "gardeners."
There is a certain "irony" here in the Christian teachings. They suggest that God in the beginning intended man to forevermore work in his garden in Eden. Man's expulsion from Eden's garden is only "temporary", one day man will once again be allowed back into the garden in Eden to care for it as intended in the beginning. That is to say Yahweh and the Mesopotamian gods intended man would for all time work in the gardens of edin.
Some Chistians and Jews understand that Satan and his Demons rebelled against God because they had been demoted by mankind's creation and were thus _VINDICTIVELY_JEALOUS_OF_MAN. Man would rank above them. This might be a recasting of the Mesopotamian myths regarding the lesser gods, the Igigi who are REPLACED by the senior gods the Anuuna or Anunnaki with mankind. The Igigi had REBELLED against the Anunnaki. They objected to the grievous toil on the earth, making and clearing canals and irrigation ditches for the senior gods' city gardens at Nippur and Eridu. Man was created TO REPLACE the REBELLING Igigi. Man would make canals, irrigation ditches, maintain the gods' city gardens, plant the crops, hoe them of weeds, harvest and prepare them for the table to present to both the Anunnaki and Iggi gods. But, the Igigi were NOT angry or jealous over being "REPLACED" BY MAN'S CREATION, _THEY_WELCOMED_ MAN'S_CREATION, for man would bear their grievous toil. So an INVERSION has taken place. YES there was indeed a REBELLION of lesser gods against the senior gods, but this was a JUSTIFIED REBELLION. The toil was excessive and unwarranted. YES man did REPLACE junior/lesser gods, but NOT because man would be closer to a God's affection, fellowship and honor, but to ruthlessly exploit him as had earlier been done to the Igigi. So, it is my understanding that the notion that Satan and his Demons are REBELS to God's authority and jealously seek man's harm because man has been ranked above them in God's affection and honor is nothing more than a later INVERSION or RECASTING of ancient Mesopotamian motifs regarding the relationship between the creation of man and his replacement of the lesser gods, the Igigi, by the senior gods, the Anunnaki.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(4) My Fourth-most Important Article: "Locating the Garden of Eden via Mesopotamian Creation Myths"
Many Christians are interested in locating the Garden _OF_ Eden. The Bible however, states that God planted a Garden _IN_ Eden:
Genesis 2:8 TANAKH (Philadelphia. The Jewish Publication Society. 1988. [5748 since the Creation])
"The LORD God planted a garden _in_ Eden, in the east, and placed there the man whom He had formed."
Some scholars understand Eden is Sumerian edin, the great semi-arid plain of Lower Mesopotamia (where lay ancient Akkad and Sumer) crossed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and I am in agreement with this understanding.
My research suggests that as many as SEVEN LOCATIONS appearing in Mesopotamian myths are fused together and recast in Genesis' Garden in Eden myth: Three locations were man is made are (1) Eridu, (2) Nippur and (3) Babylon. Enkidu of The Epic of Gilgamesh has been recast as Adam and his "undoing" by Shamhat who has been recast as Eve was at a wateringhole in the steppe (Akkadian: seru, seri, serim; Sumerian: edin, edin-na) near (4) Uruk. Enkidu's (recast as Adam) forbidden access to trees occurs at a Cedar Mountain in the (5) Lebanon. Adapa's (recast as Adam and fused with Enkidu) failure to eat the "bread of life" which would bestow on him and mankind immortality was in (6) Heaven at Anu's abode. The motif of a woman made of a man's side recalls Nin-ti "the lady of the rib" at the island of (7) Dilmun (modern Tell el-Lahm east of Eridu).
My personal research reveals that "many Mesopotamian locations or sites" are bound up in Yahweh-Elohim's "Garden _in_ Eden" account from differing myths involving different characters. That is to say, EVERY MESOPOTAMIAN CITY had its GOD'S GARDEN in which man worked, to provide food for the god. There is NOT _A_GARDEN_IN_EDIN, but _MANY_ GOD'S CITY GARDENS _IN_ EDIN. The Hebrews in "recasting" the Mesopotamian myths are _REFUTING_ this fact, replacing the many GOD'S CITY GARDENS IN EDIN with ONE GOD'S GARDEN IN EDEN, portraying it as "unassociated" with a city; another Hebrew _refutation_ of the Mesopotamian belief that a God's garden is an aspect of the city the god dwells in. Genesis has Cain building the world's first city, Enoch, AFTER THE EXPULSION from the Garden in Eden. Genesis is refuting, challenging and denying the Mesopotamian understanding of how man came to be created and PLACED IN A GOD'S CITY GARDEN to care for it.
So, dear reader, in reality, it is quite impossible to "locate" the Garden _in_ Eden using Genesis' description of one river becoming four streams because this is a "recasting" of earlier Mesopotamian myths. No such river system exists or has ever existed except in the realm of fantasy and imagination.
Some Christian scholars claim Eden's garden can never be found because Noah's flood destroyed the original beds of the Edenic rivers, burying them under tons of Flood sediment. Some Roman Catholic scholars date Noah's Flood to ca. 2958 BC while some Protestants claim the Flood was ca. 2348 BC. Both dates fall in the 3rd millennium BC. The problem ? According to Geologists and Archaeologists there is no evidence of a worldwide flood covering the earth's mountaintops in the 3rd millennium BC. There is also no geological evidence that the Tigris (biblical Hiddekel) and Euphrates rivers ever arose from one river. The biblical portrayal of Eden's river system is then, fantasy.
Campbell noted that the Hebrews, apparently _employing inversions_, are reversing or inverting motifs by 180 degrees borrowed from the earlier Mesopotamian culture. He notes that Abraham through Jacob are portrayed as wandering shepherds, _not_ settled urbanites, planting orchards and harvesting the fruit. He suggests the Hebrew shepherds wanting to magnify themselves, took earlier Mesopotamian themes praising city life and applied these motifs to themselves, portraying the urban life as depraved and not in God's favor (After the expulsion from the Garden of Eden Cain the agriculturalist and murderer appears and builds the world's first city). Campbell may be right. This would explain how a Mesopotamian city garden which man is created to toil in, relieving the Igigi gods, becomes a lush garden planted by a God before man's creation (Adam) in the midst of a wilderness called Eden. The uncultivated desert or steppe land in which wandered wild animals and shepherds was called in Sumerian edin. That is to say, the Hebrews may have reversed or inverted the Mesopotamian "creation of man" myths. Instead of man being created to work in a city garden, he is placed in God's garden in the midst of a wilderness called Eden (edin?). Campbell also noted that the gods _tilled_ the gardens of Sumer before man's creation and Adam _tills_ the garden in Eden.
Campbell on the Garden of Eden's Trees having been originally a myth of a settled peoples who plant trees and gardens instead of desert-wandering shepherds and herdsmen like the Hebrews (Emphasis mine):
"...And Yahweh took the man and put him in the garden of Eden _to till_ and keep it...We recognize the old Sumerian garden, but with two trees now instead of one, which the man is appointed to guard and tend...it is to be remarked that one of the chief characteristics of Levantine mythology here represented is that of man created to be God's slave or servant. In a late Sumerian myth retold in Oriental Mythology it is declared that men were created to relieve the gods of the onerous task of _tilling_ their fields. Men were to do that work for them and provide them food through sacrifice. Marduk, too, created man to serve the gods. And here again we have man created to keep a garden...The ultimate source of the biblical Eden, therefore, cannot have been a mythology of the desert -that is to say, a primitive Hebrew myth- but was the old planting mythology of the peoples of the soil. HOWEVER, IN THE BIBLICAL RETELLING, ITS WHOLE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN TURNED, SO TO SAY, ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DEGREES...One milllennium later, the patriarchal desert nomads arrived, and all judgements were reversed in heaven, as on earth." (pp.103, 105-106. "Gods and Heroes of the Levant." Joseph Campbell. The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology. New York. Arkana & Viking Penguin Books. 1964. 1991 reprint)
Campbell's observation that the Mesopotamian myths have been transformed by the Hebrews in Genesis TO RENDER AN ARGUMENT CONTRARY TO THE OLDER MESOPOTAMIAN FAITH (by 180 degrees) IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT (Emphasis mine):
"No one familiar with the mythologies of the primitive, ancient, and Oriental worlds can turn to the Bible without recognizing COUNTERPARTS on every page,TRANSFORMED, however, TO RENDER AN ARGUMENT CONTRARY TO THE OLDER FAITHS. In Eve's scene at the tree, for example, nothing is said to indicate that the serpent who appeared and spoke to her was a deity in his own right, who had been revered in the Levant for at least seven thousand years before the composition of the Book of Genesis. There is in the Louvre a carved green steatite vase, inscribed c. 2025 BC by King Gudaea of Lagash, dedicated to a late Sumerian manifestation of this consort of the goddess, under his title Ningizzida, "Lord of the Tree of Truth." (p. 9. "The Serpent's Bride." Joseph Campbell. Occidental Mythology, The Masks of God. New York. Arkana & Viking Penguin Books. 1964, 1991 reprint) Please click here for my article on the pre-biblical origns of Eden's Serpent.
Campbell on the Hebrews "inverting" of earlier myths (Emphasis mine):
"The first point that emerges from this contrast, and will be demonstrated further in numerous mythic scenes to come, is that in the context of the patriarchy of the Iron Age Hebrews of the first millennium B.C., THE MYTHOLOGY ADOPTED FROM THE EARLIER NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE CIVILIZATIONS of the lands they occupied and for a time ruled BECAME INVERTED, TO RENDER AN ARGUMENT JUST THE OPPOSITE TO THAT OF ITS ORIGIN." (p. 17. "The Serpent's Bride." Joseph Campbell. The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology. New York. Arkana & Viking Penguin Books. 1964. Reprinted 1991)
If scholars are "correct" that Sumerian edin was later transformed into Eden, and I assume they are, and if I am correct that the city gardens of edin (ancient Akkad and Sumer of Lower Mesopotamia) have been transformed into Genesis' Garden _in_ Eden, what then is recoverable for pinpointing the biblical "Paradise" on a modern map?
The "Golden Key" for unlocking the mystery of where the Garden in Eden lies is to _isolate the prototype_ for Mesopotamia's city gardens of the gods. In other words, WHAT CITY WAS THE _FIRST_ TO BE CREATED WITH ITS GOD'S CITY GARDEN according to the myths ? This "prototype" was identified over 100 years ago in the 19th century by professional scholars (Assyriologists). Even today, in the 21st century, one encounters in the scholarly literature the acknowledgement of the site which constitutes "the prototype" for the gods' city gardens in edin. This site has been excavated by trained archaeologists, its modern name is Tell Abu Shahrein, in the Sumerian myths it was called Eridug meaning "the good city," (Akkadian/Babylonian: Eridu). For further information on Eridu being the Mesopotamian EQUIVALENT of the Garden of Eden you will need to access an article which is divided into TWO parts. Please click here for PART ONE and click here for PART TWO (Note: after clicking on the article go to your browser menu at the top of your screen, click on the "FIND" Box, enter Eridu, and the FIND Box will scan the article highlighting this word, saving you the tedious task of reading the whole article. PLEASE READ _BOTH_ PARTS)
In the Mesopotamian myths (The Eridu Genesis Myth, Ewe and Wheat, The Epic of Gilgamesh) man wanders naked in an uncultivated wilderness plain or steppe (Akkadian: seru, Sumerian: edin) with wild animals for companions. It is my understanding that Hebrew `eden is recalling the Sumerian edin. But, as I have noted before, the Hebrews are _denying and refuting_ the Mesopotamian myths. At Ebla (Tell Mardikh) in Syria the Old Babylonian edin (ca. 2000-1500 BCE, OB Nippur Lu 823) is rendered eden (Early Dynastic IIIb, 3000-2500 BCE. Ebla Sign List 55), meaning a "steppe" or "plain". I suspect that the Hebrews took the Syrian eden and added a phoneme /`/ to it rendering eden as `eden causing the semi-arid, desertlike steppe to become a "well-watered delightful place". Why? _The Hebrews are refuting Mesopotamian beliefs!_ The gods despised man, in the Eridu Genesis myth naked man is a wild animal, his companions are not the gods, but wild animals naked like himself. The gods do not give man any fruits from their city-gardens to eat, man must fend for himself, HE EATS GRASS and laps water like the other beasts (cf. the Ewe and Wheat myth as well as Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh). The Hebrews apparently objected to this portrayal of man. Edin (Syrian Ebla's eden) is a place of desolation, wild animals roam it, brigands, cut-throats and murdering outcasts like Cain from civilized society also inhabit it. Dumuzi was slain by demons in the edin at his sheepfold. Edin/Eden is not an idyllic place for man in the Mesopotamian myths. I suspect that the Hebrews, in refuting all this, either added the phoneme /`/ to the Syrian eden or _substituted_ edin/eden with a Hebrew `eden a place of "abundance and lushness, delightful and well-watered" (or, perhaps they simply "replaced" Ebla's eden-the-desertlike-steppe with Hebrew `eden, meaning "delight"). God LOVES man, he would NOT place man in an inhospitable desertlike wilderness to eat grass like a beast and abandon him! In the Mesopotamian understanding the uncultivated edin is where shepherds graze their flocks (like Dumuzi). The "good life" is in the cities (not the edin) built according to the myths by the gods for thier habitation _before_ man's creation. The Hebrews' ancestors are portrayed as wandering shepherds, living in tents, as such their habitation would the edin. Perhaps these "shepherds-of-edin" were offended by the Mesopotamian myths concocted by "city-dwellers", glorifying city-life over shepherding in the edin? Thus the "shepherds of edin" concocted _a counter-argument_, glorifying life in the edin and denigrating city-life? Cain the murderer builds the world's first city and man descends into corruption and sin. So the Hebrews' shepherding ancestors are refuting, denying and challenging the Mesopotamian world view regarding primitive naked man's life in the uncultivated edin being a curse. That is to say, the Hebrew shepherds are glorifying their own life style as against that of life in cities glorified by the city-dwelling Mesopotamians. Perhaps these shepherds of edin deliberately misspelled eden/edin by adding the phoneme /`/ rendering Hebrew `eden, meaning "delight, well-watered, or lush"? Thus the desertlike semiarid edin steppe lands, the "god-forsaken-wilderness", became a "place of delight" portraying God fellowshipping with man in this remote location instead of in cities allegedly built by the gods for their habitation and their city-gardens which they would later create man to till and care for on their behalf as an agricultural slave. When Cain the founder of city-life and an agricultualist presents his offering to God it is rejected, but the offering of "the shepherd", Abel is accepted. Is this Godly rejection of a city-dweller and agriculturalist (Cain) "another swipe at" the Mesopotamian notion that the gods' contact with man occured when man was created and placed in the gods' city-gardens to relieve the Igigi gods of self-toil? Leick on CITIES BEING THE PLACE OF THE GODS' HEARTS' DELIGHT NOT A GOD'S GARDEN IN A REMOTE WILDERNESS CALLED EDEN AS PORTRAYED IN GENESIS (emphasis mine):
"ERIDU IS THE MESOPOTAMIAN EDEN, THE PLACE OF CREATION...Amid a primeval sea, THE FIRST CITY, ERIDU...Just like the marsh dwellers of southern Iraq, who still build their huts on floating islands of reed, the god [Marduk] spreads mud upon a reed frame to fashion a platform. From this primordial, rather flimsy basis, the cities and their temples take their beginning. Henceforth the gods take up residence on the earth and live in cities. AND BECAUSE THE GODS HAVE THE DWELLING OF 'THEIR HEARTS' DELIGHT' IN CITIES, MESOPOTAMIAN CITIES ARE ALWAYS SACRED. THUS THE MESOPOTAMIAN EDEN IS NOT A GARDEN BUT A CITY, formed from a piece of dry land surrounded by the waters. The first building is a temple. THEN MANKIND IS CREATED TO RENDER SERVICE TO GOD and temple. This is how Mesopotamian tradition presented the evolution and function of cities, and Eridu provides the mythical paradigm. Contrary to the biblical Eden, from which man was banished for ever after the Fall, Eridu remained a real place, imbued with sacredness but always accessible."
(pp. 1-2. "Eridu." Gwendolyn Leick. Mesopotamia, The Invention of the City. London. Penguin Books. 2001. Paperback)
Pritchard on Enkidu's and the wild animals of the steppe heart's DELIGHT being a watering hole (emphasis mine):
"The wild beasts came to the watering-place to drink.
The creeping creatures came, THEIR HEART DELIGHTING IN WATER.
But as for him, Enkidu, born in the hills-
With the gazelles he feeds on grass,
With the wild beasts he drinks at the watering-place,
With the creeping creatures HIS HEART DELIGHTS IN WATER..."
(p. 44. "The Epic of Gilgamesh." James B. Pritchard. Editor. The Ancient Near East, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton, New Jersey. University of Princeton Press. 1958)
Foster on a city-dwelling Shamhat refering to the steppe's watering hole as a place of DESOLATION (emphasis mine):
"The harlot said to him, to Enkidu:
You are handsome, Enkidu, you are become like a god,
Why roam the steppe with wild beasts?
Come, let me lead you to ramparted Uruk...
Come AWAY FROM THIS DESOLATION, BEREFT EVEN OF SHEPHERDS."
(p. 13. Benjamin R. Foster. The Epic of Gilgamesh. New York & London. W. W. Norton & Company. A Norton Critical Edition. 2001)
Note: Hebrew `eden meaning "delight" is _not_ in any way similar in pronounciation to the verb #ia:bu, the word being translated above in the Epic of Gilgamesh as "delighting" and "delights". It is cognate with Arabic #ayi:b 'good' and Hebrew #o:v as in mazel #ov (my thanks to Robert Whiting, PhD, of Helsinki, Finland, a trained Assyriologist, for this information).
Campbell on the Hebrews' mythology being that of nomadic shepherds and DESERT-DWELLERS (note: some scholars render Sumerian edin where Dumuzi the shepherd wandered with his sheep as "DESERT" as well as "steppe" and "plain", emphasis mine):
"...Ezra prevailed, and in the end the Jews...retained, or rather reinvented, an exclusive, DESERT-BASED MYTHOLOGY..." (p. 629. "The Earthly Paradise." Joseph Campbell. The Masks of God: Creative Mythology. New York. Viking Penguin. 1968, reprint of 1976)
So, to sum it all up: The Hebrew patriarchs, Abraham through Jacob (called later Israel) are portrayed as tent-dwelling shepherds: "And you shall make response before the Lord your God, 'A wandering Aramean was my father" (King James Bible: "Syrian" Deut 26:5). They grazed their herds and flocks in the edin steppe lands extending from Ur of the Chaldees (Ge 11:28), south of Babylon to Haran (Ge 11:31) in northern Syria, and Damascus (Ge 15:2) and thence south to Beersheba (Ge 21:33). The city-dwellers of Mesopotamia held the tent-dwelling shepherds of the western lands (Martu, Amurru, Aram) in contempt and regarded them a menace to civilized life in the cities. IN DEFENSE OF THEIR WAY OF LIFE AND THE LOCATION THEY LIVED IN WITH THEIR HERDS (THE DESERT-LIKE EDEN/EDIN STEPPE) THE HEBREW SHEPHERDS ('SYRIAN' OF DEUTERONOMY 26:5) PROBABLY RECAST THE CREATION-OF-MAN MYTHS CONCOCTED BY THE MESOPOTAMIAN CITY-DWELLERS INTO A REFUTATION: GOD'S DELIGHT WAS NOT IN A CITY AND IT'S CITY-GARDEN FOUNDED BY A MUDERING CAIN AND DESCENDANTS, IT WAS IN THE EDEN, WHICH VIA A DELIBERATE MISPRONOUNCIATION AND SPELLING BECAME A PLACE OF "DELIGHT AND WELL-WATERED" INSTEAD OF A SEMIARID DESERT-LIKE GOD-FORSAKEN-WILDERNESS, A FIT PLACE ONLY FOR THIEVES, BRIGANDS AND CUT-THROATS IN MESOPOTAMIAN CITY-DWELLER'S EYES. Primal man, Adam, had dwelt NAKED with animals for companions in a garden, in a location called Eden, just as another primal man, Enkidu of the Epic of Gilgamesh had dwelt NAKED with animal companions until he "fell for" a naked woman brought by the hunter to the watering hole in the steppe, a place where Enkidu and the animal's "HEARTS' DELIGHT was water", to undo the naked man of the steppe, separating him from his animal companions and having him leave the steppe to dwell with civilized man in a city called Uruk. The naked woman's words to Enkidu: "You are like a God now, why roam with the animals? Let us leave THIS PLACE OF DESOLATION, bereft of shepherds, come with me to Uruk, to meet mighty Gilgamesh." Enkidu agrees and she clothes his and her nakedness before leaving the steppe, and they dwell in the city of Uruk, glorified for its "civilized amenities" over the god-forsaken desolate steppe. I understand Enkidu was recast as Adam and Shamhat the naked harlot who separated him from his animals as "a more fit companion", became Eve. The watering hole in the steppe where she seduced Enkidu, the source of Enkidu's and the animals' heart's "delight" became _morphed into 'eden_, meaning a place of "delight" _contra_ a city-dwelling Shamhat characterizing the steppe as a place of "desolation". It is well to recall's Leick's words that the gods regarded cities as their dwelling and hearts' delight whereas naked primal man's (Enkidu's) dwelling and heart's delight was a watering hole in the steppe (Akkadian seru, Sumerian edin). I am here suggesting two possible origins for edin the steppe being transformed into Hebrew `eden or "delight": (1) A deliberate mispronounciation or misspelling to change the word's original meaning by adding the phoneme /`/ to Syrian (Ebla) eden, _or_ (2) a "morphing" of the steppe's watering hole into a "place of delight" because its water is a source of "hearts' delight" for the naked primal man, Enkidu (later recast as Adam) and his animal companions. God manifests himself to all Israel during the Exodus at Mount Sinai descending upon the mount in cloud and fire. At this mount Israel constructs a tent or tabernacle for God to dwell in. God is at first then portrayed as a tent-dweller, NOT a city-dweller like the Mesopotamian gods, and he is a God of the wilderness, a "god-forsaken-wilderness" in Mesopotamian city-dweller's eyes. When, under Solomon, a temple is built in the city of Jerusalem, the tabernacle God dwelt in during the Exodus is folded up and placed in the Holy of Holies to remind the people that God's first domicile was a tent in the wilderness. The prophet Elijah did not seek God in the city of Jerusalem at the temple, he sought and found God at Mount Horeb in the Sinai wilderness (1 Kings 19:8-16). Yahweh-Elohim was then for the Hebrews a God of the wilderness, whereas for the city-dwelling Mesopotamians the gods who created man were city-dwellers. The gods had created man to work in their city-gardens, to raise food to feed the gods and to relieve for all eternity the gods of earthly toil. Speaking from an anthropological point of view, ancient peoples created their gods in their own image to explain their way of life. The Mesopotamians are city-dwellers, their source of food is irrigated city-gardens (fields), so they portrayed their gods as creating cities and irrigated gardens _before man's creation_ for the benefit of the gods. Then the gods create man to toil for the gods' benefit, man will provide life's necessities for the gods: Shelter, Food and Clothing. Abraham is portrayed as being a tent-dwelling shepherd with herds of cattle and flocks of sheep and goats, these animals graze the uncultivated steppe lands of Mesopotamian edin (Ur of the Chaldees to Haran and Damascus). Understandably for the "shepherds of edin", their God will dwell in a tent and be found in the wilderness of edin, NOT in a city and its god's city-garden. To the degree that Genesis presents God's garden as being in the midst of a region called Eden and not in a city, it appears to me that the watering hole in the midst of the steppe where Enkidu met Shamhat is the "closest match" to Eden's garden (cities being founded by Cain and descendants _after the expulsion_ of Adam and Eve from God's garden). But fused with the watering hole which was the animals' and naked primal man's hearts' _DELIGHT_ are recast motifs originally associated with the gardens of the gods, said gods having made man to work in their city-gardens to relieve themselves of toil.
Revelation 22:1-2 (RSV)
"Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, through the middle of the street of _THE CITY_; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its tweleve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."
Note: Revelation suggests that the "water of life" and "tree of life" IS TO BE FOUND WITHIN A CITY, the city of Jerusalem! This ALIGNS NICELY with the Mesopotamian myths claiming that the gods created man to till their CITY-GARDENS, feeding them the crops which were raised. I GUESS ONE COULD SAY WITH REVELATION 22:1-2 WE HAVE "_COME FULL-CIRCLE_" WITH THE MESOPOTAMIAN MYTHS ABOUT MAN BEING CREATED TO CARE FOR THE GODS' CITY-GARDENS FOR ALL ETERNITY! As noted by Leick, the gods' hearts' delight is to dwell in cities, and other myths reveal man will present food raised in city-gardens to the gods in their temples. The Mesopotamian myths then, agree somewhat with Revelation, MAN WILL FOR ALL ETERNITY DWELL IN THE COMPANY OF THE GODS as their agricultural servant, _IN A CITY_ AND CARE FOR THE GODS' (God The Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost) CITY-GARDEN (at Jerusalem).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(5) My Fifth-most Important Article: "Sabbath Origins and the Epics of Atrahasis & Gilgamesh"
Genesis portrays Yahweh-Elohim in the space of seven days creating the world, its Garden of Eden, and man, then resting from his labors on the seventh day, blessing it as a holy day. Later we learn from Moses that Israel is to observe the seventh day as a day of rest, a memorial of God's creating the world and his resting.
It is my understanding that the pre-biblical origins of the Sabbath (Hebrew: Shabbat) are to found in two Mesopotamian myths, the Atrahasis Epic and The Epic of Gilgamesh. I understand that the Hebrews in Genesis are recasting the Mesopotamian motifs and beliefs inorder to challenge, refute and deny them.
After scouring for several years the Mesopotamian Creation myths, I finally found what I had been seeking, a motif that portrayed the gods RESTING ON A SEVENTH DAY.
According to The Atrahasis Epic the gods are unable to rest by day or sleep by night because of man's noise upon the earth (Man has multiplied over hundreds of years). To obtain REST and SLEEP, it is decided to destroy man with a universal flood. This Flood lasts 7days. On the seventh day it comes to an end, all of man has been destroyed. His noise is gone, stillness and quietness reigns supreme upon the earth, at last ALL THE GODS REST ON THE SEVENTH DAY or SEBITTU DAY (sebittu being the Akkadian word for "seventh"). In achieving their rest, they had destroyed the earth. One god had stood apart from his fellow gods, Enki. He warned Ziusudra (also called Atrahsis or Utnapishtim) of Shuruppak (a city on the Euphrates in Lower Mesopotamia) of the coming flood and told him to build a large boat to save "the seed of mankind and of animals." He does so. The Epic of Gilgamesh also relates that the Flood lasted seven days and man's demise was accomplished by the seventh day.
Leick on Ea/Enki's reason for saving mankind from a flood, he realizing the gods need man to be their servants:
"In the later mythological tradition, Enlil's relationship with mankind is always problematic: he is easily roused to anger and impulsively gives in to his urge towards destruction. The flood myths describe how, when the noise generated by the masses of humans drives him to distraction, he immediately decides to wipe them off the face of the earth. In contrast, Enki/Ea realizes in his wisdom that the gods depend on mankind and finds ways to foil Enlil's plans for annihilation." (p. 153. "Enlil." Gwendolyn Leick. Mesopotamia, the Invention of the City. London. Penguin Books. 2001)
If Leick is correct then Ea/Enki did not save man from the Flood because he cared about man's well-being, he did it out of self-interest. The Gods had made man to replace the Igigi gods as laborers. Who would build the canals and irrigation ditches, grow, harvest and prepare food for the gods if man was no more? The gods would have to do this. So, Ea/Enki, being a god of "wisdom" forsaw what would happen from Enlil's rash act and thus warned Utnapishtim to save the "seed" of mankind and creatures for a new beginning.
It is my understanding that a Hebrew savant, perhaps either Terah or Abraham objected to the Mesopotamian portrayal of the relationship between man and gods and thus recast this story. Instead of gods DESTROYING A WORLD in seven days and then resting on the seventh day (man's noise being eliminated on that day), he crafted a new story, of a God who so loved man that He, in a period of seven days CREATED A WORLD and then rested on the seventh day.
The Atrahasis myth explained the reason for man's noise. Man had been created to replace the Igigi gods who noisely complained they had NO REST from the grievous toil they bore in mainintaing a Anunna god's city-garden (Enlil of Nippur), dredging the irrigation canals and ditches of sediments over a period of 40 years -night and day- without any rest. When man is created we are told the "noise or clamor" of the Igigi who complained that they wanted a rest from toil, is transferred to man. In other words, man's noise is that he is complaining that he has NO REST from god-imposed toil in the city-gardens. The gods meet in a council and decide to get their REST from man's noise by destroying man with a Flood.
I understand that a Hebrew savant has recast the Mesopotamian myths. Instead of ALL the gods and goddesses resting on a seventh day after destroying a world and man whom they despise, a loving, caring, merciful God creates a wonderous world for man within a space of seven days, the pinnacle of the creation; Yahweh will place man in his Garden in Eden to commune and fellowship with. Yahweh, unlike the Mesopotamian gods, will give man a day of rest (Exodus 23:12), and he also holds out the promise to man -unlike the Mesopotamian gods- that He will one day allow man to enter into His, Yahweh's, REST (Hebrews 3:11, 18; 4:1-3).
For the Mesopotamians then, the seventh day, when ALL the Gods rested was a day of foreboding and terror, while for the Hebrews it became a day of joy.
Please note the texts do _not_ state that "the gods RESTED on the SEVENTH DAY of the Flood." This is _an_inference_on _MY_part. The Atrahasis myth notes the flood is sent to end man's noise which disturbs the gods' rest and sleep. The texts do state on the seventh day the flood ended, stillness reigns on the earth, man is gone except those on Utnapishtim's boat. Thus _I_INFER_ on the SEVENTH DAY this "STILLNESS" allows the gods to rest and sleep now.
Professor Walton's contrasting the Mesopotamian and Israelitie concepts regarding the status of man in his Creator's eyes (Emphasis mine):
"In the book of Genesis, dignity is conferred on humankind because only humans are in the image of God. All of the cosmos is created for people and with people in mind. In the ancient Near Eastern perspective, humankind is an afterthought and even a bother. There is no dignity to be found in the created status of humanity. HUMANKIND IS CREATED TO BE SLAVES RATHER THAN TO RULE. Dignity in Mesopotamia, for example, is therefore found in the function of humankind -THE GODS NEED THEM TO PROVIDE HOUSING (temples) and FOOD (sacrifices). (p. 232. John H. Walton. Ancient Israelite Literature In Its Cultural Context, A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical amd Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing House. 1989, 1990 Revised Edition)
"What Aristotle later observed about Greek religion was just as true of Mesopotamian religion: "Men imagine not only the forms of the gods, but their ways of life to be like their own." Like human conduct, then, the conduct of the gods lacked consistency and was for the most part unpredictable. There was no absolute morality characteristic of divine conduct and no code to which the gods were bound. The gods were not obliged to be moral, ethical, or even fair, and integrity could never be assumed...since humans were created to do work for the gods, the gods were seen to depend on people to provide for them. This primarily involved two basic elements: the sacrifices provided food for the gods, and the temples provided shelter and housing for the gods." (pp. 238-239. "Summary and Conclusions." Walton. 1990)
Like a Mesopotamian god, Yahweh-Elohim is provided by his people Israel, a house to live in (The Temple at Jerusalem) and meals (sacrifices) twice a day, morning and evening. The difference is that God is never portrayed in the Bible as making man inorder to meet His physical "needs" for a house to live in or food to nourish Him and keep Him alive as in the Mesopotamian concepts.
Like the Mesopotamian gods, Yahweh does not have to be fair or ethical. Hence the reason he is portrayed allowing a righteous Job to be accosted by Satan, Job having his children _all_ killed, his herds stolen, reduced to poverty, and afflicted with boils. Job is not portrayed as "deserving" of all these misfortunes. Yahweh's decision to destroy the animal and plant world along with "sinful" mankind in the Flood is another example of His being portrayed as unfair. Yahweh sends a lying spirit to confuse the prophets of Ahab about His intentions (1 Kings 22:22-23), again another act of unfairness and unethical behavior on God's part.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, dear reader, your eyes have NOW beheld on this page "A HIDDEN TRUTH," _not known_ by most of the world (millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims), the pre-biblical origins underlying Genesis' story of the Garden of Eden and man's creation, and WHY and HOW Hebrews, Christians and Muslims later changed this myth. This website was created 17 December 2000 and as of 12 December 2006, it has logged over 400,000 "visits." Of the billions now living on this planet, _you are among a privileged minority_, in that you "now know" the pre-biblical background to the Garden of Eden and the creation of man in the earliest-known Mesopotamian myths.
The Mesopotamians understood man had been created NOT as an act of love by the gods, NOT because the gods wanted man's companionship, NOT because they desired fellowship with man, they created man to be their slave, to bear the burden of grievous toil building and maintaining canals and irrigation ditches to water their city gardens, to plant, hoe, harvest and prepare food for the gods, guaranteeing the gods freedom from earthly toil. The gods' intent in creating man was the _ruthless exploitation of man_ as their agricultural slave. The Mesopotamians understood that despite man's exploitation by the gods, man's life _was improved and made better_ in his role as the gods' slave or servant: No longer was he a naked beast roaming edin the steppe with naked animals for companions, eating grass and lapping water like an animal. Man had acquired from the gods the arts of civilization thus improving his life. He learned to clothe himself, abide by laws created by the gods, plant food and domesticate animals.
In summary then, we have several accounts of man's creation in the Mesopotamian myths. The Eridu Genesis myth DOES NOT EXPLAIN "WHY" MAN HAS BEEN CREATED, it opens with him in a state of NAKEDNESS wandering the steppe (Akkadian seru, seri or serim, which over time came to replace Sumerian edin) with wild animals for companions; The Ewe and Wheat myth and the Epic of Gilgamesh portray man eating grass and lapping water like an animal. He has no knowledge of right or wrong, HE DOES NOT KNOW IT IS WRONG TO BE NAKED. Quite clearly according to these myths man was NOT created as an "act of love" by gods, he was created a wild animal and initially ABANDONED by the gods to wander aimlessly over edin. Later, the gods will take him from this "hard life" to be their slave and work their city gardens. Other accounts have man being created specifically to replace the Igigi gods who are threatening rebellion over their grievous toil in the gods' gardens (at Eridu and Nippur). Man was not made as an act of love by the gods to have someone to commune and fellowship with. He is to be ruthlessly exploited by the gods, and he is. The evidence of his ruthless exploitation is man's clamor or noise that disturbs Enlil who had Enki make man to replace the toiling Igigi at Nippur. The Igigi's ignored noise or clamor was transferred to man according to the myths, now man protests his burdensome labor, and the fact he HE HAS NO REST from the god-imposed toil. Enlil, claiming he cannot sleep by night or rest by day because of man's clamor decides to end MAN'S PROTESTS FOR A REST FROM TOIL AS ENJOYED BY THE GODS by exterminating him with a Flood. THERE IS NO LOVE OF MANKIND HERE IN THESE MESOPOTAMIAN MYTHS, it is no wonder then that Terah and Abraham objected to this portrayal of the relationship between Man and God and refuted, denied and challenged this portrayal of the relationship between Man and God with the account preserved in Genesis.
Christianity presents an entirely different view of man's relationship with God in the Garden of Eden which
_challenges, refutes and denies_ the "original" Mesopotamian concepts regarding how the gods' gardens in Edin came to be planted before man's creation, and why man was placed in their garden, and what his relationship was to be with his creator, and why his demise was sought in a Flood.
What is the "importance" of all of the above? If Genesis is a later "recasting" AS I HAVE AVOWED of Mesopotamian myths which understood man had been created to work in a god's city-garden or "fields" (Enlil of Nippur _or_ Ea of Eridu) and his "purpose in life" is TO WORK IN THE GARDENS OF THE GODS FOR ALL ETERNITY_GROWING_FOOD_ AND _FEEDING_THE_GODS_ so that they can attain an "eternal SABBATH rest" from agricultural toil (the Igigi and Anunnaki), then is "life without a _real_ purpose" (beyond propagation of the species)?
If Darwin and the Evolutionists are right (and I believe they are) about life being nothing more than a "struggle of the fittest among the species" and our existence is the result of "blind chance" or mindless fortuitous mutations of DNA, can man "survive" without religion?
Man still loves, cares, displays tenderness, seeks the welfare of others to some degree: wife, children, parents, community. Can man survive without "imaginary gods" who supposedly are _the source_ of "knowledge of good and evil" (right and wrong) via divine revelations to pious men and women? Only time will tell.
Must everything boil down to a dog-eat-dog existence, "might makes right, the ends justify the means", tolerance is foolishness, only ruthless intolerance prevails? It would appear that tolerance is the sure way to destruction by the intolerant from my studies into the history of mankind. A "tolerant" pagan Roman empire was in the end destroyed by an "intolerant" Christianity. Paganism was ruthlessly suppressed by "Christian" emperors over a span of some 300 years from Constantine the Great to Justinian the Great (the 4th through 6th centuries AD). Critics of Christianity were silenced via imperial decrees, threatening imprisonment, death or exile. The writings of Christianity's critics were gathered under imperial decree and burned. Laws were passed that all within the empire were to be baptised or face harrassment by the imperial government. Christianity did not triumph over paganism within the Roman Empire because of superior and convincing "reasoning" and intellectual debates winning the hearts and minds of everyone, it succeeded via the employment of terror fostered by the imperial government with the blessings of the Christian church. The imperial government refused to fund anymore pagan churches or priesthoods. The government ordered the closing of temples, forbade sacrifices, and turned a blind eye when Christian mobs desecrated pagan churches, seizing them, destroying the statues of the gods making the temples into Christian churches. Via fear, terror and intolerance Christianity prevailed over paganism in the Roman empire. The very terror-tactics employed by Christianity to overcome paganism, are today being used by Islam to destroy the non-moslem world. Terror works, it worked for Christianity and it will work for Islam. Tolerance it would appear, from history's lessons, is foolishness, intolerance will always be the winner.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Draper (1811-1882) a Professor of Chemistry in 1878 predicted the struggle which exists today, that of Religion versus Science as to what constitutes Truth:
"The antagonism we thus witness between Religion and Science is the continuation of a struggle that commenced when Christianity began to attain political power. A divine revelation must necessarily be intolerant of contradiction; it must repudiate all improvement in itself, and view with disdain that arising from the progressive intellectual development of man. But our opinions on every subject are continually liable to modification from the irresistible advance of human knowledge...The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.
No one has hitherto treated the subject from this point of view. Yet from this point it presents itself to us as a living issue -in fact, as the most important of all living issues.
A few years ago, it was the politic and therefore the proper course to abstain from all allusion to this controversy, and to keep it as far as possible in the background. The tranquility of society depends so much on the stability of its religious convictions, that no one can be justified in wantonly disturbing them. But faith is in its nature unchangeable, stationary; Science is in its nature progressive; and eventually a divergence between them impossible to conceal, must take place." (pp. 7- 8. "Preface." John William Draper. History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science. New York. 1878. Reprint 2006 by BiblioBazaar. South Carolina. ISBN 1-4264-044-6)
"...Christianity and Science are recognized by their respective adherents as being absolutely incompatible; they cannot exist together; one must yield to the other; mankind must make its choice -it cannot have both." (p. 290. Draper)
Draper understood that the Garden of Eden story was a fable and consequently there was no "fall of man" requiring Christ's intervention to "restore" man to God's good graces:
"The incidents contained in Genesis, from the first to the tenth chapters inclusive (chapters which, in their bearing upon science, are of more importance than other portions of the Pentateuch), have been obviously compiled from short, fragmentary legends of various authorship...From such Assyrian sources, the legends of the creation of the heaven and earth, the garden of Eden, the making of man from clay, and of woman from one of his ribs, the temptation by the serpent, the naming of animals, the cherubim and the flaming sword...Does not the admission that the narrative of the fall in Eden is legendary carry with it the surrender of that most solemn and sacred of Christian doctrines, the atonement?" (pp. 185-186. Draper. 1878)
"As to the issue of the coming conflict, can any one doubt? Whatever is resting on fiction and fraud will be overthrown. Institutions that organize impostures and spread delusion must show they have a right to exist. Faith must render an account of herself to Reason. Mysteries must give place to facts. Religion must relinquish that imperious, that domineering position which she has so long maintained against Science. There must be absolute freedom for thought." (pp. 292-293. Draper. 1878) Please click here to purchase this book.
Inspired by Draper's 1878 book, in 1896 Professor Andrew Dickson White, a co-founder of Cornell University, composed a somewhat similar tome, A History of The Warfare of Science With Theology.
White (1832-1918) on the fact that some scholars had by 1896 (over 100 years ago) come to realize that Genesis was a later recast of Chaldean religious notions:
"What matters it then, that we have come to know that the accounts of Creation, the Fall, the Deluge, and much else in our sacred books, were rememberances of lore obtained from the Chaldeans?...What matters it that those who incorporated the Creation lore of Babylonia and other Oriental nations into the sacred books of the Hebrews, mixed it with their own conceptions and deductions?"...What matters it...that the anthropologists, by showing how man has arisen everywhere from low and brutal beginnings, have destroyed the whole theological theory of the "fall of man"?"
(p. 208. vol. 2. Andrew Dickson White. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. 2 vols. Macmillan & Co. 1896. 1960 reprint by Dover Publications, Inc. New York. 2 vols. paperback)
Backcover endorsement:
"This book is a complete and monumental history of the most important conflict man has known -the warfare of science with theology. The author, co-founder and first president of Cornell University, states in his introduction,"In all modern history, interference with science in the name of religion...has resulted in the direst evils..." The persecution of Galileo, the attacks on Darwin and his "Origin of the Species," the great plagues of history -all are shown to have their common origin in man's unwillingness to give up his mistaken theological beliefs. Mr. White's book has been acclaimed as the classic effort in America to do away with superstition and dogma.
The author shows how the literal acceptance of the book of Genesis led theologians to violent attacks on the Theory of Evolution; how the belief that the earth was the center of the universe led religious leaders to even more violent attacks on Galileo; how the belief that disease was caused by devils led to the great plagues of the Middle Ages; how the Scripture-supported idea that the earth was 4004 years old led certain churchmen to revile geologists who showed it was some billions of years older; how the belief that storms were caused by Satan led to withering attacks on Franklin and his experiments in electricity. In hundreds of similar conflicts, the gradual victory of science over ignorant and harmful beliefs is chronicled in full by Mr. White.
This is the most thorough account ever written of the great religious-scientific battles, and remains an eloquent testament to the scientific spirit. It is also, by the nature of its subject, a detailed collection of the important myths of Western culture. And finally, it becomes a history of the changes in religious dogma made necessary by advances in man's knowledge of his universe. Although scholarly in its preparation, it is written for the general reader in clear and readable prose."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At the ripe old-age of 63 I at last realize that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are _all_ TERRORIST RELIGIONS. Their source of power and growth IS TERRORISM. All preach love and compassion, but in the end it is their employment of TERRORISM that makes them "great."
The God they all worship is himself A TERRORIST-GOD. This vindicitive God allegedly destroyed the world in a flood, AN ACT OF TERROR. He allegedly "gave" Israel Canaan via ACTS OF TERROR (telling Israel to slaughter the Canaanites, man, woman and suckling child).
Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire via ACTS OF TERROR sanctioned by the Christian Roman Emperors. Pagans outside the empire were forcibly converted via TERRORISM. Any nation that "aspires to greatness and power in the world" does so THROUGH TERRORISM.
This is "Nature's Way," the dominant in any species maintains their dominance via TERROR, be it insect, fish, fowl, animal or man (or nations). FEAR guarantees DOMINANCE and POWER; FEAR arises from acts of TERRORISM.
The Mesopotamians portrayed their gods as TERRORISTS, the god who was not feared was portrayed as being held in contempt and despised by mankind, please click here for my article on "Wrathful Gods and the Day of the Lord (Isaiah 13:9-16)," a Day when the Lord revels in the slaughter of the righteous and innocent as well as the evil, because he feels that mankind does not fear him but instead despises him. He will get fear (and "respect") by TERRORIZING his creation..
Jesus' last act will be when he returns to the earth as a TERRORIST-GOD to destroy those who refuse to bow-down and acknowledge him as "Lord" in the Battle at Armageddon (Revelation 16:16).
The Hebrew Bible stresses that God is angry with his people, Israel, because they have turned from him and worshipped other gods and have ignored his commandments given them at Mount Sinai. The claim is made that Israel "DESPISES" its God. This motif of a God being despised by his own worshippers and in anger turning on them and persecuting them is encountered in the literature (Hymns) of the Neo-Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians (circa: 1200-549 BC). Please click here for my article on "Wrathful Gods and the Day of the Lord."
"...they will turn to other gods and serve them, and DESPISE ME and break by covenant." (De 31:20 RSV)
"And the Lord said to Moses, "How long will this people DESPISE ME ?" (Nu 14:11)
"...none of those who DESPISED ME shall see it." (Nu 14:23)
"Because he has DESPISED the word of the Lord..."(NU 15:31)
"They DESPISED his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers..." (2 Ki 17:15)
"Ah, sinful nation...they have DESPISED the Holy One of Israel..." (Isa 1:4)
"And if I am a master, WHERE IS MY FEAR ? says the Lord of hosts to you O priests, who DESPISE MY NAME." (Mal 1:6)
"I will give them one heart and one way, that they may FEAR ME for ever...I will put the FEAR OF ME in their hearts, that they may not turn from me." (Jeremiah 32:37-41)
"Know and see that it is evil and bitter for you to forsake the Lord your God; THE FEAR OF ME IS NOT IN YOU, say the Lord God of hosts." (Jeremiah 2:19)
"Why has the Lord our God done all these things to us ? You shall say to them, As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your land, so you will serve strangers in a land that is not yours." (Jeremiah 5:19)
"DO YOU NOT FEAR ME ? Says the Lord; DO YOU NOT TREMBLE BEFORE ME ?" (Jeremiah 5:22)
"THEY DO NOT SAY IN THEIR HEARTS, 'Let us FEAR THE LORD our God..." (Jer 5:24)
"Says the Lord, and shall I not AVENGE MYSELF on a nation such as this ?" (Jer 5:29)
As a Secular Humanist I understand there are no gods, they have been made in man's image. Man's loves, hates, lusts and fears have been projected onto imaginary deities. The gods (GOD) MUST BE PORTRAYED AS someone to be FEARED, no fear, no respect. Terror brings fear and respect in its train. The purpose of religion, especially Judaism, Christianity and Islam is to control human behavior via fear and terror. God will destroy those who do not obey him. He will accomplish this via Nature (storms, droughts, disease) or via War and other acts of terror, bringing the enemy to pitilessly devastate all, righteous and unrighteous. Religion based on only love cannot succeed. The BEASTS have their "pecking orders" and their pecking-order-dominance is achieved via terror and fear over their kind; MAN-THE-BEAST is no different, his God is modeled after Nature's rules for achieving dominance and compliance via fear, Darwins' "Struggle of the Species."
So, then, its time to answer "Life's great mysteries." Why was man created? What is his purpose in life? What will happen to him after death?
The Mesopotamian gods did not create man to work forevermore in their city-gardens. Man's purpose in life is not to plant, grow, harvest and prepare food for the gods from their city-gardens so the gods may be at ease.
No God created Adam and placed him in his Garden in Eden to care and tend for its plants. God did _NOT_ tell Israel to build him a temple and feed him twice a day a like a Mesopotamian god.
I understand Darwin is right, man is a beast. Man's negative anti-social behaviors and 'rebellious self-will' is identical to that of the beasts _its probably in the DNA of all creatures_ (beasts establish their "pecking order" or dominance and compliance via terror and fear of one's fellow species).
Like a beast man has "no future" after death. The matter making up his body will be recycled by Nature into other forms of matter via his decaying body and consumed by worms and other bacterial micro-organisms. The good news? There is no "Lake of Fire" that man will be tortured in for all eternity by a "loving God" and an imaginary Devil and his Demons. What constitutes "good and evil" is decided by each society (not a god/gods), and these societies do _not_ have to agree to one standard of conduct, nor does any one society have the right to force other societies to adopt its rules of conduct and beliefs.
There is NO CONCEPT among the beasts of "good and evil", they do what they "will to do" for better or worse; man is the same except that he has "invented" a concept of "good and evil" (claiming a god "revealed" all this) to manage man-the-beast's anti-social behaviors for the good of society.
The "great mystery of life" which man has wrestled with down through the ages has been "WHENCE EVIL?" or "WHY EVIL?" There is NO Evil among beasts or a concept of "right and wrong." Evil is an "invention" of man to control his fellow man by. The beasts do experience anti-social behavior among their kind, they either fight back (assert their wills) or accept this behavior (submit their will to the dominant beast's will that they fear), they obviously do not welcome this behavior, but mankind does not call this behavior among beasts "EVIL" or "WRONG."
Life is about the "struggle of the wills," among beasts and mankind. Evil AS A CONCEPT then, is an "invention" of mankind, neccessary for society's self-preservation to protect the weak from the strong.
