Below, my "paraphrase" of an important observation made by Professor Stiebing:
"Clearly state the problems you seek to solve or the questions you seek to answer."
(p. 267. William H. Stiebing Jr. Uncovering the Past, A History of Archaeology. Oxford University Press. 1994)
This website is an attempt to identify "the pre-biblical origins" of concepts appearing in both the Old and New Testaments from a secular and anthropological point of view. I understand that the Primary History (Genesis-Kings) was written by one author in the Exile ca. 560 B.C. However, various concepts and motifs and events preserved in this "late" work are traceable to the 3rd millennium B.C. and the land of Sumer (Abraham's Ur of the Chaldees, south of Babylon).
I understand that Genesis is _denying, refuting and challenging_ the Mesopotamian myths' explanation of Who, What, Why, Where, When and How man came to made, what his purpose on earth is, and why he does not possess immortality. I understand that the Hebrews accomplished these denials or challenges by taking motifs and concepts from a variety of contradicting myths and giving them "new twists," changed the names of the characters, the locations, and sequences of events. It is my understanding that the Hebrews were deliberately CHANGING _or_ RECASTING various motifs and concepts within these myths IN ORDER TO REFUTE, DENY, AND CHALLENGE THEM, hence the "reason why" there are _no_ individuals called Adam, Eve, the Serpent, Yahweh, Noah, Shem, Japheth and Ham appearing in _any_ of the Mesopotamian pre-biblical myths. This understanding explains why there appear to be "echoes" or "parallels" or "similarities" between Genesis and the Mesopotamian concepts and motifs regarding man's creation. I do _not_ understand that the Hebrews are "copying" the Mesopotamian myths, they are _borrowing and recasting various motifs within them_ in order to _refute and deny them_ regarding why, when, where and how man came to be made, placed in a god's garden, denied immortality and his destruction sought in a Flood. These "recastings" are accomplished primarily via the employment of "inversions" which, in effect, present a 180 degree counter-argument to the earlier mythic concepts of the Mesopotamians, as was penetratingly noted by the late Joseph Campbell in his four volume series of books exploring the mythologies of the world, ancient and modern, called The Masks of God (1959-1968).
Some of the themes or motifs found in the Book of Genesis regarding the Garden of Eden are to be found in the Mesopotamian myths regarding primeval man, but in a somewhat different format, the 'different format' being a series of "reversals" or "inversions" as noted by Professor Campbell.
The late (1904-1987) Professor Campbell in 1964 noted that the Mesopotamian myths understood man was created to till the fields of the gods which he equates with Adam being created to care for God's garden:
"...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 with food through sacrifice. Marduk, too, created man to serve the gods. And here we have man created to keep a garden." (p. 103. "Gods and Heroes of the Levant. Joseph Campbell. The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology. New York. Arkana. Viking Penguin. 1964, reprinted 1991)
Campbell also very astutely and penetratingly noted that the Hebrews in the book of Genesis appear to have employed at times "inversions" or "reversals" which "turn about" Mesopotamian beliefs by 180 degrees (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. The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology. Arkana. New York. Viking Penguin Books. 1964, 1991 reprint)
"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. Arkana. A Division of Penguin Books. 1964. 1991 reprint)
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. 1964. Reprinted 1991)
The Mesopotamians saw the world being created for the benefit of the gods, not man. Genesis refutes this notion, God made the world for man's benefit. I understand that the Hebrews, _employing INVERSIONS_, are recasting many of the Mesopotamian motifs and concepts by 180 degrees, turning them upside down and on their ear.
If I had to summarize my research on Genesis' motifs from the Garden of Eden to the Flood vis-a-vis the Mesopotamian "creation of man" myths it would have to be that the Mesopotamians appear to have held their gods as responsible for man's misfortunes whereas the Hebrews in refuting this, held man as culpable, absolving their God of any blame. In other words the Mesopotamians saw _MAN AS THE VICTIM_ of un-caring, exploitive, capricious gods versus the Hebrew notion that a loving, caring _GOD IS THE VICTIM_ of an ungrateful and rebellious mankind.
For the Mesopotamians man's rebelliousness is because when the gods created man of clay they animated this lifeless material with the flesh and blood of a slain rebel-god. This god, We-ila, was the "ringleader" of the Igigi gods who rebelled against Enlil (an Anunnaki god) at Nippur refusing to work anymore in his city-garden, dredging its irrigation canals and ditches of sediments. The decision was reached by Enlil and Enki to replace the rebelling Igigi with a new creature, man. So man was created and placed in a god's city-garden as a substitute for the Igigi. In other words, _man's purpose in life_ is to work forever in the gods' city-gardens growing and harvesting food to feed the senior (Anunnaki) and lesser (Igigi) gods. Man's spirit of rebelliousness against the gods is because he possesses the rebel-spirit of the slain Igigi god. That is to say man _IS A VICTIM_ of the gods, he was _CREATED A REBEL_ by his creators. The Hebrews in recasting these motifs deny man has a slain god's rebellious spirit within him, they claim man possesses a freewill, he can choose to do good or evil (obey or disobey God). In Mesopotamian myth a god (We-ila) is slain and his flesh and blood gives man mortal life and in Christian teachings a God called Jesus is slain and his flesh and blood gives man immortal life.
The Mesopotamian myths do _not_ have any knowledge of man being expelled from their city-gardens for an act of rebellion like Genesis' Garden of Eden account. The gods made man to replace themselves as agricultural laborers, it would be foolish to expell man from their city-gardens for the gods would have to care for their gardens themselves. Where then are the Hebrews getting the notion that a rebellion has occured in a god's garden and the gardener has been removed? I suspect this is a recasting of the Igigi gods rebellion in the Atrahasis myth. They were "removed" from Enlil's garden at Nippur (and Enki's garden at Eridu), and man was created to replace them. So, yes, there was indeed in the Mesopotamian myths a story about a rebellion of "man" working in a god's garden and being removed from said garden! In fact when the hardwork of the Igigi gods is described it is said: "When the gods were _man_ they did grievous labor." So "_man_" in the form of the Igigi gods was removed from a god's garden for an act of rebellion. However, the Hebrews have inverted the storyline. "_Man_" (the Igigi) welcomed this removal for now they enjoy an eternal rest from toil as already enjoyed by the Anunnaki gods (Anu, Enlil and Enki). The Hebrews portray the removal of "man" from a god's garden as punishment for man whereas it was an act of mercy and a blessing for the Igigi ending their grievous labor. Christianity hopes that one day God will allow man _back into_ his garden of Eden, whereas the Igigi would never want to return to the Anunnaki's city-gardens in the midst of the eden/edin and the grievous toil there! Christianity teaches that when man returns to the Garden of Eden he will once more enjoy God's fellowship and companionship as did Adam and Eve. But the Igigi working in the gods' gardens did not enjoy fellowship with the Anunnaki gods! The Anunnaki ruthlessly exploited the Igigi and ignored night and day for 40 years their pleas for an end of their toil at Nippur! With the "removal from the gods' gardens" the Igigi now enjoy fellowshipping with the Anunnaki, for both now are free of toil upon the earth, both can recline on their couches in indolent leisure as both ruthlessly exploit man the agricultural slave having him care for their gardens, and present them the produce to eat in the city temples. An inversion has occured! Man's (the Igigi being called "man") fellowship with a god (Enlil of Nippur and Enki at Eridu) is obtained after their removal from the god's garden instead of by remaining a complacent, obedient, and non-rebelling laborer in a god's garden! The Mesopotamian myths understand man was burdened with grievous back-breaking toil in the gods' city-gardens, this notion is _denied_ by Genesis; Adam tills and tends Yahweh's garden but it is not grievous toil. It is only _after the expulsion_ from God's garden that agricultural toil becomes grievous and burdensome for man. The Hebrews have reversed the Mesopotamian notion that man's toil from the very first moment of his being placed in a god's garden is grievous and burdensome!
The Sumerians called the uncultivated steppeland or plain _edin_ (Please note: Some professional scholars prefer to render Sumerian edin as eden, so it can appear under either spelling in the professional literature). In the beginning according to the myths, _before man was created_, two great rivers flowed through an uncultivated steppeland or plain, the eden/edin, the Sumerian Buranum, Akkadian Purattu (Euphrates) and Sumerian Idiqna, Akkadian Idiglat (Genesis' Hiddekel, the Tigris). Eventually in the midst of this eden/edin the gods built cities to dwell in with city-gardens to provide sustenance for themselves. Some gardens were within city walls, others were outside the walls; irrigation canals and ditches from the Euphrates and Tigris provided water for these city-gardens. The gods' cultivated gardens were _never_ called eden/edin, this term was reserved for describing the _uncultivated_ steppeland or plain. The gods' 'cultivated' city-gardens were in the midst of the eden/edin, or surrounded by the eden/edin, the _uncultivated_ steppeland or plain. That is to say the gods' gardens were _in_ eden/edin and Yahweh-Elohim's garden was _in_ Eden too. Tiring of their labor in building cities and maintaining their irrigated city-gardens for themselves the gods later decide to create man to care for their gardens and provide them their gardens' produce in temple offerings. Genesis _denies, refutes and challenges_ the Mesopotamian notion that the gods and goddesses created man to serve in their city-gardens in the midst of the eden/edin as a gardener to raise food to feed them that they might be at ease from earthly toil for all eternity. God loves man, he created a garden _in_ Eden (Genesis 2:8) for man's sustenance, not Yahweh-Elohim's sustenance. According to the Mesopotamian myths every city possessed a god's or goddesses' garden, Genesis denies this, there are not _numerous_ gods' city-gardens in the eden/edin, there is only _one_ God's garden in the Eden and it is not a city-garden, it lies by itself in the wilderness of Eden. In the Mesopotamian myths shepherds graze their flocks in the uncultivated eden/edin, and Abraham is portrayed as being a shepherd in his migrations from Sumerian Ur to Haran, Damascus, and Beersheba; he grazes his flocks in the "uncultivated" steppe, the eden/edin. That is to say the Hebrew patriarchs are nomadic tent-dwelling shepherds of eden/edin. God's first earthly dwelling is not a Temple in a city as in Mesopotamian myths, but a Tent in a shepherds' encampment in the wilderness of Sinai; he reveals himself repeatedly to shepherds like Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. The Hebrew God is a god of the uncultivated wilderness, the eden/edin where shepherds graze their flocks, he is not a city-dwelling god who created man to work in his city-garden in the midst of the eden/edin.
Why did the Hebrews seek to _deny, refute and challenge_ the Mesopotamian beliefs? Why did Christianity refute and deny Judaism? Why did Islam refute and deny Judaism and Christianity? Apparently each felt that its predecessor had wrong or erroneous beliefs regarding the relationship between God and Man and accordingly each sought to "correct" these "false" views via recastings or reworkings of the earlier stories in order to_deny refute and challenge_. For example, the New Testament while preserving verses from the Old Testament, gives these verses new meanings, rejecting the earlier Jewish interpretations. Islam recast certain stories in the Old and New Testaments, Abraham offered his son Ishmael to God instead of Isaac, Jesus is not the God who made Adam and Eve in his role as the Logos or Word, Allah is, not Yahweh or Christ.
As regards "the pre-biblical origins" of Christianity's beliefs and concepts: I seek to identify certain concepts and motifs in the New Testament that appear to be "ALIEN TO" the Old Testament. I understand that just as Genesis is a challenge, denial and refutation of Mesopotamian beliefs about man's relationship with God, so too, Christianity is a challenge, denial and refutation of many of Judaism's beliefs about man's relationship with God. My research has concluded that Christianity is actually a "form" of Hellenized Judaism which over time triumphed over other Hellenized Judaisms. Scholars use the term "Hellenized" to reflect the fact that a non-Hellenistic religion has to some degree assimilated Greek concepts (these adapations/assimilations can be in the form of a reinterpretation or transformation of the original Hellenistic concept or belief). I have sought in Hellenistic Greek metaphysics the ALIEN CONCEPTS appearing in the New Testament which caused Christians to deny, refute and challenge Judaism's beliefs and understandings of the relationship between Man and God.
Finally, it is my understanding that Christianity today is nothing like it was in the 1st century A.D. Christianity's outstanding success today as a major world religion in the West (Europe) was because it _abandoned_ pacifism_ Christ's teachings of turning the other cheek to one's enemies and praying for them, and instead took up the sword against the "enemy" be they Christian "heretics" or "infidels." I trace this "change" to Christianity's "accomodation" under the Roman Emperor Constantine and his successors who made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. Prior to this accomodation Christians were threatened with excommunication if they served in the Roman army and took up the sword. After the "accomodation" they where threatened with excommunication if they refused to serve. Now that Rome was a "Christian Empire," the Empire's enemies were Christ's enemies, and the Church came to adopt a new concept, that it was okay for Christians to shed the blood of their fellow man and engage in "JUST and RIGHTEOUS WARS," no more would they turn their cheek to their enemies.
After some 30+ years in tracing the "pre-biblical origins" of the Bible, I have come to realize only recently (10 May 2007), that many of the Bible's beliefs and concepts originated in Sumerian motifs and concepts some of which were authored with a sense "humor" and "playfulness." That is to say the Sumerian gods are portrayed at times as bumbling clowns and idiots! Later generations that succeeded the Sumerian civilization, including apparently the Hebrews, objected to this farcial and satirical portrayal of the relationship between the gods and of man and via a series of inversions or reversals, transformed the "original" humorous tongue-in-cheek comedy-farces into a new story of a noble ethical God who cared about man. That is to say some of what began as Sumerian farce and comedy wound up over the past 5 thousand years to being "Gospel Truth" (cf. especially my article on the mythical Noah's Flood by clicking here).
Furthermore it my understanding that Genesis 1-10, the Creation to the Flood, had its pre-biblical origins as a Hebrew tongue-in-cheek parody of Mesopotamian beliefs regarding primeval man's creation and his attempted demise in a universal flood sent by the gods.
In 1963 Professors Graves and Patai proposed that Adam and Eve were recasts of Enkidu and Shamhat of the Epic of Gilgamesh (cf. pp. 78-79, 81. Robert Graves and Rapahel Patai. Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. New York. Doubleday & Company. 1963, 1964). Following up on this insight and proposal my research confirmed that they were correct. Graves and Patai however were not the first scholars to make this association, Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr. of the University of Pennsylvania, had as early as 1898 made such an identification (cf. p. 478. Morris Jastrow, Jr. The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria. Boston. Ginn & Company. 1898. pp. xvi + 780)
I eventually came to realize that what had begun as a Mesopotamian story about a "Whore and her John" (Shamhat and Enkidu) was later "sanitized" and _recast_ into a new story about Eve and Adam in the Garden of Eden. What a shame that millions of Jews, Christians and Moslems are unaware that Adam and Eve are fictional recasts of Enkidu and Shamhat, and what a shame that man and womankind have needlessly beaten themselves up pyschologically over the past 6000 years agonizing over a needless guilt-burden because of the sin and "fall" of these two fictional characters. What a shame that for over a thousand years these three faiths have tyrannized man and womankind and slaughtered each others' adherents for "God and Country."
Please click here as to how the food eaten by Enkidu at Shamhat's _urging_ became Eve _urging_ Adam to eat forbidden fruit.
As noted above, as early as 1898 Professor Jastrow had noted that motifs associated with Enkidu and Shamhat appeared to have been transformed and assimilated to Adam and Eve. Today the Epic of Gilgamesh is _required_ reading for many College Sophmores in World Literature classes. What is "missed" in their English translations of this epic is that Enkidu and Shamhat meet each other at a watering hole in the _EDEN/EDIN_! Enkidu learns from Shamhat _in_EDEN/EDIN_ that it is wrong to be naked when he chooses her to be his companion instead of the wild animals of EDEN/EDIN. The Epic of Gilgamesh is written in Akkadian (Babylonian) and the Akkadian word for "steppe," "plain," or "the wild," is seri, seru, tseru, zeru, ce:ru. However, the Akkadian scribes were fond of using Sumerian logograms in lieu of Akkadian words (as a type of "shorthand") and the Sumerian logogram for seri or seru is _EDEN/EDIN_! For example: The number "three" as a word is t-h-r-e-e or four letters, but as a logogram it can be rendered in a shorthand form with only one sign as "3."
The Epic of Gilgamesh is written in Akkadian or Babylonian but scholars have determined that certain parts of it existed in Sumerian as a number of short stories about Enkidu and Gilgamesh that were later patched together and expanded into a great epic. The steppe Enkidu grows up in Sumerian is called eden/edin, in Akkadian (Babylonian) it was called seru.
The Sumerian word for uncultivated steppeland is eden/edin. The Epic of Gilgamesh although written in Akkadian which renders "steppe" as seru or seri, states unequivocally that Shamhat saw Enkidu at the watering hole as a wild man of "eden/edin" (the "steppe"). How is it that the watering hole is described as being in _the eden/edin_ instead of being in _the seru_? Akkadian scribes were trained in both Sumerian and Akkadian, they frequently used a Sumerian LOGOGRAM (a single sign) as "substitute" for an Akkadian word which had several cuneiform signs or letters as a type of "shorthand." That is to say _one_ Sumerian logogram could replace _several_ cuneiform signs making up a word. Hence Enkidu "the wild man of the steppe" was written using the Sumerian logogram eden/edin and the scribe knew upon seeing this logogram that it was synonymous with the Akkadian word seru or seri, meaning "steppe."
Professor Speiser on Enkidu's arrival at the watering hole in the steppe (steppe in Sumerian being eden/edin, Akkadian
seru), where wait Shamhat the harlot-priestess of Uruk and the Hunter (Note: the below bold print is transcribed by Heidel, which follows, into Akkadian):
"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-
The lass beheld him, the savage-man,
The barbarous fellow from the depths of the steppe:
"There he is, O lass, free thy breasts,
Bare thy bosom that he may possess thy ripeness!
Be not bashful! Welcome his ardor!
As soon as he sees thee, he will draw near to thee.
Lay aside thy cloth that he may rest upon thee.
Treat him, the savage, to a woman's task! Reject him will his wild beasts that grew up on his steppe,
As his love is drawn unto thee."
The lass freed her breasts, bared her bosom,
And he possessed her ripeness.
She was not bashful as she welcomed his ardor..."
(p. 44. E. A. Speiser. "The Epic of Gilgamesh." James B. Pritchard. Editor. The Ancient Near East, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton University Press. 1958. paperback)
Heidel on Enkidu's heart "delighting" with the water of the watering hole in edin the steppe, Hebrew `eden means "delight." Please note that Enkidu in the below verse is described in 1946 as a savage man from the depths of the steppe and that Heidel in his 1949 article on Sadu rendered "steppe" as Akkadian seru and Sumerian eden/edin (emphasis mine):
"The animals came to the water, and their hearts were glad.
And as as for him, (for) Enkidu, whose birthplace is the open
country,
(Who) eats grass with the gazelles,
Drinks with the game at the drinking-place,
(Whose) heart DELIGHTS with the animals at the water,
Him, the wild(?) man, the prostitute saw,
The savage man from the depths of the steppe."
(p. 21. "The Epic of Gilgamesh." Alexander Heidel. The Epic of Gilgamesh and Old Testament Parallels. Chicago & London. University of Chicago Press. 1946, 1949, reprint of 1993)
Heidel reproduces the above words (which I have rendered above in bold print) from Spieser's translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh ("he" is in reference to Enkidu). Please note that the "scholarly" procedure in rendering Sumerian logograms into English transliterations is to capitalize them and place them within parentheses marks; the professionally trained Assyriologist upon seeing this "reads" the logogram as an Akkadian (Babyonian) word in his mind:
"...while on Tablet I. 4:7, he is called
itlu (GURUS) sag-ga-sa-a sa-qa-bal-ti seri (EDIN):
"The savage man from the midst of the seru."
(cf. p. 233. Alexander Heidel. "A Special Usage of the Akkadian Term Sadu." pp. 233-235. The Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Vol. 8. No. 3. July 1949)
My thanks to Robert M. Whiting, PhD. of Helsinki, Finland, a professional Assyriologist (Managing Editor of the world-renown Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, The Assyrian State Archives Series) for explaining to me that Heidel's 1949 transliteration reveals that the scribe actually wrote the word "steppe" using the Sumerian logogram (EDIN), and that modern scholars "read" (EDIN) as a substitution for seru. Heidel's transliteration also reveals that the Akkadian word itlu was actually written as (GURUS) another Sumerian logogram. Whiting explained that the use of Sumerian logograms _in lieu of_ Akkadian (Babylonian) words is _quite common_ in Akkadian compositions.
Whiting's explanation solved the mystery for me of how _seru_ the "steppe" came to become Hebrew `eden, I realized that the Hebrews had apparently morphed the Sumerian logogram eden/edin, used _in lieu_ of seru in the Epic of Gilgamesh into `eden! Hebrew `eden means DELIGHT, and we are told when Enkidu appeared at the watering hole in eden/edin, his heart's DELIGHT was its water. So, I understand the Hebrews took this notion of a primal naked man's _heart's DELIGHT_ over water and morphed eden's/edin's watering hole into Hebrew `eden, a place of "DELIGHT" (The "mystery" of the pre-biblical origins of Genesis' Garden _in_ Eden understood to be a "Garden of DELIGHT" solved at long last, after some 3000 years!). In other words, the story of Enkidu and Gilgamesh began as Sumerian tales, and the steppe Enkidu wandered, in Sumerian was rendered eden/edin, and the Sumerian logogram eden/edin appearing in the Akkadian written Epic of Gilgamesh is perhaps a vestige of the archaic Sumerian rendering which came to "read" as seru. Another example of Hebrew "morphing" of foreign words is the city-state appearing in Neo-Assyrian annals as Bit Adini, in the Hebrew Bible it is "morphed" into Beth-Eden ("House of Delight"), while Babylon or Akkadian Babel meaning the "gate of god" (bab= gate, il=god) was "morphed" into balal meaning "confusion." The Chaldeans, Neo-Assyrian Kaldu, were "morphed" into the Kasdim. Neo-Assyrian Urartu was morphed into Ararat by the Hebrews.
Special Update 13 November 2007 on the appearance of the word _EDIN_ in the Epic of Gilgamesh:
Yesterday (12 November 2007) as I was musing to myself over Heidel's 1949 transliteration of Akkadian seru, seri being rendered by the Sumerian logogram (EDIN), I wondered to myself _just how many times_ does edin, (EDIN), EDIN, appear in this composition?
That is to say was Heidel's transliteration the _one and only occurrence_ of this word in the Epic of Gilgamesh?
I sent an e-mail to Professor Andrew George who had recently authored one of the most comprehensive studies of the Epic of Gilgamesh in its various recensions and posed this question to him. He very graciously replied within 24 hours that the Sumerian logogram EDIN (used in _lieu_ of seru)appears _innumerable_ times throughout the 12 clay tablets that make up the Epic of Gilgamesh and he referred me to his own research posted on the internet.
This research is divided into the 12 tablets of the Epic and consists of English transliterations of the Akkadian words appearing in the Gilgamesh texts by verse and line numbers. Professor George provides several recensions for any given verse revealing the variations. To read this research one will need to first download a version of Adobe Acrobat Reader for reading PDF files
Using the "Find" key from the Adobe Acrobat Reader I plugged in the word edin and I came up with some 74 "hits" for EDIN for the 12 tablets which contain the Epic of Gilgamesh (these 74 "hits" include the various recensions). The Sumerian logogram EDIN appears in various forms (with various suffixes)such as: EDIN-ki, EDIN-su, EDIN-ia, and EDIN-ka.
My thanks to Professor George for directing me to his published research on the internet.
Please click here to access Professor George's English transliteration of the Akkadian words and their appearance in various recensions of the Epic of Gilgamesh, showing the Sumerian logogram EDIN.
The Sumerian logogram EDIN/EDEN (edin/eden being "read" as Akkadian seru, seri, tseri when it appears in an Akkadian composition like the Epic of Gilgamesh) apparently has two meanings. Firstly, it means "back" or "upper side," and secondly, by analogy, the uncultivated steppe land that abuts the cultivated and watered lands was envisioned as "the back," (the backland or hinterlands, the wilderness, or the wilds where roamed wild animals: antelope, onagers, lions, and shepherds with goats and sheep).
Professor George alerted me that in his English translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh, he rendered EDIN as "the wild" (cf. Andrew George. The Epic of Gilgamesh. London. Penguin Books. 1999, 2000, 2003).
I have gone through my copy of the aforementioned book and noted "the wild" appears some 74 times! Enkidu is described as born in "the wild," being like a panther of "the wild," and being like an ass of "the wild," while Gilgamesh is described as wandering "the wild" mourning Enkidu's death, slaying and eating the beasts of "the wild" (wild bulls, bears, hyenas, panthers, cheetahs, jackals. wild asses, onagers). Siduri the barmaid and later Uta-napishtim (of Dilmun) asks him why he wanders "the wild" seeking immortality. Gilgamesh wandering about _in_ "the wild" or EDIN after Enkidu's death seeks immortality and Genesis has Adam _in_ an Eden failing to attain immortality and facing death like Gilgamesh and Enkidu. That is to say, Genesis' Eden is associated with the themes of life and death, immortality and mortality; the EDIN wandered by Enkidu and Gilgamesh is _also_ associated with the same motifs or themes.
I have Reginald Campbell Thompson's Epic of Gilgamesh, Text, Transliteration and Notes (Oxford, England. Clarendon Press. 1930) and should alert my readers that he does _not_ render "steppe" with the Sumerian logogram edin (EDIN), instead he renders steppe as seri or seru, in other words you will _not_ find the Sumerian logogram EDIN "anywhere" in Thompson's English transliteration of this epic.
If you "want to see" the Sumerian logogram _EDIN_ in the Epic of Gilgamesh you will have to access Professor George's on-line transliteration. Below are some examples of EDIN, which is alternately rendered EDEN by other scholars (Please click here to see examples of Sumerian EDIN being rendered Sumerian EDEN).
Andrew George is a Professor of Babylonian at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London, England. He is the author of: The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford University Press. Published 2003. 1176 pages with drawings and photos.
A few examples of EDIN as a Sumerian logogram being used in lieu of Akkadian seri, seru, tseru, meaning "steppe" or "plain" or "the wild" in the 12 clay tablets making up the Epic of Gilgamesh:
(The below transliterations are by Professor Andrew George. Please click here for the url)
Further e-mail exchanges with Professor George brought to my attention the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh does _not_ exclusively use the Sumerian logogram edin (eden) in _lieu_ of tse-ri (seru, seri). The Akkadian scribe in some verses uses tse-ri and in other verses edin. So both tse-ri (seru) and edin (eden) appear in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Tablet 1:
103 P ii 37a [ina EDI]N den-ki-dù ib-ta-ni qu-ra-du :
h ii 42 ina EDIN den-k[i-
132 P iii 11 [u·-te-li ina q®t¬-ia] bu-lam nam-ma·-·á-a ·á ED[IN]
133 P iii 12 [ul i-nam-din-a]n-ni a-na e-pe· ED[IN]
136 P iii 15 [ ]x e-lu EDIN-·u
Tablet 2:
29 bb i 4' am-mi-ni KI n[am-ma·-·e-e ta-rap-pu-ud EDIN]
105 X2 ii 7' i-tep-pi-ir um-man-ni U[GU EDIN-·u]
177 X2 iv 7 ina EDIN a-lid-ma mam-ma [
Tablet 3:
10 M3 i 10 [ -r]a-a-ta pa-gar-·u lib-la
BB2 i 10 a-na EDIN ¿i-ra-a-ti pa-gar-·ú lib-la
225 BB2 vi 3' «a»-na EDIN ¿i-ra-a-tu[m pa-gar-·ú lib-la]
Tablet 4:
107 Y2 iii 21 [x-’-al-d]am-ma ina EDIN mit-lu-ka ni-le-«’»-[i]
Tablet 5: (I could not find EDIN on this tablet)
Tablet 6: (I could not find EDIN on this tablet)
Tablet 7:
131 E3 iii 6' u ia-a-a-·i KÙ [tu-·am-flin-ni ]
L1 iii 3' [ ]-ni ina EDIN-ia
Tablet 8:
6 R i 6 [ -t]i
V2 i 6 [ k]a-lu me-er-e-ti
V3 i 6 u bu-u[l EDIN
17 V2 i 17 [ r]i-«mu a»-a-lu tu-ra-¿u bu-lum u [nam-ma]·-·u-ú ·á EDIN
e 10-11 UR.MAø AM.ME∞ a-a-lim [ ] / bu-ul nam-ma·-e EDIN
Tablet 9:
2 D i 2 ◊ar-pi· i-bak-ki-ma i-rap-pu-ud EDIN
5 D i 5 mu-ta ap-là¿-ma a-rap-pu-ud EDIN
Tablet 10:
24 K1 i 24 [E]DIN
b i 6' [ in]a EDIN
52 [u pa-an lab-bi la ·ak-na-ku-ma la a-rap-pu-ud EDIN]
53 (K ii 1) [ib-ri ku-da-nu flar-du ak-kan-nu ·á KUR nim-ru ·á EDIN]
Tablet 11:
86 J1 ii 29' [ ME]∞ um-ma-a-ni ka-li-·ú-nu ú-·e-li
T1 ii 19 [ ] «ú»-·e-li
W1 ii 23 bu-ul EDI[N] «ú»-ma-am EDIN «DUMU.ME∞ um»-ma-nu «ka-li-·u»-
n[u ]
Tablet 12:
150 G1 vi 6–7 ·á ·á-lam-ta-·ú ina ED[IN] na-d[a-at] / ta-mur a-ta-ma[r]
N vi 7 ·á ·á-lam-ta-·ú ina EDIN na-da-a[t
Special Note: The above transliterations are from tablets found in the Assyrian King Asshurbanipal's library at Nineveh which was destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians in 612 B.C. Other tablets exist from other locations of the Neo-Babylonian Era, circa 640-539 B.C. All of these Epic of Gilgamesh tablets reveal Sumerian logograms being used at times _in lieu of_ Akkadian (Babylonian) words. That is to say, at any point in time from 1600 B.C. to 539 B.C. an Israelite or Jew could have been aware of the story of a naked man who was "undone" by a naked woman in eden/edin and recast this as Adam being "undone" by Eve in Eden. The Bible tells us Israel (the Jews) intermarried with the Jebusites at Jerusalem and they possessed literate men who could write in Sumerian and Akkadian as witnessed by their cuneiform letters on clay tablets sent to Pharaoh Akhenaton (1350-1334 B.C.) advising him the Habiru are waging war in Canaan and only Jersualem has not yet fallen to them. Perhaps Israel's (Judah's) Jebusite ancestors (cf. Judges 3:5 for Jews marrying Jebusites) told their "Israelite" grandchildren and greatgrandchildren tales of a naked man who roamed eden/edin with wild animals who was undone by a naked woman and learned from her it was "wrong to be naked in eden/edin" and they recast this as Adam and Eve coming to realize"it is wrong to be naked in Eden"?
At the ripe old-age of 65 (born 1943) 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 vindictive 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, cf. below 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 when he returns to the earth as a TERRORIST-GOD is to destroy those who refuse to bow-down and acknowledge him as "Lord" in the Battle at Armageddon (Revelation 16:16).
Some moderns are surprised and disconcerted with the Hebrew Bible's (The Old Testament's) presentation of God. The image of a God persecuting his enemies and his own people seems to clash with the modern stress on God as a God of "Love, Mercy and Forgiveness."
"Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that any belief must carry the stamp of the age which fashioned or received it..." (p.242. "Religious Life." Georges Contenau. Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria. New York. Saint Martins Press. 1954)
Contenau's above adage, that a work reflects the age in which it was composed, is borne out by investigations into the religious concepts of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods (the 9th-6th centuries B.C.) which reveal that their conceptualizations of their gods mirrors to a degree that presented in the Hebrew Bible.
The Hebrews did not develop their religious beliefs in isolation. They drew from and were influenced by the beliefs of their contemporaries. This article explores the concept of God being a "Wrathful God" and the motif of the "Day of the Lord," a day when his wrath falls upon his enemies, including his own people, noting parallels in the literature of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods.
The Assyrians and Babylonians had the understanding that war was occasioned by a god's will and purpose. The god is often portrayed as being angry with his people and to punish them, he brings a foreign army against the land. Interestingly, the god is sometimes portrayed as declaring that the source of his anger has to do with his worshippers NOT FEARING HIM, but instead, DESPISING HIM! He is portrayed as concluding that only wrathful warrior-gods get respect and thus he dons war-regalia and, with other warrior gods accompanying him, he proceeds to get respect, fear and honor by ravaging his own people, the righteous and unrighteous falling to his wrath. He always providentially leaves a remnant to honor him, in fear and trembling, who will sing praises of his valour, and inspire future generations to hold him in awe, fear and respect. All this archaic imagery mirrors the Hebrew conceptualizton of Yahweh-Elohim in the Hebrew Bible.
I am using Dalley's version of a text titled "Erra and Ishum," which has been dated by its colophon to the reign of the Assyrian king Asshurbanipal, 668-627 B.C. and found in his library at Nineveh, but Dalley suggests that it may date as early as the 8th century B.C. (cf. p.282. Stephanie Dalley. Myths From Mesopotamia, Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, And Others. Oxford & New York. Oxford University Press. 1989, 1991. ISBN 0-19-281789-2). Dalley understands Erra to be Nergal, a god of plague and lord of the underworld.. He was originally an astral diety who descended into the underworld, becoming its lord. Langdon understood Nergal to be an aspect of the sun, other texts suggest an association with the planet Mars (cf. pp. 127-8, "Nergal," Gwendolyn Leick. A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology. London & New York. Routledge. 1991. ISBN 0-415-19811-9)
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 Assyrians and Babylonians.
"...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)
"Erra made his voice heard and spoke...ALL THE OTHER GODS ARE AFRAID OF BATTLE, so that the black-headed people DESPISE THEM. But I, because THEY NO LONGER FEAR MY NAME...I shall OVERWHELM his people." (p. 290. Dalley)
"The Igigi revere you, the Anunnaki FEAR YOU, Ellil agrees with you. Does conflict happen without you? or warfare take place in your absence? The armory of war belongs to you, and yet you say to yourself, THEY DESPISE ME!" (p. 302. Dalley)
"Erra made his voice heard and spoke...When I am enraged, I devastate people!" (p. 309. Dalley)
"Your men shall fall by THE SWORD and your mighty men in battle. And her gates shall lament and mourn; ravaged, she shall sit upon the ground..." (Isaiah 3:16; 25-26; 4:2-3)
"You have feared the sword; and it is a sword I shall bring upon, says the Lord God. And I will bring you forth out of the midst of it, and give you into the hands of foreigners and execute judgements upon you. You shall fall BY THE SWORD; I WILL JUDGE YOU at the border of Israel; and you shall know that I am the Lord." (Ezekiel 11:8-10 RSV)
"And they shall know that I am the Lord when I execute judgements in her and manifest my holiness in her; for I will send pestilence into her, and blood into her streets; and the slain shall fall in the midst of her, by THE SWORD that is against her on every side." (Ezekiel 28:22-23)
"THE SWORD OF JUDGEMENT shall not come near him but peace is ordained for him." (p. 312. Dalley)
The "Day of the Lord," a day when God devastates his enemies, including his own people, some of whom who are righteous, is mirrored in the Erra hymn as the "DAY OF ERRA'S WRATH." Like Yahweh-Elohim, Erra, a great warrior-god and leader of a heavenly host (the Sebitti gods and Ishum), possesses the power to darken the sun, moon, and the stars and destroy his own people, including the just (Ez 21:3), in order to get for himself, fear, awe and respect! Jerusalem is to lay waste for a period of seventy years because of God's fierce anger. Interestingly, Marduk, the supreme god Of Babylon, in anger with his own people, decrees his city's destruction at the hands of the Assyrians and that his temple too, is to lie desolate for seventy years.
The Assyrian king, Sennacherib destroyed the city of Babylon ca. 689 B.C. His son Esarhaddon restored the city. Being pious, Esarhaddon consulted with Babylonian priests about Marduk's will in restoring his temple, called the Esagila. The priests said that Marduk, in anger against his own people, had used Sennacherib to punish his people for their sins against him and that the temple was to lie desolate for 70 years. They then reinterpreted the god's statement to
