Genesis 1-11 - David M. Carr

Скачать книгу

interacts. The following section of this introduction prepares for the diachronic portion of the commentary by surveying the main precursors of Gen 1–11 to be discussed across the course of the commentary, starting with pre-biblical Near Eastern literary traditions.

      Ancient Non-Biblical Precursors

      Much of Gen 1–11 appears to interact with primeval traditions attested in a variety of non-Israelite contexts. Genesis 1, in particular, manifests some potential links to motifs seen in Egyptian contexts. Genesis 6:1–4 features some elements known from Greek, Hittite (originally Hurrian), and Ugaritic texts. In general, however, the texts in Gen 1–11 show the most identifiable connections to texts in the Mesopotamian Sumero-Akkadian literary tradition.

      There are several factors that may contribute to the predominance of parallels between Gen 1–11 and Mesopotamian literary texts. To start, we have better access to Mesopotamian literary texts because they were recorded on imperishable clay tablets and sometimes collected in large archives, such as the library of Ashurbanipal. Yet, even beyond such accidents of preservation and collection, the Mesopotamian literary tradition appears to have included an unusually large number of stories about primeval times that are analogous to parts of Gen 1–11. Egyptian scribes seem to have developed relatively few such traditions about primeval times.22 Moreover, most traditions specifically connected to the Levant (e.g., Ugarit) and broader Mediterranean (e.g., Greece) focus on royal-legendary heroic figures rather than the creation of the cosmos and human civilization.23 In connection with Gen 6:1–4, I will mention Hittite-Hurrian myths around Kumarbi and some Greek traditions (especially in Hesiod and Homer) that apparently develop older Near Eastern, Hittite, and Levantine themes about ancient interactions of the gods and humans. Nevertheless, the level of focus on such primeval times is far less in Egypt and Mediterranean scribal spheres than that seen in the Mesopotamian literary tradition, and there is not good evidence for a text in Gen 1–11 specifically responding to a specific text in the Egyptian, Greek, Hittite/Hurrian, or Phoenecian sphere.

      Finally, it is important to recognize the multiple occasions in which the Judean scribes might have been exposed to Mesopotamian literary traditions or themes from such traditions. We know that cuneiform texts—specifically including the Adapa and Gilgamesh epics—circulated in the Levant during the Bronze Age, and it is possible that early Judean scribes encountered echoes of those texts in some form, whether preserved versions of some Mesopotamian texts themselves or Canaanite reflections of them.24 When Judah was under Assyrian domination, some elite Judean youths may have been sent to Assyria for education in Assyrian literature, much as happened in other parts of the Assyrian empire.25 Finally, it is possible that the Judean exiles in Babylon encountered and engaged elements of Babylonian literature during their stay there.26

      In the end, the argument for textual influence of Mesopotamian or other traditions must be made on a case by case basis. Nevertheless, numerous discussions in the following commentary will provide support to the idea that the character and broader shape of Gen 1–11 were particularly influenced by primeval compositions and cosmogonic traditions seen in Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform literature.

      The Character of Mesopotamian Primeval Texts and Traditions

      Given the close connections of Gen 1–11 to Mesopotamian literary traditions, our examination of these chapters can be informed by a brief overview of primeval themes seen in this corpus. To start, this literature contains an impressive range of texts devoted all or in part to narrating the gods’ creation of civilized humanity. These include both Sumerian (e.g., Enki and Ninmah, the Eridu Genesis) and Akkadian (portions of the Atrahasis and Enuma Elish Epics) texts, along with a couple of bilinguals (the Ashur bilingual [KAR 4], Marduk bilingual).27 I will term such texts “primeval creation accounts.” In addition, we see a number of important traditions about primeval origins embedded in texts of other genres. They are particularly frequent in hymns (Enki and the World Order, Ninurta’s Exploits, Hymn to the Engura, Song of the Hoe, How Grain Came to Sumer). But we also see such primeval themes occur briefly in some incantations,28 the outset of the Rulers of Lagash list, a part of the Eridu Genesis text, and part of a Sumerian school debate (Debate between Grain and Sheep). This mix of genres shows the overall prominence of themes of primeval origins in the Mesopotamian literary tradition and suggests the possibility of mutual influence of primeval creation narratives on the one hand and the treatment of creation themes in other genre texts (e.g., hymns) on the other.

      Notably, the bulk of Mesopotamian primeval creation narratives and cosmological traditions in other genres do not focus generally on the creation of the world per se, but rather on describing the emergence of different aspects of the Mesopotamian canal-based, temple-city social system.29 In doing so, this etiological dimension of numerous Mesopotamian literary texts integrally connect their audience’s world to the story world of the creation narratives, depicting key aspects of contemporary reality, including social reality, as resulting from events at the outset of time. Far from being an added or superficial element of the stories, this overall etiological dimension of creation narratives constituted a key aspect of their claim upon their readers, turning key elements of the contemporary world—e.g., canals, farming, cities, kingship—into testimony of the truth of the creation myths that purported to explain them.

      Certainly the creation of humans by the gods (usually Enki/Ea) is often included as a part of this. Nevertheless, even here Mesopotamian compositions include an anticipation of irrigation-based agriculture on which Mesopotamian civilization depended. A particularly frequent theme in Mesopotamian texts is the idea that humans were created to do labor to support the gods. In particular, we see multiple attestations in Sumerian texts of the idea that, prior to the creation of humanity, the lower gods were sorely burdened by labor, bearing the hoe and the bucket30 or more specifically maintaining the canals.31 Yet more Sumerian and Akkadian texts then go on to describe how higher gods then create humanity to alleviate the lower gods’ labor, often after a specific consultation among the gods. These themes appear already in the ancient Sumerian Enki and Ninmah myth, and they reappear in Sumerian compositions (Song of the Hoe, Debate between Grain and Sheep) and the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, the Akkadian Enuma Elish Epic and several later Akkadian compositions (Ashur bilingual, Marduk bilingual) as well as being briefly mentioned in some incantations.32

      These stories of the origins of humans typically occur as parts of broader compositions about the origins of Mesopotamian city-temple culture. Alongside the creation of human beings, we see a particular focus in these Mesopotamian origins texts on themes such as: 1) the origins of the great cities like Eridu (in Sumerian compositions) and Babylon (in bilingual and Akkadian compositions); 2) the creation of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers; and 3) the founding of field agriculture along with the canal-irrigation system that made such agriculture possible in Mesopotamia. In the hymn to Enki and the world order, along with the Eridu Genesis, the creator, Enki, is praised as the founder of the first city, Eridu, along with other important Sumerian cities. Later bilingual and Akkadian texts (Enuma Elish Epic, the Marduk bilingual) then shift this achievement to Marduk, who is praised for founding Babylon and its great Esagila temple. So also, Enki (in the hymn to the world order), Ninurta (in the exploits of Ninurta), Marduk (in the Marduk bilingual and Enuma Elish), or the gods in general (in the Ashur bilingual) create the Tigris and Euphrates rivers on which the Mesopotamian irrigation system depended. Finally, the creation of that irrigation system is presupposed in the Atrahasis Epic (where humans take over canal maintenance from lower gods) and explicitly described in the Eridu Genesis, Ashur bilingual, and the Hymn to Enki and the world order.

      Notably, this overall etiological emphasis seen in Mesopotamian primeval creation accounts (and creation traditions) seems to have militated against a regular combination of such creation narratives with stories of a world-destroying flood. To be sure, creation and flood are integrated in the Atrahasis Epic, focused as it is on various ways that contemporary life structures resulted from the gods’ attempts to end human multiplication and its accompanying noise. Nevertheless, the flood does not appear at all in most Mesopotamian primeval creation accounts, and the flood is only incompletely integrated with creation-etiological elements in the Eridu Genesis. The documented

Скачать книгу