Enûma Eliš

The Enûma Eliš (Akkadian Cuneiform: , also spelled "Enuma Elish"), is the Babylonian creation myth (named after its
opening words). It was recovered by Austen Henry Layard in 1849 (in fragmentary form) in the ruined Library of Ashurbanipal at
Nineveh (Mosul, Iraq). A form of the myth was first published by George Smith in 1876; active research and further excavations led
to near completion of the texts, and improved translations.

The Enûma Eliš has about a thousand lines and is recorded in Old Babylonian on seven clay tablets, each holding between 115 and
170 lines of Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform script. Most of Tablet V has never been recovered but, aside from this lacuna, the text is
almost complete.

This epic is one of the most important sources for understanding the Babylonian worldview - over the seven tablets it describes the
creation of the world, a battle between gods focused on supremacy of Marduk, the creation of man destined for the service of the
Mesopotamian deities, and ends with a long passage praising Marduk. Its primary original purpose is unknown - a version is known
to have been used for certain festivals - there may also have been a political element to the myth, centered on the legitimization or
primacy of Mesopotomia over Assyria - some later versions replace Marduk with the Assyrian primary god
Ashur.

The Enûma Eliš exists in various copies from Babylon and Assyria. The version from the Library of Ashurbanipal dates to the 7th
century BCE. The composition of the text probably dates to theBronze Age, or even early to the time of Hammurabi - some elements
of the myth are attested by illustrations that date to at least as early as theKassite era (roughly 18th to 16th centuries BCE).

Contents
Background and discovery
Dating of the Myth
Variants
Text
Tablet 1
Tablet 2
Tablet 3
Tablet 4
Tablet 5
Tablet 6
Tablet 7
Colophon
Significance, interpretation, and ritual use
Influence on biblical research
See also
References
Sources
Further reading
External links

Background and discovery

Prior to the discovery of the tablets, substantial elements of the myth had survived via the writings of Berossus, a 3rd-century BC
Babylonian writer and priest of Bel (Marduk) - these were preseved in Alexander Polyhistor's book on Chaldean History, which was
reproduced by Eusebius in Book 1 of his Chronicon. In it are described the primeval state of an abyssal darkness and water, the two
primeval beings existing therein, said to be of a twofold principle - the description then relates the creation of further beings, partly
human but with variants of wings, animal heads and bodies, and some with both sexual organs. (Berossus states images of these are
to be found at the temple of Bel in Babylon)

The text also describes a female leading over them, named as Omoroca (Chaldean: Thalatth), and her slaying by Bel, who cut her in
half forming heaven of one part, and earth of the other - this Berossus is said to have been an allegory. The text also describes the
beheading of a god, and the mixing of the god's blood with the earth, leading to the creation of Men (people). Finally there is also
reference to Bel's creation of the stars, sun, moon, and planets.[1][2][3] Berossus also gave an account of the Oannes, a sort of fish-
man hybrid, who appeared from the sea and taught people all manner of knowledge including writing, lawmaking, construction,
mathematics, and agriculture;[4] Berossus presented the account of creation in the form of a speech given by the Oannes.[5][6] The
, which closely matches the Enuma Elis.[7]
neo-platonist Damascius also gave a short version of the Babylonia cosmological view

Clay tablets containing inscriptions relating to analogues of biblical stories were discovered by A.H. Layard, Hormuzd Rassam, and
George Smith in the ruins of the Palace and Library of Ashur-bani-pal (668-626 BC) during excvations at the mound of Kuyunjik,
Nineveh (near Mosul) between 1848 and 1876. Smith worked through Rassam's find of ~20,000 fragments from 1852, and identified
references to the kings Shalmaneser II, Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and other rulers mentioned in the
Gilgamesh flood myth), as well as creation myths.[8][9]
Bible - furthermore he discovered versions of a Babylonian deluge myth (see

On examination it became clear that the Assyrian myths were drawn from or similar to the Babylonian ones; additionally Sir Henry
Rawlinson had noted similarities between Biblical accounts of creation and the geography of Babylonia - he suggested that biblical
creation stories might have their origin in that area - a link was found on a tablet labeled K 63 at the British Museum's collection by
Smith, as well as similar text on other tablets - Smith then began searching the collection for textual similarities between the two
mythoses, and found several references to a deluge myth with an 'Izdubar' (literal translation of cuneiform for
Gilgamesh).

Smith's publication of his work led to an expedition to Assyria funded by the Daily Telegraph - there he found further tablets
describing the deluge as well as fragmentary accounts of creation, a text on a war between good and evil 'gods', and a Fall of man
myth. A second expedition by Smith brought back further creation legend fragments. By 1875 he had returned and began publishing
elegraph from 4 March 1875.[10][11]
accounts of these discoveries in the Daily T

Smith envisioned that the creation myth, including a part describing the fall of man must have originally spanned at least nine or ten
tablets.[12] He also identified tablets that in part were closer with Borusus' account.[13] Some of Smith's early assignments, such as
references to the stories of the temptation of Eve, to the Tower of Babel, and to instructions given from God to Adam and Eve, were
later held to be erroneous.[14][15]

The connection with the Bible stories brought a great deal of additional attention to the tablets - in addition to Smith's early scolarship
on the tablets, early translation work included that done by E. Schrader, A.H. Sayce, and Jules Oppert. In 1890 P. Jensen published a
translation and commentary Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (Jensen 1890), followed by an updated translation in his 1900 "Mythen
und Epen" (Jensen 1900); in 1895 Prof. Zimmern of Liepzig gave a translation of all known fragments, (Gunkel & Zimmern 1895),
shortly followed by a translation byFriedrich Delitzsch, as well as contributions by several other authors.[16][17]

In 1898 the trustees of the British Museum ordered publication of a collation of all the Assyrian and Babylonian creation texts held
by them, a work which was undertaken by L.W.King. King concluded that the creation myth as known in Nineveh was originally
contained on seven tablets.[18] This collection was published 1901 as "Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British
Museum" (Part XIII) (British Museum 1901). King published his own translations and notes in two volumes with additional material
1902 as The Seven Tablets of Creation, or the Babylonian and Assyrian Legends concerning the creation of the world and of
mankind.(King 1902) By then additional fragments of tablet six had been found, concerning the creation of man - here Marduk was
found to have made man from his blood combined with bone, which brought comparison with Genesis 2:23 ("This is now bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man") where the creation of woman required the
use of a man's bone.[19]
New material contributing to the fourth and sixth tablets also further corroborated other elements of Berossus' account.[20] The
seventh tablet added by King was a praise of Marduk, using around fifty titles over more than one hundred lines of cuneiform.[21]
Thus King's composition of the "Enuma Elis" consisted of five parts - the birth of gods, legend of Ea and Apsu, Dragon (Tiamat)
myth, account of creation, and finally a hymn to Marduk using his many titles.[22] Importantly, tablets, both Assyrian and
Babylonian, when possessingcolophons had the number of the tablet inscribed.[23]

Further expeditions by German researchers uncovered further tablet fragments (specifically tablet 1, 6, and 7) during the period 1902-
1914 - these works replaced Marduk with the Assyrian god Ashur; additional important sources for tablets 1 and 6, and tablet 7 were
discovered by expeditions in 1924-5, and 1928-9 respectively.[24] The Ashur texts uncovered by the Germans necessitated some
corrections - it was Kingu not Marduk who was killed and whose blood made men.[25] These discoveries were further supplemented
by purchases from antiquity dealers - as a result by the mid 20th century most of the text of the work was known, with the exception
of tablet 5.[26] These further discoveries were complemented by a stream of publications and translations in the early 20th
century.[27]

In the 21st century the text continues to be a subject of active research, analysis, or discussion - significant publications include The
Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enūma Eliš (Talon 2005); Das Babylonische Weltschopfungsepos Enuma Elis (Kammerer &
Metzler 2012), and Babylonian Creation Myths (Lambert 2013); as well as other works.[28][29]

Dating of the Myth

King's set of tablets dated to no earlier than the 7th century BC, being from the
library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh - however King proposed that the tablets were
copies of earlier Babylonian works as they glorified Marduk (of Babylon), and not
the Assyrian's favored god, Ashur.[30] He also thought sculptures found at the
temple of Ninib at Nimrud depicted Marduk fighting Tiamat and so date the dragon
legend to at least Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC), two centuries earlier than the date
of Ashur-bani-pal's library. Legends of Tiamat and her monsters existed much
earlier, as far as the Kassite rulerAgum I, ~17th C. BC.[31][32]
A bas-relief thought to be of Marduk
It has been suggested that the myth, or at least the promotion of Marduk in it dates to
and Tiamat from a temple at Nimrud
the ascendancy of the First Babylonian dynasty (1894-1595 BC), during the same dates the legend to at least the reign
period that Marduk became a national god.[33] A similar promotion of Marduk is of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC)
seen in the first lines of theCode of Hammurabi (c.1754 BC).[33]

Variants
Numerous copies of the tablets exist - even by 1902 fragments of four copies of the first tablet where known, as well as extracts,
possibly examples of 'handwriting practice'.[34] Tablets from the library of Ashur-bani-pal tended to be well written on fine clay,
whereas the Neo-Babylonian tablets were often less well written and made, though fine examples existed.[35] All tablets, both
[36]
Assyrian and Babylonian had the text in lines, not columns, and the form of the text was generally identical between both.

A tablet at the British Museum (No 93014.[37] ), known as the "bilingual" version of the creation legend describes a version of the
creation legend that describes the creation of man, and animals (byMarduk with the aid of Aruru), as well as the creation of the rivers
[38]
Tigris and Euphrates, of land and plants, as well as the first houses and cities.

Other variants of the creation myth can be found described inKing 1902, pp. 116–155 and Heidel 1951, pp. 61–81

Text
The epic itself does not rhyme, and has no meter - it is composed of couplets, usually written on the same line, occasionally forming
quatrains.[41] The title Enuma Elish, meaning "when on high", is theincipit.
 The following per tablet summary is based on
the translation in Akkadian Myths and Epics
(E.A. Spicer), in Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament (Pritchard 1969)

Tablet 1
The tale begins before the advent of anything, when only the
primordial entities Apsu and Tiamat existed, co-mingled together. No
other things or gods are said to exist, nor had any future destinies been
Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal impression from the
foretold .. then from the mixture of Apsu and Tiamat two gods where eighth century BCE identified by several sources
made - Lahmu and Lahamu; next Anshar and Kishar were created. as a possible depiction of the slaying ofTiamat
From Anshar came a firstly the god Anu, and from Anu, came from the Enûma Eliš[39][40]
Nudimmud (also known as Ea).

Then these new gods disturbed

Tiamat through their motions, When on high the heaven had not been named,
and Apsu could not calm them.
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
Further Tiamat found this
abhorrent - Apsu called Mummu Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter,
so that they might speak with
(And) Mummu†-Tiamat, she who bore them all, Their waters commingling as a single body;
Tiamat - he proposed to destroy
them, but Tiamat was reticent on No reed hut had been matted, no marsh land hadappeared,
destroying what they had made.
Mummu adviced Apsu destroy When no gods whatever had been brought into being,
them, and he took it to do so, and
Uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined—
embraced Mummu. The new
gods heard of this and were Then it was that the gods were formed within them.
worried - Ea however crafted a
spell against Apsu's plan, and put First eight lines of the Enuma Elis.Pritchard 1969, pp. 60–1
Apsu to sleep with it.
† Here Mummu may be anepithet, different from the god Mummu
Mummu sought to wake Apsu
but could not - Ea took Apsu's
halo and wore it himself, slew Apsu, and chained Mummu. Apsu became the dwelling place of Ea, together with his wife Damkina.
Within the heart of Apsu Ea and Damkina created Marduk. Marduk exceeded Ea and the other gods in his godliness - Ea called him
"My son, the Sun!". Anu creates four winds.

Other gods then say to Tiamat - 'when your consort (Apsu) was slain you did nothing', and complain about the wind which disturbs
them. Tiamat then proposed to make 'Monsters' and do battle with the other gods. She creates eleven chimeric creatures armed with
weapons, and makes the god Kingu chief of the war party, and her new consort too. The 'Tablet of Destinies' is then given to Kingu,
making his command unchallengeable.

Tablet 2
Ea heard of Tiamat's plan to fight and avenge Apsu. He speaks to his grandfather Anshar - he tells that many gods have gone to
Tiamat's cause, and that she has created eleven monstrous creatures fit for war, and made Kingu their leader, given him the 'Tablet of
Destinies'. Anshar is troubled. Eventually Anshar tells Anu so go speak with Tiamat, see if he can calm her, but is too weak to face
her and turns back. Anshar becomes more worried, thinking no god can or will stand againstiamat.
T
After thinking, Anshar proposes Marduk as their champion. Marduk is brought forth, and asks what god he must fight—to which
Anshar replies that it is not a god but the goddess Tiamat. Marduk confidently assures the other gods that he will defeat Tiamat in
short order, but presents the condition that he will be proclaimed supreme god—and be given authority over even Anshar—if he
succeeds.

Tablet 3
Anshar speaks to Gaga his advisor, tells him to fetch Lahmu and Lahamu - tell them of T
iamat's war plans, of the eleven monsters she
has created, and so on, telling also of Marduk's willingness to fight, and his demands for overlordship if he wins. Lahmu and Lahamu
and other Igigi (heavenly gods) are distressed by this tale. The gods then drank together, becoming drowsy, whilst agreeing the
contract with Marduk.

Tablet 4
Marduk is given a throne, and sits presiding over the other gods - the other gods honor him, agreeing to his overlordship.

Marduk is given both the throne, as well as sceptre and vestments. He

is given weapons, and sent to fight Tiamat - bow, quiver, and mace, "Lord, truly thy decree is first among gods.
plus bolts of lightning, together with the four winds - his body was
aflame. Say but to wreck or create; it shall be.

Using the four winds Marduk made a trap so that Tiamat could not Open thy mouth: the Images will vanish!

escape - he added a whirlwind, a cyclone, and Imhullu ("the Evil

Speak again, and the Images shall be whole!"
Wind") - together the seven winds stirred up Tiamat. In his war chariot
drawn by four creatures he advanced. He challenges Tiamat stating she (Other gods speak to Marduk)
has unrightfully made Kingu her consort, accusing her of being the
Translation, Table IV. Lines 20-. Pritchard 1969, p. 66
source of the trouble. Tiamat becomes enraged and single combat
begins.

Marduk uses a net, a gift from Anu, to entrap Tiamat; Tiamat attempts to swallow Marduk, but 'the Evil Wind' enters her mouth,
preventing this. With the winds swirling within her she becomes distended - Marduk then fires his arrow, hitting her heart - she is
slain. The other gods attempt to flee but cannot, and Marduk captures them, breaks their weapons, and are trapped in the net. Her
eleven monsters are also captured and chained; whilst Kingu is taken toUggae (the Angel of Death) - the 'Tablet of Destinies' is taken
from Kingu. Marduk then smashes Tiamat's head with the mace, whilst here blood is carried of
f by the North Wind.

Marduk then splits Tiamat's remains in two - from one half he makes the sky - in it he made places for Anu, Enlil, and Ea.

Tablet 5
Marduk makes likenesses of the gods in the sky, creating constellations, and defines the days of the year from them. He creates night
and day, and the moon also. He creates clouds, causes them to rain, and their water to make the Tigris and Euphrates. He gives the
'Tablet of Destinies' to Anu.

Statues of the eleven monsters of Tiamat are made and installed at the gate ofApsu

Tablet 6
Marduk then speaks to Ea - saying he will use his blood to create man - and that man will serve the gods. Ea advices one of the gods
be chosen as a sacrifice - the Igigi advice that Kingu be chosen - his blood is then used to create man.

"Construct Babylon, whose building you have equested,

r
Marduk then divides the gods into "above" and "below" - Let its brickwork be fashioned. You shall name it 'The Sanctuary.'"
three hundred are placed in the heavens, and six hundred
(Marduk commands the other gods aka theAnunnaki)
on earth. The gods then propose that they should build a
throne or shrine for him - Marduk is tells them to construct Translation, Table VI. Lines 57-. Pritchard 1969, p. 68
Babylon. The gods then spend a year making bricks - they
build the Esagila (Temple to Marduk) to a great height,
making it a place for Marduk, Ea, andEnlil.

A banquet is then held, with fifty of the great gods taking seats. Anu praises Enlil's bow
, then Marduk is praised.

The first nine names or titles of Marduk are given.

Tablet 7
The remainder of the Marduk's fifty names or titles are read.

Colophon
Tablets Smith examined also contained attributions on the rear of the tablet - the first tablet contained eight lines of a colophon -
Smith's reconstruction and translation of this states :

"When Above"
Palace of Assurbanipal king of nations, king of Assyria
to whom Nebo and Tasmit attentive ears have given :
he sought with diligent eyes the wisdom of the inscribed tablets,
which among the kings who went before me,
none those writings had sought.
The wisdom of Nebo,† the impressions? of the god instructor? all delightful,
on tablets I wrote, I studied, I observed, and
for the inspection of my people withinmy palace I placed

(Smith 1876, pp. 63–64)

† Nebo was god of literacy, scribes, and wisdom; Tasmit or Tasmetu his wife

Significance, interpretation, and ritual use

The Enuma Elis is the primary source for Mesopotamian cosmology.[42] According to Heidel its main purpose was as a praise of
Marduk, and was important in making that Babylonian god head of the entire pantheon, through his deeds in defeating Tiamat, and in
creation of the universe.[43] Heidel also considers the text to have a political as well as religious message - that is - the promotion to
primacy of a Babylonia god to better justify any Babylonia influence over the whole mespotamian region.[44] The text as a whole
contains many words which are Sumerian in origin, including the names of Tiamat's monsters, Marduk's wind, and the name for man
Enlil.[45]
used is the Sumerian lullu; however the chief god in the epic is the Babylonia Marduk, and not the Sumerian

A ritual text from the Seleucid period states that the Enuma Elis was recited during the Akitu festival.[46] The purpose of the reading,
if it occurred, and even the identity of the said text to be used as this festival is a matter of debate amongst scholars. Most analysists
considered that the festival concerned and included some form of re-enactment of Tiamat's defeat by Marduk, representing a renewal
cycle and or triumph over chaos, however a more detailed analysis by Jonathan Z. Smith led him to argue that the described ritual
should be understood in terms of its post-Assyrian and post-Babylonian imperial temporal context, and may include an elements of
psychological and political theater addressing the non-native origin of the Seleucid rulers who then controlled the area; he also
questions whether the Enuma Elis read during that period was the same as that known to the ancient Assyrians. Whether the Enuma
Elis creation myth was created for the Akitu ritual, or vice versa, or neither, is unclear; nevertheless there are definite connections in
subject matter between the myth and festival, and there is also evidence of the festival as celebrated during the neo-Babylonian
period that correlates well with the Enuma Elis myth.[47] A version of the Enuma Elis is also thought to have been read during the
month of Kislimu.[48][49]

It has been suggested that ritual reading of the poem coincided with spring flooding of the Tigris or Euphrates in following the
melting of snow in mountainous regions upstream - this interpretation is supported by the defeat of the (watery being) Tiamat by
Marduk.[50]

Influence on biblical research

The Enuma Elis contains numerous parallels with the Old Testament, and has led to a general conclusion amongst some researchers
that the paralleled Old Testament stories were based on the mesopotamian work. Overarching similarities include : reference to a
watery chaos before creation; a separation of the chaos into heaven and earth; different types of waters and their separation during the
creation process; as well as the indirect textual similarity between the number of tablets, and the number of days of creation - that is -
seven.[51] However, in a deeper analysis (Heidel 1951) notes many differences, including polytheism vs. monotheism, and
personification of forces or properties in the Babylonian myth vs. imperative creation by god in the biblical stories; permanence of
matter vs. creation out of nothing; and the lack of any real parallel for the extended description of Marduk's battles with monsters. He
also notes some broad commonalities with other religions in both e.g. a watery chaos found in Egyptian, Phoenician, and Vedic
works; and that the linguistic analysis of both belief system's texts are complicated by a common Semitic root for both languages.[52]
In terms of creation of man there are similarities in terms of the use of dust or earth (clay) for his creation, but man's purpose is
inverted in the two texts - in the Enuma Elis man is created as a servant of gods, whereas in Genesis man is given more agency -
nevertheless in both man contains "godhood" - either through a god's blood in the Babylonia, or being made "in His own Image" in
Genesis; in both man is the final creative act of the god/gods.[53] In terms of the seven tablets and seven days of each system - the
numbered itineraries in general do not closely match - but there are some broad commonalities in order of occurrence i.e. creation
inactivity.[54]
event; theme of darkness; light created; firmament created; dry land created; man created; followed by god/god's

Different theories have been proposed to explain the similarities. Based on an analysis of proper names in the texts A.T. Clay
proposed that the Enuma Elish was a combination of a Semitic myth from Amurru and a Sumerian myth from Eridu - this theory is
thought to lack solidity, and specifically any historical or archaeological evidence. An alternative theory is a westward migration of
the Mesopotamian myth, being known to other cultures such as the Hebrews, and so influencing their own beliefs; additionally the
Hebrews specifically would expect to be influenced during their exposure to Mesopotamian culture during their
Babylonian captivity.
[55]
A third explanation supposes a common ancestor for both sets of belief.

Conrad Hyers of the Princeton Theological Seminary suggests that the Genesis creation myth polemically addressed earlier
Babylonian and other creation myths to "repudiate the divinization of nature and the attendant myths of divine origins, divine
conflict, and divine ascent," thus rejecting the idea that Genesis borrowed from or appropriated the form of the Enûma Eliš.[56]
According to this theory, the Enûma Eliš was comfortable using connections between the divine and inert matter, while the aim of
Genesis was to state the superiority of the Hebrew GodYahweh Elohim over all creation (and subsequent deities).

Reconstruction of the broken Enûma Eliš tablet seems to define the rarely attested Sapattum or Sabattum as the full moon. This word
is cognate or merged with Hebrew Shabbat (cf. Genesis 2:2-3), but is monthly rather than weekly; it is regarded as a form of
Sumerian sa-bat ("mid-rest"), attested in Akkadian as um nuh libbi ("day of mid-repose"). This conclusion is a contextual restoration
, mid[month]ly."[57]
of the damaged tablet, which is read as "[Sa]bbath shalt thou then encounter

See also
Mesopotamian pantheon
Religions of the Ancient Near East
Sumerian creation myth
References
1. Cory 1828, pp. 25-29.
2. Cory 1876, pp. 58-60(quote) "There was a time in which there was nothing but darkness and an abyss of waters,
wherein resided most hideous beings, which were produced of a two-fold principle. Men appeared with two wings,
some with four wings, and two faces. They had one body , but two heads — the one of a man, the other of a woman.
They were likewise, in their several organs, both male and female. Other human figures were to be seen with the
legs and horns of goats. Some had horses' feet ; others had the limbs of a horse behind, but before were fashioned
like men, resembling hippocentaurs. Bulls, likewise, bred there with the heads of men ; and dogs, with fourfold
bodies, and the tails of fishes. Also horses, with the heads of dogs : men, too, and other animals, with the heads and
bodies of horses and the tails of fishes. In short, there were creatures with the limbs of every species of animals. Add
to these fishes, reptiles, serpents, with other wonderful animals, which assumed each other's shape and
countenance. Of all these were preserved delineations in the temple of Belus at Babylon."
"The person, who was supposed to have presided over them, was a woman named Omoroca [A corruption of the
Aramaic Amqia - 'the deep', or 'ocean' cfTiamat.] ; which in the Chaldee language is Thalatth ; which in Greek is
interpreted Thalassa, the sea : but, according to the most true computation, it is equivalent to Selene, the moon. All
things being in this situation, Belus came, and cut the woman asunder : and, out of one half of her , he formed the
earth, and of the other half the heavens ; and at the same time he destroyed the animals in the abyss. All this (he
says) was an allegorical description of nature. For the whole universe consisting of moisture, and animals being
continually generated therein ; the deity (Belus), above-mentioned, cut off his own head ; upon which the other gods
mixed the blood, as it gushed out, with the earth ; and from thence men were formed. On this account it is that men
are rational, and partake of divine knowledge. This Belus, whom men call Dis, (or Pluto,) divided the darkness, and
separated the heavens from the earth, and reduced the universe to order . But the animals so recently created, not
being able to bear the prevalence of light, died."
"Belus upon this, seeing a vast space quite uninhabited, though by nature very fruitful, ordered one of the gods to
take off his head ; and when it was taken off, they were to mix the blood with the soil of the earth, and from thence to
form other men and animals, which should be capable of bearing the light. Belus also formed the stars, and the sun
and the moon, together with the five planets."
3. Mayer Burstein 1978, p. 8(quote) "If Berossus exercised little criticism on his sources, the fragments make it clear
that he did choose good sources, most likely from a library at Babylon, and that he reliably reported their contents in
Greek. Thus, in book one he essentially followed a version of Enuma Elish for the story of creation"
4. Cory 1876, p. 57.
5. Mayer Burstein 1978, pp. 7; p.14.
6. Cory 1828, pp.25-29 (quote) "Moreover Oannes wrote concerning the generations of mankind, of their different ways
of life, and of their civil polity; and the following is the purport of what he said : "There was a time in which there was
nothing but darkness and an abyss of waters, .." .
7. Heidel 1951, pp. 75-76.
8. Budge 1921, p. 1.
9. Smith 1876, p. 2-3.
10. Smith 1876, pp. 3-18.
11. Budge 1921, pp. 1-2.
12. Smith 1876, p. 13.
13. Smith 1876, pp. 101-112.
14. Budge 1921, p.67, Note 2.
15. King 1902, v.1, preface; pp.219-, Appendix IV.
16. King 1902, v.1, preface; pp.XXVI-XXX, introduction.
17. Heidel 1951, p. 2.
18. Budge 1921, pp. 2-4.
19. King 1902, v.1, preface.
20. King, pp. XLIX, LIV.
21. King 1902, p. LXIII.
22. King 1902, p. LXVII.
23. King 1902, p. CXIII.
24. Heidel 1951, p. 1.
25. Luckenbill 1921, pp. 12-13.
26. Heidel 1951, pp. 1-2.
27. Heidel 1951, pp. 2-3.
28. Seri, Andrea (2017), "Some Notes on enūma eliš",Journal of the American Oriental Society, 137 (4): 833–838,
doi:10.7817/jameroriesoci.137.4.0833(https://doi.org/10.7817/jameroriesoci.137.4.0833)
,
JSTOR 10.7817/jameroriesoci.137.4.0833(https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7817/jameroriesoci.137.4.0833)
29. Haubold, Johannes (2017), "From T ext to Reading in Enūma Eliš", Journal of Cuneiform Studies, The American
Schools of Oriental Research,69: 221, doi:10.5615/jcunestud.69.2017.0221(https://doi.org/10.5615/jcunestud.69.20
17.0221), JSTOR 10.5615/jcunestud.69.2017.0221(https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/jcunestud.69.2017.0221),
"The last decade has seen important advances in scholarship on the Babylonian poem Enuma Elis. Three new
editions, by Talon (2005), Kammerer and Metzler (2012), and Lambert (2013), have collected the extant manuscripts
and on that basis established a much improved text.
"
30. King 1902, p. LXXII.
31. King 1902, pp. LXXIII-LXIV.
32. Heidel 1951, p. 13.
33. Heidel 1951, p. 14.
34. King 1902, v.2, preface.
35. King 1902, pp. CXI-CXIII.
36. King 1902, pp. CXIII-CXIV.
37. "Library of Ashurbanipal No. 93014"(https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_det
ails.aspx?objectId=284240&partId=1), www.britishmuseum.org
38. Budge 1921, pp. 5-7.
39. Bromily, Geoffrey W. (1988), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 93, ISBN 0-8028-3784-0
40. Willis, Roy (2012), World Mythology, New York: Metro Books, p. 62,ISBN 978-1-4351-4173-5
41. Heidel 1951, p. 15.
42. Heidel 1951, p. 10.
43. Heidel 1951, pp. 10-12.
44. Heidel 1951, p. 11.
45. Heidel 1951, p. 12.
46. Smith, Jonathan Z. (1982), Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown
, University of Chicago Press, p. 93,
ISBN 0 226 76360 9
47. Sommer 2000, pp. 81-85; p.82, note 7; p.90; p.91, note 49.
48. Sommer 2000, pp. 91, note 49.
49. Nakata, Ichiro (1968), "Problems of the Babylonian Akitu Festival"(https://janes.scholasticahq.com/article/2224.pdf)
(PDF), Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society (JANES) , 1: 42
50. Heidel 1951, p. 17.
51. Heidel 1951, p. 82.
52. Heidel 1951, pp. 82-118.
53. Heidel 1951, pp. 118-122.
54. Heidel 1951, pp. 128-129.
55. Heidel 1951, pp. 129-139.
56. Conrad Hyers, M (1984), The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science
, John Knox
57. Hastings, James, ed. (1918), "Sabbath (Babylonian)"(https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.500003)
,
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Kessinger Publishing,10, pp. 889–891

Sources
 Cory, I.P. (1828), The Ancient Fragments ; containing what remains of the writings of Sanchoniatho, Berossus,
Abydenus, Megasthenes,and Manetho
Cory, I.P. (1876), Richmond Hodges, E., ed.,Cory's Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician, Carthaginian, Babylonian,
Egyptian and other authors
Smith, George (1876), The Chaldean account of Genesis
Jensen, Peter (1890), Die Kosmologie der Babylonier(in German)
Gunkel, Herman; Zimmern, Heinrich (1895), Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit : eine
religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12(in German) , alt link
Jensen, Peter (1900), Assyrisch-babylonische Mythen und Epen(in German)
British Museum (1901),Cuneiform texts from Babylonian tablets, &c. in the British Museum
, Part XIII
King, L. W. (1902), "The Seven Tablets of Creation", Luzac's Semitic Text and Translation Series (12 & 13)

English Translations, etc, 1

Supplementary Texts, 2
Budge, Wallis E.A. (1921), The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight between Bel and the Dragon
,
British Museum , alt link
Luckenbill, D. D. (Oct 1921), "The Ashur Version of the Seven Tablets of Creation", The American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures, 38 (1): 12–35
Heidel, Alexander (1951) [1942], The Babylonian Genesis(PDF) (2nd ed.), University of Chicago Press,ISBN 0 226
32399 4
Pritchard, James B., ed. (1969), Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed.), Princeton
University Press, ISBN 0 691 03503 2
Mayer Burstein, Stanley(1978), "The babyloniaca of berossus",Sources from the ancient near east (SANE), 1
(fasc.5), ISBN 0890030030
Sommer, Benjamin D. (2000), "The Babylonian Akitu Festival: Rectifying the King or Renewing the Cosmos?"
,
Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society (JANES)
, 27 (1): 81–85; p.82, note 7; p.90; p.91, note 49

Further reading
Deimel, Anton (1936), Enûma Eliš
Landsberger, B.; Kinnier Wilson, J. V. (1961), "The Fifth Tablet of Enuma Eliš", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 20
(3), JSTOR 543187
Lambert, Wilfred G.; Parker, Simon B. (1966), Enûma Eliš. The Babylonian Epic of Creation, Oxford
Vanstiphout, H. L. J. (1981), "Enūma eliš: T
ablet V Lines 15-22", Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 33 (3/4),
doi:10.2307/1359901, JSTOR 1359901
Al-Rawi, F. N. H.; Black, J. A. (1994), "A NewManuscript of Enūma Eliš, Tablet VI", Journal of Cuneiform Studies,
46, doi:10.2307/1359949, JSTOR 1359949
Talon, Philippe (2005), "The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enūma Eliš",State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform
Texts (SAACT), 4, ISBN 952-10-1328-1
Kammerer, Thomas. R.; Metzler, Kai. A. (2012), "Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos Enûma elîsch",Alter Orient
Und Altes Testament (in German), Ugarit-Verlag, Münster (375), ISBN 978-3-86835-036-4
Lambert, Wilfred G. (2013), Babylonian Creation Myths, ISBN 978-1575062471

External links
Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creationon Ancient History Encyclopedia (includes the original text)
"Mesopotamian Creation Stories",Imagining Creation, IJS Studies in Judaica,5, Brill Academic Publishers, 2007,
ISBN 978-90-47-42297-6 , extract of English translation by W.G. Lambert reproduced at etana.org
A cuneiform text of Tablet I with translation and explanation in detail

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enûma_Eliš&oldid=849228961

"
This page was last edited on 7 July 2018, at 13:27(UTC).

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.