Enûma Eliš

The Enûma Eliš (Akkadian Cuneiform: 𒂊𒉡𒈠𒂊𒇺, also spelled "Enuma Elish") is the Babylonian
creation myth (named after its opening words). It was recovered by English archaeologist 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 English Assyriologist George Smith in 1876; active research and
further excavations led to near completion of the texts and improved translation.

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, although 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 Mesopotamia 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 archaeological
Library of Ashurbanipal dates to the 7th century BCE. The composition of the text probably dates to the late
2nd millennium BCE, or even earlier, to the time of Hammurabi during the Old Babylonian Period (1900 –
1600 BCE). Some elements of the myth are attested by illustrations that date to, at least, as early as the
Kassite era (roughly 18th–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 sex organs.
(Berossus states images of these are to be found at the temple of Bel in Babylon.) The text also describes a
female being 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 claims 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's
soil, 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 neo-platonist Damascius also gave a short version of the Babylonian
cosmological view, which closely matches the Enuma Elis.[7]

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 excavations 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 Bible –
furthermore he discovered versions of a Babylonian deluge myth (see Gilgamesh flood myth), as well as
creation myths.[8][9]

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 accounts of these
discoveries in the Daily Telegraph from 4 March 1875.[10][11]

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 scholarship 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 Leipzig gave a translation of all known fragments, (Gunkel & Zimmern
1895), shortly followed by a translation by Friedrich 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 possessing colophons 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.(Although a version of tablet 5 was recently discovered in 2011 in the
Iraq museum archives) [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 Assyrians' 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 ruler Agum I, ~17th C. BC.[31][32]
It has been suggested that the myth, or at least the promotion of
Marduk in it, dates to the ascendancy of the First Babylonian
dynasty (1894–1595 BC), during the same period that Marduk
became a national god.[33] A similar promotion of Marduk is seen in
the first lines of the Code of Hammurabi (c.1754 BC).[33]

Variants

Numerous copies of the tablets exist – even by 1902 fragments of A bas-relief thought to be of Marduk
four copies of the first tablet where known, as well as extracts, and Tiamat from a temple at Nimrud
possibly examples of 'handwriting practice'.[34] Tablets from the dates the legend to at least the reign
library of Ashur-bani-pal tended to be well written on fine clay, of Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BC)
whereas the Neo-Babylonian tablets were often less well written and
made, though fine examples existed.[35] All tablets, both Assyrian
and Babylonian had the text in lines, not columns, and the form of the text was generally identical between
both.[36]

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 (by Marduk with
the aid of Aruru), as well as the creation of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, of land and plants, as well as the
first houses and cities.[38]

Other variants of the creation myth can be found described in King 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 the incipit.

The following per tablet summary is based on

the translation in Akkadian Myths and Epics
(E.A. Speiser), in Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament (Pritchard 1969)
Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal impression from the
eighth century BCE identified by several sources
Tablet 1 as a possible depiction of the slaying of Tiamat
from the Enûma Eliš.[39][40]
The tale begins before the advent of anything, when only
the primordial entities Apsu and Tiamat existed, co-
mingled
together. When on high the heaven had not been named,
No other
things or Firm ground below had not been called by name,
gods are
said to Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter,
exist, nor (And) Mummu†-Tiamat, she who bore them all, Their waters commingling as a single body;
had any
future No reed hut had been matted, no marsh land had appeared,
destinies When no gods whatever had been brought into being,
been
foretold Uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined—
.. then
from the Then it was that the gods were formed within them.
mixture
First eight lines of the Enuma Elis. Pritchard 1969, pp. 60–1
of Apsu
† Here Mummu may be an epithet, different from the god Mummu
and
Tiamat
two gods
were made – Lahmu and Lahamu; next Anshar and Kishar were created. From Anshar came firstly the god
Anu, and from Anu, came Nudimmud (also known as Ea).

Then these new gods disturbed Tiamat through their motions, and Apsu could not calm them. Further
Tiamat found this abhorrent – Apsu called Mummu so that they might speak with Tiamat – he proposed to
destroy them, but Tiamat was reticent on destroying what they had made. Mummu advised Apsu to destroy
them, and he took it to do so, and embraced Mummu. The new gods heard of this and were worried – Ea
however crafted a spell against Apsu's plan, and put Apsu to sleep with it.

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
to 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 against Tiamat.

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, who tells him to fetch Lahmu and Lahamu – tell them of Tiamat'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.

Lord, truly thy decree is first among gods.

Say but to wreck or create; it shall be.

Open thy mouth: the Images will vanish!

Speak again, and the Images shall be whole!

(Other gods speak to Marduk) Translation, Table IV. Lines 20–. Pritchard 1969, p. 66

Marduk is given both the throne, as well as sceptre and vestments. He is given weapons, and sent to fight
Tiamat – bow, quiver, mace, and bolts of lightning, together with the four winds – his body was aflame.

Using the four winds Marduk made a trap so that Tiamat could not escape – he added a whirlwind, a
cyclone, and Imhullu ("the Evil Wind") – together the seven winds stirred up Tiamat. In his war chariot
drawn by four creatures he advanced. He challenges Tiamat stating she has unrightfully made Kingu her
consort, accusing her of being the 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 to Uggae (the Angel of Death) – the 'Tablet of Destinies' is
taken from Kingu. Marduk then smashes Tiamat's head with the mace, whilst her blood is carried off 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 of Apsu.

Tablet 6

Marduk then speaks to Ea – saying he will use his blood to create man – and that man will serve the gods.
Ea advises 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 requested,

Marduk then divides the gods into Let its brickwork be fashioned. You shall name it 'The Sanctuary.'
"above" and "below" – three
hundred are placed in the heavens, (Marduk commands the other gods aka the Anunnaki)
and six hundred on earth. The gods Translation, Table VI. Lines 57–. Pritchard 1969, p. 68
then propose that they should build
a throne or shrine for him – Marduk
tells them to construct 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, and Enlil.

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 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 within my 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 Babylonian
god to better justify any Babylonian influence over the whole Mesopotamian 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 used is the Sumerian lullu; however the chief god in the epic is the Babylonian
Marduk, and not the Sumerian Enlil.[45]
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: seven.[51]
However, 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.[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 event; theme
of darkness; light created; firmament created; dry land created; man created; followed by inactivity.[54]

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 be expected to have been influenced by Mesopotamian culture during their Babylonian
captivity. A third explanation supposes a common ancestor for both sets of belief.[55]

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 God Yahweh 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 (https://www.biblic
a.com/bible/?osis=niv:Genesis.2:2–2:3)), 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 of the damaged tablet, which is read as "[Sa]bbath shalt thou then encounter,
mid[month]ly."[57]

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, 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, in front, 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' cf Tiamat.] ; 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, 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%2Fjamerorie
soci.137.4.0833), JSTOR 10.7817/jameroriesoci.137.4.0833 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.78
17/jameroriesoci.137.4.0833)
29. Haubold, Johannes (2017), "From Text to Reading in Enūma Eliš" (http://dro.dur.ac.uk/21638/
1/21638.pdf) (PDF), Journal of Cuneiform Studies, The American Schools of Oriental
Research, 69: 221–246, doi:10.5615/jcunestud.69.2017.0221 (https://doi.org/10.5615%2Fjcun
estud.69.2017.0221), JSTOR 10.5615/jcunestud.69.2017.0221 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1
0.5615/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_onlin
e/collection_object_details.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 (https://archive.org/details/worldmythology0000unse/page/
62), New York: Metro Books, p. 62 (https://archive.org/details/worldmythology0000unse/page/6
2), 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, 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.201
5.500003), Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 10, Kessinger Publishing, pp. 889–891

Sources
Cory, I.P. (1828). The Ancient Fragments ; containing what remains of the writings of
Sanchoniatho, Berossus, Abydenus, Megasthenes, and Manetho (https://archive.org/stream/a
ncientfragments00coryuoft#page/n5/mode/2up).
Cory, I.P. (1876). Richmond Hodges, E. (ed.). Cory's Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician,
Carthaginian, Babylonian, Egyptian and other authors (https://archive.org/details/corysancientf
rag00coryuoft).
Smith, George (1876). The Chaldean account of Genesis (https://archive.org/details/chaldeana
ccounto00smit). New York: Scribner, Armstrong.
Jensen, Peter (1890). Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (https://archive.org/details/diekosmologi
eder00jensuoft) (in German). Strassbourg: Trübner.
Gunkel, Herman; Zimmern, Heinrich (1895). Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit : eine
religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12 (https://archive.org/details/sc
hpfungundcha00gunk) (in German). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. , alt link (http://ww
w.etana.org/node/597)
 Jensen, Peter (1900). Assyrisch-babylonische Mythen und Epen (https://archive.org/details/as
syrischbabylo00jensgoog) (in German). Reuther & Reichard.
British Museum (1901). Cuneiform texts from Babylonian tablets, &c. in the British Museum (htt
p://www.etana.org/node/729). Part XIII.
King, L. W. (1902). The Seven Tablets of Creation. Luzac's Semitic Text and Translation
Series.
English Translations, etc (http://www.etana.org/node/646). 1.
Supplementary Texts (http://www.etana.org/node/599). 2.
Budge, Wallis E.A. (1921). The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight between Bel
and the Dragon (https://archive.org/details/WallisBudgeEATheBabylonianLegendsOfTheCreati
on1921). British Museum. , alt link (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9914/9914-h/9914-h.htm)
Luckenbill, D. D. (Oct 1921). "The Ashur Version of the Seven Tablets of Creation" (https://arch
ive.org/details/jstor-528577). The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. 38
(1): 12–35. doi:10.1086/369940 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F369940).
Heidel, Alexander (1951) [1942]. The Babylonian Genesis (https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchi
cago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/misc_genesis.pdf) (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 (http
s://archive.org/details/Pritchard1950ANET_20160815) (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. ISBN 0-89003-003-0.
Sommer, Benjamin D. (2000). "The Babylonian Akitu Festival: Rectifying the King or Renewing
the Cosmos?" (https://janes.scholasticahq.com/article/2432-the-babylonian-akitu-festival-rectif
ying-the-king-or-renewing-the-cosmos). Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society. 27 (1):
81–85, p. 82, note 7, p. 90, p. 91, note 49.

Further reading
Deimel, Anton (1936). Enûma Eliš, sive, Epos babylonicum de creatione mundi in usum
scholae. OCLC 1100147532 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1100147532).
Landsberger, B.; Kinnier Wilson, J. V. (1961). "The Fifth Tablet of Enuma Eliš". Journal of Near
Eastern Studies. 20 (3): 154–179. doi:10.1086/371634 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F371634).
JSTOR 543187 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/543187).
Lambert, Wilfred G.; Parker, Simon B. (1966). Enûma Eliš. The Babylonian Epic of Creation.
Oxford.
Vanstiphout, H. L. J. (1981). "Enūma eliš: Tablet V Lines 15–22". Journal of Cuneiform Studies.
33 (3/4): 196–198. doi:10.2307/1359901 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1359901).
JSTOR 1359901 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1359901).
Al-Rawi, F. N. H.; Black, J. A. (1994). "A New Manuscript of Enūma Eliš, Tablet VI". Journal of
Cuneiform Studies. 46: 131–139. doi:10.2307/1359949 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1359949).
JSTOR 1359949 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/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.
ISBN 978-3-86835-036-4.
Lambert, Wilfred G. (2013). Babylonian Creation Myths. ISBN 978-1-57506-247-1.
External links
Enuma Elish – The Babylonian Epic of Creation (http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/225/) on
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 (http://etana.org/node/581)
A cuneiform text of Tablet I with translation and explanation in detail (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20080427211324/http://www.sron.nl/~jheise/akkadian/cftexts.html)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enûma_Eliš&oldid=949156755"

This page was last edited on 4 April 2020, at 23:42 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative 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 the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.