The Fifty Names of Marduk in Enuma elis

ANDREA SERI HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Enuma elis is one of the few Akkadian texts that are relatively well known beyond the cryptic domain of the Assyriologist. The "popularity" of Enuma elis seems to relate, at least in part, to one of its most transparent themes, namely, the creation of the universe. An emphasis on the etiological aspect of the composition appears already in George Smith's translation entitled The Chaldean Account of Genesis published in 1876, only some twenty years after the official decipherment of cuneiform writing. In successive decades, other scholars adopted Smith's title, if slightly modified, and variants such as The Babylonian Genesis, The Poem of Creation, or The Epic of Creation are still frequent.' Although early commentators concentrated on highlighting similarities and differences between the Mesopotamian and the Biblical accounts of Genesis, it became apparent relatively soon that the text served not only mythological motives but that it also had other religious, ideological, and political purposes (see Michalowski 1990: 383-84). The creation story was thus the means to convey, proclaim, and justify the enthronement of Marduk as Babylonia's main deity. The glorification of Marduk is so forceful that the poet has him take over Enlil's role as head of the pantheon. This was achieved progressively throughout the text, first by suggesting Marduk's righteous genealogy, then by presenting him as the hero who defeated Tiamat and fashioned the universe, and finally by granting Marduk fifty names. In this paper, I wish to address the structure of the section dealing with the fifty names and its function within the poem as a whole.
GOD LISTS AND THE FIFTY NAMES

The existence of certain affinities between Marduk's fifty names at the end of EnQma elis and those attested in fragments of god lists was pointed out as early as 1902. Thus, when Leonard W. King published The Seven Tablets of Creation, he incorporated fragments of god lists that he considered pertinent for the reconstruction, comparison, and understanding of Marduk's names.^ And in the description of the contents of CT 25 (1909), King suggested once again that certain god lists included in the volume might help to restore the related broken lines of Enuma elis. Similarly, in his study of the fifty names of Marduk, Franz Bohl (1936) also referred to these connections, in particular to the list

I wish to express my gratitude to Gary Beckman, Peter Machinist, Piotr Steinkeller, Irene Winter, and Norman Yoffee for reading this paper and offering valuable comments. Special thanks are due Piotr Michalowski with whom I had stimulating discussions about Enuma elis during a seminar that he offered at the University of Michigan in 1998. 1. See, for example, Bohl 1936: 191; Deimel 1912; Foster 1996: 350; Heidel 1942; Labat 1935 and 1959; Lambert and Parker 1966; Talon 2005. 2. See in particular his Appendix One, "Assyrian Commentaries and Parallel Texts of the Seventh Tablet of the Creation Series" (vol. 1, 158-81).

Journal ofthe American Oriental Society 126.4 (2006)

507

508

Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.4 (2006)

An : Anum. Years later, in his Yale doctoral thesis (1958), Richard Litke noticed that a passage of the big god-list An : Anum could be compared with the fifty names of Enuma elis. Litke rightly saw and briefly mentioned that Marduk's names in the second tablet of An : Anum resemble those of Enuma elis, although the arrangement is slightly different (Litke 1998: 89). The connections between Enuma elis and An : Anum were finally brought into the spotlight in the 1980s, when Walther Sommerfeld (1982: 175) resorted to this god list to argue for a Kassite date of composition for Enuma elis.^ His claim, however, prompted the response of Wilfred Lambert (1984: 3-4) in a review in which he defends the later date that he had proposed twenty years earlier, i.e., the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (see Lambert 1964). Lambert maintains that rather than being borrowed from An : Anum, the list of names in Enuma elis "is incorporated in toto (with a little rearrangement at the beginning) from a triple-column god list" (Lambert 1984: 4).'* Thus, Lambert writes, there are two god lists, "neither of which is demonstrably based on the other." It should be noted that both Sommerfeld and Lambert focused the discussion on dating Enuma elis. Other implications pertaining to the inclusion of a god list in a literary text have not been further explored.^ I shall leave the hypothetical date of composition aside and stress the fact that Marduk's multiple names were not the result of the composer's creative genius, but were taken from already existing god Hst(s).^ In other words, the names were not conceived ad hoc to crown Marduk's heroic deeds in Enuma elis. This does not imply, however, that the last part of the sixth and the seventh tablets are a later addition missing from an alleged earlier version. On the contrary, the originality of this section resides precisely in the technique of ingeniously interweaving a rather dry string of names into a literary text. This builds on intertextuality, a device consistently used throughout the poem, as will be discussed later. Naturally, the choice of fifty names was not accidental, because fifty was Enlil's number. In the strict sense, the ancestors, in Enuma elis, actually grant Marduk fifty-two names. The last two, however, were not originally Marduk's: they are bel matati, Enlil's epithet, and Anu. These two extra names are simply final bonuses, and they do not follow the pattern of the preceding list. It is worth remembering, after all, that at the beginning of the section, the gods make clear their intention to bestow "fifty" names upon Marduk.^ Since in ancient Mesopotamia divine names were traditionally compiled in lists, an examination of certain god lists closely related to the names in Enuma elis is now necessary.

3. Sommerfeld's suggestion is based on that of his teacher, Wolfram von Soden. The Kassite period is one of the three times of composition proposed for Enuma elis. The others are the Old Babylonian period (e.g., Jacobsen 1968: 107; Dalley 1997) and the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (Lambert 1964). Most scholars today tend to favor Lambert's interpretation that the text was composed no earlier than the later second millennium (e.g., Bottero 197576; Michalowski 1990; Foster 1996; Machinist 2005). 4. The fragments of this list that Lambert mentions are CT 25 46-47 (K.7658 + 8222) and STC 1 165-66 (K.8519 and K. 13337). 5. For instance, in his detailed study of the tablets containing the commentary on the fifty names in parallel with Enuma elis, Jean Bottero (1977) did not refer to god lists; this absence is also to be seen in his analysis of the role of the fifty names in EnUma elis (Bottdro 1975-76: 106-13). 6. Although I am not entirely convinced by the explanation that Enuma eliS was composed to celebrate the return of Marduk's statue, I acknowledge a later-second-millennium or even an early first-millennium date of composition. 7. i nim-be-e-ma ha-sd-a su-me-e-su "Let us proclaim his fifty names" (VI: 121).

SERI:

The Eifty Names of Marduk in Enuma elis
THE GOD LIST AN :ANUM

509

The edition of An: Anum prepared by Litke ([1958] 1998) is a composite based on several manuscripts. It has the Yale text (YBC 2401) as a matrix because, unlike the other manuscripts, this contains the entire series. Marduk's names are recorded on the second tablet from lines 185 to 235; the current edition of Tablet II is based on eighteen copies.^ In spite of the multiple extant sources, some of the names are completely missing; others preserve only certain signs and were restored from lists that do not seem to belong to the same tradition.' Although the exact number of names in An : Anum is, therefore, not immediately apparent, it is likely that there were some fifty-three and not fifty as in Enuma elis. For example, the name Zi-"-ukkin appeared twice in An : Anum.'" It is first listed under ''Tu-tu in line 196, and again under ''Sa-zu in line 204, but it is attested only once in Enuma ells. It is also evident that the preserved entries of An: Anum include names that do not appear in the literary text, for instance, ''Mar-uruj-S'^tukul (1. 193) and ''Mu-"-[ku] (1. 201). An: Anum is a two-column list that has the god's name on the left and either a brief comment or the ditto sign on the right. Under Marduk's names the explanations in the second column are written in both Sumerian and Akkadian. In the preserved lines Asal-liihi is explained as dumu-sag Eridu-ga-ke4, "the first-bom child of Eridu" (1. 185); Nam-ru is explained as Marduk .sa meti, "Marduk of the dead" (1. 187); Mer-sa-kus-ij has eziz u mustal, "angry but deliberative" (1. 192); and finally Mar-uruj-S'^tukul is followed by abub 8'^tukul""=^, "Flood of weapons" (1. 193)." The names in the left column are arranged according to meaningful groups, either classified by assonance or demarcated by the ditto sign, which is clear from the fully preserved lines. For instance, the first name for Marduk is Asallubi. The ditto signs indicate that Nam-ti-la and Nam-ru are related to the Asallufii group, and Asar-ri, Asar-alim, and Asar-alim-nun-na share the first sign (Asar = Asal). Under the second name, i.e., Marduk, the arrangement is by assonance: Marduk, Mer-sa-kus-su, Maruruj-S'^tukul, Ma-ru-uk-ka, and Ma-ru-tu-uk-ka. The same general principle seems to rule the arrangement of the names in Enuma ells. This shows that both An: Anum and Enuma ells share most of the deity's names and certain organizational principles. Nevertheless, the arrangement of names at the beginning of the two lists is different. Thus:

8. These are A = YBC 2402; B = K.4349 (CT 24 20-50); C = K.4340+79-7-8, 294 (CT 24 1-2, 4-5, 9); D = K.4333 (CT 24 2-3, 6-8, 10-11); E = VAT 10812 (KAV 50); F = K.12786 (CT 25 46); G = 2NT 349; a = K.4338B (CT 24 19); aa = K.7662 (CT 25 7); ab = K.4339 (CT 25 9-14); ac = Bu.89-4-26, 77 (CT 25 28), AO.5376 (TCL 15 25-31); and eme = Emesal list (MSL IV). 9. For example, the names from line 210 on are poorly preserved in the various duplicates of An : Anum. They were restored by Litke from other Marduk lists such as Sm 78 + Sm 1078: 13 (CT 25 46), Sm 115 (CT 25 38), and K 7558 (CT 25 46). 10. For the transliteration of Zi-"-ukkin and other names, I use the conventional " to indicate ditto, which was written with the sign min. 11. For the name Asallutji, one manuscript has dumu-sag ''En-ki-ga-ke4 instead of Eridu-ga-ke4 (CT 24 12-17 = K.4332, ii 64b). Marduk Sa meti has to be understood as "the one who brings the dead back to life" (e.g., Surpu IV: 99, Asatluhi sa ina tesu lii.ugj ibatlutu; Ee VI: 153 [Marduk] ina sit plka mitum iballut; and VII: 26 [Marduk] bet Sipti elleti mubatlit miti). Mersaku§u eziz u mustal appears verbatim in Ee VI: 137. Although the name ''Mar-urujS'^tukul is not in Enuma elis, a phrase that resembles part of the explanation appears in Ee VI: 125: S'Hukul-iu abubi, "his Flood weapon."

510

Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.4 (2006)
An-Anum Enuma elis line'2 123 133 135 137 139 143 147 151 155 1 3 5 9 ''Marduk ''Ma-ru-uk-ka ''Ma-ru-tu-uk-ku ''Mer-sa-kus-u ''Lugal-dim-mer-an-ki-a ''Na-ri-lugal-dim-mer-an-ki-a <'Asal-lu-hi ''Nam-ti-la ''Nam-ru ''Asar-ri ''Asar-alim ''Asar-alim-nun-na ''TU-tu etc.

line 185 185a 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196

col. i "Asal-lu-bi ''"Nam-ti-la ''"Nam-ru dAsar"-™-ri ''Asar-alim ''Asar-alim-nun-na ''Marduk ''Mer-S^-kus-u ''Mar-urUj-S'Hukul ''Ma-ru-uk-ka ''Ma-ru-tu-uk-ka '•lU-tu etc.

col. ii ''Marduk dumu-sag Eridu-ga-ke4 ''Marduk " sd me-ti

" e-ziz u mus-tdl " a-bu-ub S'^tukul""^^

In the passage of An : Anum there are thus three groups: the Asalluhi cluster, the Marduk sequence arranged by assonance, and finally those names belonging to the Tutu group. In the Enuma elis section, however, there are four groups: the Marduk sequence similarly arranged by assonance, the name Lugaldimmerankia and its expansion Nari-lugaldimmerankia, the Asalluhi cluster, and finally the Tutu names. The beginning of the Marduk section in An : Anum seems to be perfectly consistent with a certain hierarchical view of the Mesopotamian pantheon and with the ordering of this list in general. The deity's most common name, Marduk in this case, is written in the right column, and his other names are listed in the opposite left-hand column (see Lambert 1957: 475). The reason why Asallu^i appears as Marduk's first name in the left column has to do with the fact that Marduk is listed right after Enki and his wife Damkina. As is well known, in certain traditions Asallulii was the couple's son, and Asallu^i was assimilated to Marduk, especially in magical contexts (see Lambert 1975a; Geller 1985). In An : Anum, Asalluhi is then the name chosen to link Marduk with Enki and Damkina. This also explains, I think, why the name Marduk and its phonological variants are listed after Asalluhi. Similarly, the arrangement of names in Enuma ells is neither arbitrary nor accidental. It follows the order of names that the gods give to Marduk throughout the poem. Marduk is his birth name that appears for the first time in tablet I: 81, Ina qe-reb Apsu Ib-ba-ni Marduk, "Marduk was created in the midst of Apsu." The lead name of the next group is Lugaldimmerankia, which the gods grant secondly to Marduk in tablet V: 112, Lugaldimmerankia zik-ra-su su-a-su ti-ik-la-su, "Lugaldimmerankia is his name, trust in him!" And Asallubi is the name that Marduk receives third in the body of the composition; thus VI:

12. Lines are those of tablets VI and VII. Since I completed this article before Talon's edition of Enuma elis appeared (2005), I follow the text established and copied by Lambert and Parker (1996).

SERI:

The Eifty Names of Marduk in Enuma elis

511

101, u-Sd-tir An-sdr ''Asal-lu-lji it-ta-bi su-us-su, "Ansar gave him an additional name, Asallul)i." The rest of the names seem to follow in general the arrangement of other similar god lists.'3 In Enuma ells, therefore, Marduk bears first his birth name. He is then called king of all the gods (Lugal-dim-mer-an-ki-a), which is followed by its Akkadian translation bel Hani sa same u ersetlm, "king of the gods of heavens and earth." After his monarchic name comes Asalluhi, an indirect reference to his paternal filiation. This allusion was certainly intended because Marduk's parents at the beginning of Enuma ells are Nudimmud (Enki/Ea) and his wife Damkina (Ee I: 78-80). It is by now certain that Marduk's kingship had become more important than his kinship. This indicates that the list of names in Enuma elis was not a careless and later addition; rather, certain names were arranged to suit the plot of the previous tablets. Another set of anticipations reinforces this point. These are references, in connection with Marduk, to the number fifty, to various of the fifty names, and to the act of naming itself. They can be summarized as follows: 1. After Marduk was born, "fifty pulhatu ('awesomeness') were heaped upon him": pul-ha-a-tu ha-sat-sl-na e-ll-su kdm-ra (I: 104). 2. The gods assign the name Lugaldimmerankia to Marduk (V: 112). 3. Marduk himself names the human being "man": lu-us-zlz-ma lul-la-a lu-ti a-me-lu mu-su, "I shall make stand a human being; let 'Man' be its name" (VI: 6). 4. The number fifty is mentioned again in connection with the great gods celebrating the creation of Esagila: dingir-dingir gal-gal ha-am-sat-su-nu u-sl-bu-ma, "The great gods, fifty of them, took their seats" (VI: 80). 5. At this banquet, Anu assigns three names to Marduk's bow, im-bi-ma sa S'^ban ki-a-am vmx'^^^-sa / i-su a-rik lu is-te-nu-um-ma sd-nu-u lu-u ka-sld / sal-su sum-sd mul ban Ina an-e u-sd-pl, "He named the bow; these are its names: 'Longwood' shall be the first, the second shall be 'May it be on target,' the third name 'Bow star,' he made visible in the heavens" (VI: 88-90). 6. Ansar gives Marduk his third name, Asalluhi (VI: 101). 7. Finally, the gods announce their decision to grant Marduk fifty names right before these are enumerated (VI: 121). As can be seen, both the mention of Marduk's "fifty pulhatu" and the act of naming foreshadow his fate: he will become the king of the gods. Although remarkable, the correspondences of names in Enuma ells and An : Anum are not absolute. A significant difference between the two lists is that when an explanation follows the name in An : Anum, it is very brief—no longer than two or three words. The explanations in Enuma ells are longer. Their length varies from two up to twelve lines, as is the case with Nam-ru. Resemblances with fragments of other god lists are even more apparent, as we will now see.

13. For instance, although fragmentary, CT 25 46 (Sm 78 + Sm 1078) preserves the sequence corresponding roughly to names 17 to 27+ of Enuma elis, with differences similar to those of An : Anum. Thus, [''Zi-"]-ulckin follows [''§a]-zu (11. 4'-5'). Another fragment has those names listed in EnHma elis from 42 to 47 in the same order (see CT 25 46 [K.7658]).

512

Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.4 (2006)
THE THREE-COLUMN GOD LIST STC\: 165-66 + CT 25 46-47'"

This god list can currently be reconstructed, as far as I know, from four British Museum fragments. The first has parts of the last seven lines of the obverse and parts of the ten initial lines of the reverse {STC 1: 165 [K.8519]). The second is a very small fragment that includes segments of eight lines which duplicate eight lines distributed on the first tablet over the obverse and the reverse {STC 1: 166 [K. 13.337]). These fragments belong to the third column, and they have eight of Marduk's names, corresponding to numbers 37 through 44 of Enuma elis. The third fragment is also very small and contains portions of six lines, with only two columns distinguishable. It includes six of Marduk's names, from numbers 42 through 47 of Enuma ells (CT 52 46 [K.7658]). There is finally a bigger fragment that preserves traces of three columns and 20 lines, of which the first ten contain six of Marduk's names, corresponding to numbers 45 through 50 of Enuma ells (CT 25 47 [K.8222]). We thus have the following reconstruction:
Col. i [''Lugal-ib-duburj] [''Pa4-gal-gu-en-na] [''Lugal-dur-mal)] col. ii [dingir min] [dingir min] [dingir min] col. iii [ ta\m-tim [ x]-'^8'5tukur-me-ra [ ]'nap^-har be-lim [ ]-a e-mu-qa-su [ ] 'mar-kas^ dingir-mes be-el dur-ma-ffi sd ina su-bat lugal-u-fi sur-bu-u 'x^ dingir-mes ma-'-dls si-ru ma-lik "^E-a ba-an dingir-me ad-me-.SH [ ]-na[ a\-lak-ti ru-bu-ti-su [ ]-mas-sd-lu dingir a-a-um-ma [ ] dug-kii u-ta-da-sii [ ]-bat-su el-let [ ] '^x^ la kuA-su ''lugal-duj-ku-ga [ ] sd-qa-a e-mu-qa-su [ ] 'su^-nu qir-bis tam-tim [ ] a-bi-iS, me sd sd-qis ina 6 lk-[ mu-kin a-sa-at[ tam-tim i-ban-[ sd kis-sat an-e[ ta-a-bu rig-ma[ sd ki-ma slu i-su-ru dingir-mes[ mul-.su sd ina an-e [

1' 2' 3' 4' 5' 6' 7' 8' 9' 10' lr 12' 13' 14' 15' 16' 17' 18' 19' 20' 21' 22' 23' 24' 25'

[''A-rS-nun-na]

[dingir min]

[''Dumu-duj-ku]

[dingir min]

[''Lugal-su]-an-na [''Ir-ug5]-gu [''Ir-kin]-gu [''Kin]-me'5 [''E-sisJkurj [''Bil]-gi (= Gibil) [''Ad-du] [''A-54-ru]

[dingir min] dingir [min] dingir min dingir min dingir min dingir min dingir min dingir min dingir min

14. These references encompass four British Museum fragments: K.8519 and its duplicate K.13337 (STC 1: 165-66), plus K.7658 and K.8222 (CT 25 46-47). See Lambert (1984: 4). Note that Bohl (1936: 198) had already pointed out K.8222 as an explanatory god list, "erklarende Gotterliste," important for the study of Marduk's fifty names. Another well-known god list. An : Anu Sa ameli, is similarly laid out in three subcolumns. For the organizational principles of this god list with commentary see Lambert (1975: 196). 15. The passage starting with Kin-me through Neberu is from CT 25 47 (K.8222). The tablet preserves the last part of the first column, but the names are mostly unreadable. The names have therefore been reconstructed. After the name Neberu, this fragment presumably continues to list more Marduk names. This seems to be the case because we have dingir min after [Neberu] (from lines 11' to 20', numbered according to the extant lines on this fragment).

SERI:

The Eifty Names ofMarduk in Enuma elis

513

If we compare the explanations of the names of Marduk in this three-column god list with those of Enuma elis, we can see that they are practically identical. Here I provide a transliteration of those lines of Enuma eliS that correspond to the god list. To make the comparison easier, the lines of the god list are intercalated. '^
Text EeVII God list EeVII EeVII God list EeVII Ee VII God list Ee VII God list Ee VII God list Ee VII God list EeVII God list Ee VII God list EeVII God list EeVII EeVII God list EeVII EeVII God list EeVII EeVII God list EeVII EeVII God list EeVII EeVII EeVII EeVII EeVII line 91 l'-2' 92 0 93 3'-4' 94 0 95 5' 96 6'-7' 97 8' 98 9'-10' 99 ir-12' 100 13' 101 14' 102 0 103 15' 104 0 105 16' 106 0 07 7' 08 0 09 8' 100 11 0 120 130 140 45 name # 37 ''Lugal-ab-duburj lugal sa-pi-ih ep-set Ti-amat na-si-hu [''Lugal-ab-dubur2 ta]m-tim [ ] sd ina re-e-si u ar-ka-ti du-ru-us-sii ku-un-nu 38 ''Pa4-gal-gu-en-na a-sd-red nap-har be-li sd sd-qa-a e-mu-qa-sii [''Pa4-gal-gu-en-na ] 'nap^-har be-lim [ ]-a e-mu-qa-su sd ina dingir-dingir 5e5-5H sur-bu-u e-til nap-har-su-un -mat) sar-ru mar-kas dingir-mes en diir-mah-hi [""Lugal-dur-mab ] 'mar^-kas dingir-mes be-el dur-malj-hi. Sd ina su-bat lugal-fi sur-bu-u an dingir-dingir ma-'-dis si-ru Sd ina Su-bat lugal-ii-r/ Sur-bu-u '\^ dingir-mes ma-'-diS si-ru ''A-ra-nun-na ma-lik ''E-a ba-an dingir-mes ad-mes-™ [••A-rS-nun-na] ma-lik ''E-a ba-an dingir-me ad-me-™ Sd a-na a-lak-ti ru-bu-ti-Sii la li-maS-Sd-lu dingir a-a-um-ma [ ]-na\ a\-lak-ti ru-bu-ti-Sii [ ]-maS-.Sd-lu dingir a-a-um-ma ••Dumu-duj-ku sa ina dug-kti u-ta-ad-da-Su Su-bat-su el-let [''Dumu-duj-ku ] duj-ku u-ta-da-Sii [ ybat-su el-let "•Dumu-duj-ku Sd ba-li-Su es-bar la i-par-ra-su ''Lugal-duj-ku 1 ] la kud-.rM ''Lugal-duj-ku-ga •'Lugal-su-an-na iar-ru ra ma dingir-dingir Sd-qa-a e-mu-qd-a-Su [''Lugal-su]-an-na [ ] Sd-qa-a e-mu-qa-Sii be-lum e-muq ^A-nim Sd Su-tu-ru ni-bu-ut an-Sdr •'Ir-ugs-ga Sd-til gim-ri-Sii-nu qir-biS Ti-amat [""Ir-ugjl-gu [ ]-Su-nu qir-biS tam-tim Sd nap-har uz-ni ih-mu-mu ha-si-sa pal-ki "Ir-kin-gu sa'-///""kin-gu a-bi-iS ta-ha-zi [''Ir-kin]-gu [ ]a-bi-iS^mh mut-tab-bil te-ret nap-ha-ri mu-kin en-ii-ti na-din mil-ki

39

40

41

42

43

44

"Kin-ma mu-ma-'-ir nap-har dingir-dingir Sd a-na Su-me-Su dingir-mes

gin, me-lje-e i-Sub-bu pal-hiS

46

''E-siskur2 Sd-qiS ina e ik-ri-bi li-Sib-ma ["•El-siskurj sa' Sd-qiS ina e /*-[ ] dingir-dingir mah-ri-Su li-Se-ri-bu kat-ra-sti-un a-di i-rib-Sii-nu i-malj-lia-ru-ni ma-am-man ina ba-li-Sii la i-ban-na-a nik-la-a-te er-ba sal-mat sag-du bi-na-tuS-Su la i-ad-da dingir ma-am-man

16. For the sake of clarity, I have separated each of Marduk's names with dotted lines.

514
EeVII God list EeVII God list EeVII EeVII EeVII God list EeVII God list EeVII 115 19' 116 20' 117 0 1180 119 21' 120 22' 121 0

Journal ofthe American Oriental Society 126.4 (2006)
47 ""Gibil (= bil-gi) mu-kin a-sa-at [""Bin-gi mu-kin a-sa-at [ ] Sd ina mfe Ti-amat i-ban-na-a nik-la-a-ti [ ] tam-tim i-ban-[ ] pal-ka uz-ni et-pe-Sd Ija-si-sa lib-bu ru-ii-qu Sd i-lam-ma-du dingir-dingir gim-ras-su-un ""Ad-du lu-u Sum-Su kiS-Sat an-e li-rim-ma [••Ad-du] Sa kiS-Sat an-e [ ] ta-a-bu rig-ma-Su ugu ki-fi'm li-ir-ta-si-in ta-a-bu rig-ma [ ] mu-um-mu er-pe-e-ti liS-tak-si-ba-am-ma sap-US a-na un-meS te-'-ii-ta lid-din •'A-s^-ru Sd ki-ma Su-mi-Su-ma i-Su-ru dingir-me§ nam-me§ ["iA-S^-ru] Sd ki-ma S[u] i-Su-ru dingir-meS [ ] kul-lat kal un-mes Sii-u tu-ii pa-qid ^N€-be-ru ne-be-re-et an-e u ki-tim lu-ii ta-me-eh-ma e-lis it sap-liS la ib-bi-ru li-qi-'u-Su Sd-a-Su ^Ne-be-ru maX-sii Sd ina an-e li-Sd-pu-u [''N6-b6-ru] mul-s'rf Sd ina an-e [ ] lu-a sa-bit kun-sag-gi Su-nu Sa-a-Su lu-ii pal-su-Su

48

EeVII God list EeVII EeVII EeVII EeVII God list EeVII

122 23'-24' 123 0 124 0 125 0 126 25' 127 0

49

50

As this score shows, there are only minimal variations in certain lines, mostly pertaining to the use of different signs. '^ For instance, in EnUma eliS, tahdzu is written syllabically and in the god list with the logogram me (Ee 105 ~ god list 16'); the god list usually has me for the Sumerian plural while Enuma eliS has mes (Ee 97 ~ gl 8')- There is also a difference in the use of mimation, thus beli vs belim (Ee 93 ~ gl 3'-4'). And most interestingly, the god list consistently has tamtim {tam-tim) where Enuma eliS has Tiamat (Ee 91, 103, 116 ~ gl r , 15', 20'). In view of the very few variations, the last example seems to be a purposeful substitution intended to tum the noun tdmtum into the name of Marduk's enemy, Tiamat, which is but the absolute form of that noun with uncontracted vowel sequence. Another significant difference is the length of the explanations following the names of Marduk. As mentioned earlier, those of Enuma eliS tend to be longer than the comments of the god list. On the score I have marked the lines of Enuma eliS that are absent from the god list with 0. Thus we find that there are names in Enuma eliS followed by two lines of explanation where only the first line copies the full text of the god list (names 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 49). But two lines of explanation can also be followed by copies of the corresponding lines from the god list (names 39, 40, and 41). In one case, Enuma eliS has three lines of explanation, while only the first two are found in the god list (name 48). Yet in another, the literary text has four lines and the god list only the first two (name 47). And the section with the name E-siskur2 consists of six lines, but only the first is attested in the god list. The case of the last name, Neberu, is interesting because, contrary to the previous instances, the line from the god list is not copied right after the name of the god in Enuma eliS, but after the third line. '^
17. Philippe Talon's new edition of Enuma eliS (2005) has STC 1 165 (K.8519) as one of the manuscripts for the seventh tablet; therefore, he includes the readings of this fragment as variants. It is my view that STC 1 165 is a god list, and as a result those diiferent readings are not variants of Enuma eliS in the strict sense. 18. It is not clear to me whether we should read this name as Neberu in Sumerian, intended to be a continuation of the previous list, or as Neberu in Akkadian, meant to suggest a rupture with the Sumerian names.

SERI: The Eifty Names ofMarduk in Enuma eH§

515

This three-column list, at least in the fragments known to me, preserves those names listed in Enuma eliS from number 37 through 50 in exactly the same order. This fact, together with the verbatim repetition of the explanations that follow the names, makes this—or a very similar—list a strong candidate for being the text from which the fifty names of Enuma elis were drawn. Nevertheless, .identifying the original source is, for the purpose of my argument, of little relevance. Marduk's name in Enuma eliS—as well as others not included— were available in the form of lists with or without explanations, either in a similar or in a different arrangement. For instance, STC 2 (plates Ixi and Ixii) contains two fragments of a tablet (K.2107 + K.6068). The reverse has a list of temples while the obverse includes some of Marduk's names in the left column and their explanations on the right (see STC 1: 171). In this list, certain names that also appear in EnUma eliS have a different arrangement, and there are others in the list that were left out of Enuma eliS. Even the three-column list {STC 1: 165-66 + CT 25 46-47) that closely parallels Enuma eliS seems to contain other Marduk names following Neberu. '^ After all, of the many names of Marduk in circulation, only fifty were needed to grant Enlil-ship to the new hero of the gods.^"
INTERTEXTUALITY IN ENUMA ELIS

When we look at it in perspective, the inclusion of a god list at the end of Enuma eliS should not come as a surprise. All of the previous tablets abound in examples of intertextuality borrowed from Akkadian and Sumerian traditions (Foster 1996; 26). In Enuma elis allusions to other texts are both general and specific. A variety of traditional literary motives can be traced, for instance, the presence of a mother goddess, the battle of the gods, fighting with spells, the whereabouts of the tablet of "destinies," the master plans and tricks of Enki/ Ea, the creation of the world, and the creation of the primeval human being {lullu) from the blood of a god slaughtered for the purpose. The creation of lullii undoubtedly brings Atrahasls to the reader's mind, but of course the reader knows that there is a new twist in the plot. In Enuma eliS, it is Ea who creates lullu, although the original idea is Marduk's; the event has thus been slightly altered to exalt Marduk's role. Other passages are consciously based on Anzii and incorporate other items of the Ninurta tradition as well (Lambert 1985). Similarly, the opening section of the fifth tablet of Enuma eliS closely parallels certain lines of the astrological omen series Enuma Anu Enlil (Landsberger and Kinnier-Wilson 1961: 172). What is more important, Peter Machinist (2005) has recently argued that intertextuality is deliberate, because it is meant to be recognized as a fundamental part of the poetics of Enuma elis. The god list that served as the basis for Marduk's fifty names has been skillfully woven into the text. The columnar arrangement of god lists was omitted in Enuma elis, and thus this section looks exactly like the rest of the composition, concealing its origins. Nevertheless, certain clues reveal the source, such as the use of the ditto sign after the name of the god. There is, moreover, the use of ordinal numbers to establish the connections in a sequence of names. That is the case, for instance, in the Asallujji group. Here each name is

19. As mentioned in note 15, it is possible that the names after [Neberu] refer to Marduk. However, the eolumn bearing the names is broken, and only the explanations are preserved. 20. If we were to collect the names and epithets scattered in different lists, it is clear that there were many more than fifty names for Marduk. Note, for instance, that tablet VII (II. 1-66) of An : Anum contains over 60 names for this god that are different from those listed in tablet II.

516

Journal ofthe American Oriental Society 126.4 (2006)

separated by several lines of text and—without the visual aid of the column arrangement— Enuma eliS explains the relation among names as follows:
VI: 147 VI: 151 VI: 155 ''Asal-lu-hi mu-.SH Sd im-bu-u a-bu-Sii M-num ''Asal-lu-hi ''Nam-ti-la Sd-nis im-bu-u dingir muS-neS-Su dingir min ''Nam-ru Sd in-na-bu-u Sal-sis ma-Su

Asalluhi is the first name of the group, then the text explains that Asalluhi is "secondly" {SaniS) Namtila, and Namru is connected by means of the ditto sign (min) and the ordinal "thirdly" {SalSiS). Furthermore, the choice of a god list with explanations to close the composition carries further complexities because this kind of list displays certain features of lexical texts beyond the mere arrangement of names, and these features are accordingly to be found in the list of Marduk's names in Enuma eliS.^^ Thus, besides the frequent use of associated pairs, there is the translation of Sumerian words into Akkadian, a device characteristic of bilingual lists, for example, e-siskurj followed by the translation bit ikribi, "house of prayer" (VII: 109). This is also the case with the use of thematic associations such as hyponyms, associated pairs, synonyms, and antonyms in lines of Enuma eliS not preserved in the fragments of the three-column god list known to me. Thus, under the name '*Zi-ku we find mu-Sab-si si-im-ri u ku-bu-ut-te-e mu-kin he-gal (VII: 21), where the term simru ("wealth"), kubuttu ("abundant wealth"), and hegallu ("abundance") are hyponyms, i.e., words that belong to the larger class of a generic category. Most interesting is the fact that from the preserved lines of the three-column god list one gets the impression that certain episodes of Enuma eliS have been drawn from the explanations of the god list. This is not an innovation, for lexical lists had already inspired the composition of literary texts, as Miguel Civil (1987) has shown (see also Veldhuis 1998: 82-84). Aside from the praise of Marduk, specific events taken from the god list include: the defeat of Tiamat and disarming her of her weapon (iii: \'-2'); the slaughter of Kingu (iii: 16'); the creation of skillful things as a consequence of Marduk's victory over Tiamat (iii: 20'); and the positioning of Neberu mentioned in tablet V: 6 (iii: 25').^^ In a few instances one may even suspect a closer connection, for some lines of the god list seem to have made their way into previous tablets of Enuma elis. Thus the use of related words from the god list seems to be present in tablet V: 59, when Marduk ties Tiamat's tail to the durmahhu, the link that unites heaven and earth. In this instance the god list has markas and durmahhi, while tablet V: 59 has durmahhiS and urakkis, that is, both feature the noun durmahhu and another term derived from the root r k s. A. similar case occurs with the explanation of the name Gibil (Ee VII: 116 ~ gl 20'), where the clause ibannd nikldti, "he (Marduk) can create ingenious things," also appears to be related to the defeat of Tiamat in tablet IV: 136. This is most likely a play of borrowing within borrowings.^-'

21. For the organizational principles of lexical lists, see Martha Roth's (1985: 135-42) clear and systematic classification. 22. The references in parentheses correspond to the column and line numbers of the three-column god list STC 1: 165-66 + CT 25 46-47. 23. Although not in the available fragments of the three-column list, I suspect that Marduk's thirty-fourth name Mummu is also derived from the god list. Interestingly enough, another three-column list (STC 2, plates Ixi-lxii [K.2107 + 6068]) has the name ''Tuj-tUj, which could be read mu7-mu7, the Sumerian word for "noise." This fits nicely into Michalowski's (1990) analysis of mummu and, as posited above, it might further strengthen the argument that the composition of Enuma eliS was inspired by the god list.

SERI:

The Eifty Names ofMarduk in Enuma elis

517

These selected examples indicate, I believe, that intertextuality in Enuma eliS is farreaching. Naturally, a thorough enumeration of intertextual examples would be far beyond the scope of this section. For the sake of brevity, suffice it to say that Enuma eliS includes allusions to a variety of traditional genres and motives as well as literary conventions. These encompass etiological myths, epic stories, phraseology from omen literature, royal inscriptions, hymns, prayers, cosmological topics, literary devices of lexical lists, god list(s), and putative genealogies.
THE ROLE OF THE FIFTY NAMES IN THE POEM: NAMES REPLACE GENEALOGY

The very first eighty-five lines of Enuma e/w contain the clues for understanding the role of the fifty names as well as the way in which the exaltation of Marduk will be accomplished. First, there is the mention of the lack of names in the opening line: Enuma eliS Id nabu Samdmu, "When above heaven had not been named." And the absence of names appears again in the following line. This betrays from the outset the intention to create a circular account, because the beginning lacks what abounds at the end. Immediately following, from the third through the seventeenth line, there is a genealogy. This includes pairs and their descendants, namely, Apsu and Tiamat, Lahmu and Lafeamu, Ansar and Kisar, the unpaired Anu, and finally Nudimmud (Enki/Ea). Next, Nudimmud is praised above his forebears: He is wise, strong, and unrivaled among his ancestors. Genealogy is then interrupted by a passage that introduces the confiict. This encompasses the gods disturbing Tiamat with their noise, Ea's killing of Apsu, and his subsequent creation of his dwelling upon Apsu. At this point, the genealogy is resumed and completed, because Marduk is born to Ea and his wife Damkina in the midst of Apsu. Marduk is then praised even more than his father. In this genealogy, the great absent figure is, of course, Enlil, who is played down by being completely ignored. He will appear later to give Marduk his own epithet, bel mdtdti, personally. Thus a relatively short passage not only introduces the important characters and the plot's confiict, but it also lays out the positive qualities of the future hero. It shows that Marduk was the son of the most outstanding god, Ea, and that his grandfather was none other than Anu. Marduk's identity is thus established by means of ancestry. After this, however, Marduk—as would any successful Mesopotamian king—seeks out fame by undertaking heroic deeds. He volunteers as the champion of the gods, requesting the special powers that enable him to defeat Tiamat. As if this were not enough, he creates the heavens and earth out of his rival's corpse. At this point, the last portion of tablet four mirrors Ea's deeds in the first tablet. Marduk establishes dwelling places in the enemy's body, as Ea had done before him, but Marduk does this in a grandiose way, superseding his father. He then proceeds to fashion the stars, the planets, and the rest of the universe. The exaltation of Marduk has several stages. He has the right ancestry and successfully undertakes heroic deeds. Both facts convey the ideal background of a Mesopotamian ruler. But additionally he becomes a demiurge, and this obviously places him far above his human counterparts. This progression moves from kinship to kingship. The transition is expressed in such a manner that the ultimate caesura is unambiguous. This is presented in the shape of an address to the Igigi-gods: "Previously Marduk was our beloved son / Now he is your king" (V: 109-10). The gods further bestow upon him his second name, Lugaldimmerankia, "king of the gods of heaven and earth." The stages taken to develop the exaltation of Marduk and his preeminent role in the pantheon convey, I believe, yet another intertextual allusion. The circular structure of the story.

518

Journal of the American Oriental Society 126.4 (2006)

the putative genealogy at the beginning, the undertaking of heroic deeds to establish name and reputation, and the transmission of those deeds are all present in one of Mesopotamia's best known stories: the Standard Babylonian "epic" of Gilgame§. From the beginning, Gilgames is presented as the son of Lugalbanda and the goddess Ninsun, two-thirds god and one-third human. He decides to undertake heroic deeds and seeks advice from the elders arid the young men of Uruk. Gilgames aims at immortality like Uta-napistim, while Marduk aspires to become Enlil. In his search for fame, Gilgames kills the innocent Qumbaba, whose role had been to protect the Forest of Cedar, and Marduk kills Tiamat, who was legitimately avenging the murder of Apsu. Whereas Gilgames fails, Marduk succeeds. Finally, both Gilgames's and Marduk's deeds are meant to be transmitted to future generations. Gilgames's travails were recorded and enshrined in a foundation deposit in the wall of Uruk, and the narrator invites his audience to read out from a lapis-Iazuli tablet the story of the king of Uruk. Similarly, Marduk's story and names were written on seven tablets, and the narrator urges future generations to remember, study, transmit, and repeat those names. ^^ " The enumeration of the fifty names occupies a considerable portion of the sixth and almost the entirety of the seventh tablet. The names are strategically listed at the end of the composition in order to celebrate Marduk's greatness and to install him unequivocally as the head of the Babylonian pantheon. But having the names at the very end is also intended, I think, to highlight the contrast with the first tablet. It further implies that towards the end of Enuma eliS Marduk's genealogical filiation becomes less relevant because by defeating Tiamat and creating the universe he is able to establish a reputation for himself. It is in this sense that names replace genealogy. But here the composer plays yet another of his tricks, because, as Lambert (1975b) has convincingly shown, the list of ancestors in the first tablet was fashioned after the genealogical tradition of god lists.
REFERENCES Bohl, E M. Th. 1936. Die funfzig Namen des Marduk. AfO 11: 191-218. Bott^ro, J. 1975/76. Antiquit6s Assyro-Babyloniens. Annuaire 1975-6de I'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes IV Section, pp. 70-126. . 1977. Les noms de Marduk, l'ecriture et la "logique" en M6sopotamie ancienne. In Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of J. Finkelstein, ed. M. de Jong Ellis. Memoires of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 19. New Haven: Archon Books. Pp. 5-28. Civil, M. 1987. Feeding Dumuzi's Sheep: The Lexicon as a Source of Literary Inspiration. In Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. E Rochberg-Halton. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Pp. 37-55. Dalley, S. 1997. Statues of Marduk and the Date of Enuma elis. AfO 24: 163-71. Deimei, A. 1912. Enuma elis: epos babylonicum de creatione mundi. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Eoster, B. R. 1996. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 2nd edition. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press. Geller, M. 1985. Forerunners to Udug-hul: Sumerian Exorcistic Incantations. Wiesbaden: Eranz Steiner Verlag. Heidel, A. 1942. The Babylonian Genesis, the Story of Creation. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Jacobsen, Th. 1968. The Battle between Marduk and Tiamat. JAOS 88: 104-8.
24. This passage reads: "With the name 'Fifty' the great gods / Proclaimed him whose names are fifty and made his way supreme, / Let them be kept in mind and let the elder (scholar) explain them. / Let the wise and the intelligent discuss them together, / Let the father repeat them and thus instruct his son, / Let them he known by the shepherd and the herdsman" (VII: 143-48). The translation is by Michalowski (1990: 394-95).

SERI:

The Eifty Names ofMarduk in Enuma elis

519

King, L. W. 1902. The Seven Tablets of Creation, or the Babylonian and Assyrian Legends concerning the Creation ofthe World and of Mankind. 2 vols. London: Luzac and Co. . 1909. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, part 25. London: The British Museum. Labat, R. 1935. Le poeme babylonien de la creation. Paris: Librarie d'Amerique et d'Orient. . 1959. Les origins et la formation de la terre dans le poeme babylonien de la cr6ation. AnBi 12: 205-15. Lambert, W. G. 1957. "Gotterlisten." RIA 3: 473-79. . 1964. The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion. In The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of T. J. Meek, ed. W. McCullough. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press. Pp. 3-13. _. 1975a. The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon: A Study of Sophisticated Polytheism. In Unity and Diversity: Essays in History, Literature and Religion ofthe Ancient Near East, ed. H. Goedicke and J. Roberts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Pp. 191-200. _. 1975b. The Cosmology of Sumer and Babylon. In Ancient Cosmologies, ed. C. Blacker and M. Loewe. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Pp. 42-63. . 1984. Studies in Marduk. BSOAS IA: 1-9. _. 1985. Ninurta Mythology in the Babylonian Epic of Creation. In Keilschriftliche Literaturen, Ausgewalte Vortrage der XXXIP Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Munster, 8.—12.7.1985, ed. K. Hecker and W. Sommerfeld. Berlin: Detrich Reimer Verlag. Pp. 55-60. _, and S. Parker. 1966. EnUma elis. The Babylonian Epic of Creation: The Cuneiform Text. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Landsberger, B., and J. Kinnier Wilson. 1961. The Eifth Tablet of Enuma elis. JNES 20: 154-79. Litke, R. 1998. A Reconstruction of The Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, An: ''A-nu-um and An: Anu sa ameli. New Haven: Yale Babylonian Collection. Machinist, P. 2005. Order and Disorder: Some Mesopotamian Reflections. In Genesis and Regeneration: Essays on Conceptions of Origins, ed. S. Shaked. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Pp. 31-61. Michalowski, P. 1990. Presence at the Creation. In Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William Moran, ed. T. Abusch et al. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Pp. 381-96. Roth, M. 1985. The Series An-ta-gal = saqu. In The Series Erim-hus = anantu and An-ta-gdl = saqu, ed. M. Civil and E. Reiner. MSL, vol. 17. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Pp. 131-259. Sommerfeld, W. 1982. Der Aufstieg Marduks. AOAT 213. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Talon, P. 2005. The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enuma elis. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Veldhuis, N. 1998. TIN.TIN = Babylon, the Question of Canonization and the Production of Meaning. JCS 50: 77-85.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful