THE SEVEN TABLETS OF CREATION,

↑ 目次

PREFACE

PERHAPS no section of Babylonian literature has been more generally studied than the legends which record the Creation of the world. On the publication of the late Mr. George Smith's work, “The Chaldean Account of Genesis,” which appeared some twenty-seven years ago, it was recognized that there was in the Babylonian account of the Creation, as it existed in the seventh century before Christ, much which invited comparison with the corresponding narrative in the Book of Genesis. It is true that the Babylonian legends which had been recovered and were first published by him were very fragmentary, and that the exact number and order of the Tablets, or sections, of which they were composed were quite uncertain; and that, although they recorded the creation of the heavens and of the heavenly bodies, they contained no direct account of the creation of man. In spite of this, however, their resemblance to the Hebrew narrative was unmistakable, and in consequence they at once appealed to a far larger circle of students than would otherwise have been the case.

After the appearance of Mr. Smith's work, other scholars produced translations of the fragments which he had published, and the names of Oppert, Schrader, and Sayce will always be associated with those who were the first to devote themselves to the interpretation of the Creation Legends. Moreover, new fragments of the legends have from time to time been acquired by the Trustees of the British Museum, and of these the most important is the fine text of the Fourth Tablet of the Creation Series, containing the account of the fight between the god Marduk and the dragon Tiamat, which was published in 1887 by Dr. Wallis Budge, and translated by Professor Sayce in the same year. Professor Sayce's translation of the Creation Legends marked a distinct advance upon those of his predecessors, and it was the most complete, inasmuch as he was enabled to make use of the new tablet which restored so much of the central portion of the story. In the year 1890, in his important work Die Kosmologie der Babylonier, Professor Jensen of Marburg gave a translation of the legends together with a transliteration and commentary; in 1895 Professor Zimmern of Leipzig translated all the fragments then known, and a year later Professor Delitzsch of Berlin also published a rendering. Finally, two years ago, Professor Jensen issued a new and revised translation of the Creation Legends in the opening pages of the first part of his work Mythen and Epen, the second part of which, containing his notes and commentary, appeared some months ago.

In the course of the year 1900, the writer was entrusted with the task of copying the texts of a number of Babylonian and Assyrian legends for publication in the series of Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum, and, among the documents selected for issue, were those relating to the Creation of the world. Several of the texts of the Creation Legends, which had been used by previous translators, had never been published, and one tablet, which Mr. George Smith had consulted in 1876, had not been identified by subsequent workers. During my work I was so fortunate as to recognize this tablet, and was enabled to make copies of all the texts, not only of those which were previously known, but also of a number of new duplicates and fragments which I had meanwhile identified. These copies appeared in Cuneiform Texts, Part XIII (1901), Plates 1–41. The most interesting of the new fragments there published was a tablet which restored a missing portion of the text of the Second Tablet of the Creation Series, and of this, on account of its interest, I gave a translation in a note to the plate on which the text appeared. It was not my intention at that time to publish anything further upon the subject of the Creation Legends.

While I was engaged, however, in searching for fragments of other Babylonian legends for publication officially, it was my good fortune to come across a fine duplicate of the Second Tablet of the Creation Series. A further prolonged search was rewarded by the finding of other fragments of the poem, and a study of these showed me that the earlier portions of the text of the Creation Story, as already known, could be considerably augmented. Among them, moreover, was a fragment of the poem which refers to the Creation of Man; this fragment is extremely important, for in addition to its valuable contents it also settles the disputed question as to the number of Tablets, or sections, of which the Creation Series was composed. In view of the additional information as to the form and contents of the poem which this new material afforded, it was clearly necessary that a new translation of the Creation Legends should be made, and this I undertook forthwith.

The new fragments of the poem which I had identified up to the summer of last year are inscribed upon tablets of the Neo-Babylonian period. At the conclusion of the examination of tablets of this class, I lithographed the newly identified texts in a series of plates which are published in the second volume of the present work. These plates were already printed off, when, at the beginning of the present year, after my return from Assyria, I identified a fresh group of fragments of the poem inscribed, not upon Neo-Babylonian, but upon Assyrian tablets. At that time I was engaged on making a detailed catalogue, or hand-list, of the smaller fragments in the various collections of Assyrian tablets from Kuyunjik, and, as a result of previous study of the legends themselves and of the Assyrian commentaries to the Seventh Tablet of the series, I was enabled to identify ten new fragments of the poem which are inscribed upon tablets from the library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh. In order to avoid upsetting the arrangement of the plates in Vol. II, the texts of the new Assyrian fragments are published by means of outline blocks in Appendices I and II to the present volume.

Those who have studied the published texts of the Creation Series will remember that the material used by previous translators of the legends has consisted of some twenty-one tablets and fragments inscribed with portions of the poem. The number of new tablets and fragments belonging to the Creation Series which are here used and translated for the first time reaches the total of thirty-four, but, as I have joined up six of these to other similar fragments, this total has been reduced to twenty-eight. Thus, in place of the twenty-one tablets previously known, forty-nine separate tablets and fragments have now been identified as containing portions of the text of the Creation Series.

The new information, furnished by the recently discovered material regarding the Story of Creation, may here be briefly summarized. Hitherto our knowledge of the contents of Tablets I and II of the series has been very fragmentary. After the narrative of the creation of the great gods in the opening lines of the poem, and a fragmentary reference to the first symptoms of revolt exhibited by the primeval monsters, Apsū and Tiamat, and Mummu, the minister of Apsū, there occurred a great gap in the text, and the story began again with the account of how Tiamat prepared to wage war against the gods. Apsū and Mummu have at this point entirely disappeared from the narrative, and the ally of Tiamat is the god Kingu, whom she appoints to command her forces. What followed the creation of the great gods, what was the cause of the revolt, what was the fate of Apsū and Mummu, and what were the events which led up to Tiamat's preparations for battle, are questions that have hitherto remained unanswered. We now know that the account of the creation of the gods was no fuller than that which has come down to us from Damascius. After the birth of Lakhmu and Lakhamu, Anshar and Kishar, Anu, Bēl (i.e., Enlil, or Illil), and Ea (Nudimmud), the text does not proceed to narrate in detail the coming forth of the lesser deities, but plunges at once into the story of the revolt of the primeval forces of chaos. We now know also that it was Apsū, and not Tiamat, who began the revolt against the gods; and that, according to the poem, his enmity was aroused, not by the creation of light as has been previously suggested, but by the disturbance of his rest in consequence of the new “way” of the gods, which tended to produce order in place of chaos.

One of the most striking facts which the new fragments furnish with regard to the contents of the legends is the prominent part played by the god Ea in the earlier episodes of the story. After Apsū and Mummu had repaired to Tiamat and had hatched with her their plot against the gods, it was the god Ea, who, abounding in all wisdom, detected their plan and frustrated it. The details of Ea's action are still a matter of uncertainty, but, as I have shown in the Introduction, it is clear that Apsū and Mummu were overthrown, and that their conqueror was Ea. Moreover, it was only after their downfall, and in order to avenge them, that Tiamat began her preparations for battle. She was encouraged in her determination by the god Kingu, and it was in consequence of the assistance he then gave her that she afterwards appointed him leader of her host.

Another point which is explained by the new fragments concerns the repetitions in Tablets I, II, and III of the lines containing the account of Tiamat's preparations for battle. The lines describing this episode are given no less than four times: in Tablet I, in Tablet II, and twice in Tablet III. We now know that the first description of Tiamat's preparations occurs after the account of her determination to avenge her former allies; and in the Second Tablet the lines are put into the mouth of Ea, who continues to play a prominent part in the narrative, and carries the tidings to Anshar. How Anshar repeated the lines to Gaga, his messenger, and how Gaga delivered the message to Lakhmu and Lakhamu, is already well known.

Perhaps the most striking of all the new fragments of the poem here published is that which contains the opening and closing lines of the Sixth Tablet, and, at last, furnishes us with a portion of the text describing the Creation of Man. We now know that, as in the Hebrew narrative, the culminating act of Creation was the making of man. Marduk is here represented as declaring to Ea that he will create man from his own blood, and from bone which he will form; it is important to note that the Assyrian word here used for “bone,” issimtu, which has not hitherto been known, corresponds to the Hebrew word 'esem, “bone,” which occurs in Gen. ii, 23, in connection with the account of the creation of woman. The text thus furnishes another point of resemblance between the Babylonian and the Hebrew stories of Creation. The new fragment also corroborates in a remarkable degree the account given by Berossus of the Babylonian version of the creation of man. According to the writer's rendering of the passage, Marduk declares that he will use his own blood in creating mankind, and this agrees with the statement of Berossus, that Bēl directed one of the gods to cut off his (i.e. Bēl's) head, and to form mankind from his blood mixed with earth. This subject is discussed at length and in detail in the Introduction, as well as a number of new points of resemblance between the Babylonian and the Hebrew accounts of the Creation which are furnished by other recently identified fragments of the poem.

With regard to the extent and contents of the Creation Series, we now know that the Tablets of which the series was composed are seven in number; and we also possess the missing context or frame-work of the Seventh Tablet, which contains addresses to Marduk under his fifty titles of honour. From this we learn that, when the work of Creation was ended, the gods gathered together once more in the Upshukkinakku, their council-chamber; here they seated themselves in solemn assembly and proceeded to do honour to Marduk, the Creator, by reciting before him the remarkable series of addresses which form the contents of the last Tablet of the poem. Many of the missing portions of the Seventh Tablet, including the opening lines, it has been found possible to restore from the new fragments and duplicates here published.

In the following pages a transliteration of the text of the Creation Series is given, which has been constructed from all the tablets and fragments now known to be inscribed with portions of the poem, together with a translation and notes. For comparison with the legends contained in the Creation Series, translations have been added of the other Babylonian accounts of the history of Creation, and of some texts closely connected therewith. Among these mention may be made of the extracts from a Sumerian text, and from a somewhat similar one in Babylonian, referring to the Creation of the Moon and the Sun; these are here published from a so-called “practice-tablet,” or student's exercise. A remarkable address to a mythical river, to which the creation of the world is ascribed, is also given.

In the first Appendix the Assyrian commentaries to the Seventh Tablet are examined in detail, and some fragments of texts are described which bear a striking resemblance to the Seventh Tablet, and are of considerable interest for the light they throw on the literary history of the poem. Among the texts dealt with in the second Appendix one of the most interesting is a Babylonian duplicate of the tablet which has been supposed to contain the instructions given by Marduk to man after his creation, but is now shown by the duplicate to be part of a long didactic composition containing moral precepts, and to have nothing to do with the Creation Series. Similarly, in the fourth Appendix I have printed a copy of the text which has been commonly, but erroneously, supposed to refer to the Tower of Babel. The third Appendix includes some hitherto unpublished astrological texts of the period of the Arsacidae, which contain astrological interpretations and explanations of episodes of the Creation story; they indicate that Tiamat, in her astrological character, was regarded as a star or constellation in the neighbourhood of the ecliptic, and they moreover furnish an additional proof of the identification of her monster brood with at any rate some of the Zodiacal constellations.

During the preparation of this work I have, of course, consulted the translations and renderings of the Creation Legends which have been made by other workers on the subject, and especially those of Professors Jensen, Zimmern, and Delitzsch. I have much pleasure in expressing here my indebtedness to their published works for suggestions which I have adopted from them.

To Mr. R. Campbell Thompson I am indebted for the ready assistance he has afforded me during my search for new fragments and duplicates of the legends.

In conclusion, my thanks are due to Dr. Wallis Budge for his friendly suggestions which I have adopted throughout the progress of the work.

L. W. KING.

LONDON, July 31st, 1902.

↑ 目次

CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

INTRODUCTION:—

I. DESCRIPTION AND LITERATURE OF THE POEM ENUMA ELISH . . . . . . . . . . . . XXV
II. CONTENTS OF THE POEM AND DISCUSSION OF NEW MATERIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . XXX
III. COMPOSITION OF THE POEM . . . . . . . LXVI
IV. DATE AND ORIGIN OF THE BABYLONIAN CREATION LEGENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . LXXII
V. INFLUENCE OF THE BABYLONIAN CREATION LEGENDS AND PARALLELS IN HEBREW LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . LXXX
VI. AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT OF THE POEM ENUMA ELISH AND THE ASSYRIAN COMMENTARIES . . XCVII
VII. RECONSTRUCTION AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE TEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CXX

TRANSLITERATIONS AND TRANSLATIONS:—

I. THE SEVEN TABLETS OF THE HISTORY OF CREATION.
  I. THE FIRST TABLET . . . . . . . . . . 2
  II. THE SECOND TABLET . . . . . . . . . 22
  III. THE THIRD TABLET . . . . . . . . . 38
  IV. THE FOURTH TABLET . . . . . . . . . 58
  V. THE FIFTH TABLET . . . . . . . . . . 78
  VI. THE SIXTH TABLET . . . . . . . . . . 86
  VII. THE SEVENTH TABLET . . . . . . . . 92
  EPILOGUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

II. OTHER ACCOUNTS OF THE HISTORY OF CREATION.
  I. ANOTHER VERSION OF THE DRAGON-MYTH . . 116
  II. A REFERENCE TO THE CREATION OF THE CATTLE AND THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD . . . . 122
  III. A REFERENCE TO THE CREATION OF THE MOON AND THE SUN . . . . . . . . . . . 124
  IV. AN ADDRESS TO THE RIVER OF CREATION . . 128
  V. ANOTHER VERSION OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD BY MARDUK . . . . . . . . . . 130
  VI. THE "CUTHAEAN LEGEND OF THE CREATION" . 140

APPENDICES:—

I. ASSYRIAN COMMENTARIES AND PARALLEL TEXTS TO THE SEVENTH TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
II. ON SOME FRAGMENTS OF THE SERIES ENUMA ELISH, AND ON SOME TEXTS RELATING TO THE HISTORY OF CREATION . . . . . . . . . 182
III. ON SOME TRACES OF THE HISTORY OF CREATION IN RELIGIOUS AND ASTROLOGICAL LITERATURE . 204
IV. SUPPOSED ASSYRIAN LEGENDS OF THE TEMPTATION AND THE TOWER OF BABEL . . . . . . . 219
V. A "PRAYER OF THE RAISING OF THE HAND" TO ISHTAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

INDICES, GLOSSARY, ETC.:—

I. INDEX TO TEXTS.
  A. CUNEIFORM TEXTS FROM BABYLONIAN TABLETS, ETC., IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, PART XIII (1901), PLATES 1-41 . . . . . . . . . 239
  B. SUPPLEMENTARY TEXTS, PUBLISHED IN VOL. II, PLATES I-LXXXIV . . . . . . . . . . 241
  C. SUPPLEMENTARY TEXTS, PUBLISHED IN APPENDICES I, II, AND III . . . . . . . . . . . 244
II. INDEX TO REGISTRATION NUMBERS . . . . . 245
III. GLOSSARY OF SELECTED WORDS . . . . . . 251
IV. INDEX TO NAMES OF DEITIES, STARS, PLACES, ETC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

PLATES:—

I. THE SIXTH TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES . . VIII
II. THE FIRST TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES . . XXXV
III. THE SECOND TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES . XLIII
IV. THE FOURTH TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES . XLVII
V. THE FIFTH TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES . . LI
VI. THE SEVENTH TABLET OF THE CREATION SERIES . LXI

※目次に記載されている図版（PLATE I〜VI、頁VIII・XXXV・XLIII・XLVII・LI・LXI）は、いずれも本文の頁付けとは独立した挿図（粘土板の写真）で、ページ番号のみが目次に記載されています。本HTMLでは図版そのものは対象外としていますが、目次記載の頁数はそのまま転記しています。

↑ 目次

INTRODUCTION

※I〜V節（poem概説・新資料の内容・成立・年代・ヘブライ文学との類比）。VI・VII節（本文の典拠一覧・写本点数比較表・本文の再構成方針）は、次のセクションに収録しています。脚注番号（上付き数字）は原文の位置を示すために残していますが、脚注本文は未収録です。序論全体（xi〜cxxiii）で頁アンカーが存在しないのは、Plate（挿図、頁xxxv・xliii・xlvii・li・lxi）のみで、いずれも本文を伴わない図版頁のため正当な欠番です。

THE great Assyrian poem, or series of legends, which narrates the story of the Creation of the world and man, was termed by the Assyrians and Babylonians Enuma elish, "When in the height," from the two opening words of the text. The poem consisted of some nine hundred and ninety-four lines, and was divided into seven sections, each of which was inscribed upon a separate Tablet. The Tablets were numbered by the Assyrian scribes, and the separate sections of the poem written upon them do not vary very much in length. The shortest Tablet contains one hundred and thirty-eight lines, and the longest one hundred and forty-six, the average length of a Tablet being about one hundred and forty-two lines. The poem embodies the beliefs of the Babylonians and Assyrians concerning the origin of the universe; it describes the coming forth of the gods from chaos, and tells the story of how the forces of disorder, represented by the primeval water-gods Apsū and Tiamat, were overthrown by Ea and Marduk respectively, and how Marduk, after completing the triumph of the gods over chaos, proceeded to create the world and man. The poem is known to us from portions of several Assyrian and late-Babylonian copies of the work, and from extracts from it written out upon the so-called "practice-tablets," or students' exercises, by pupils of the Babylonian scribes. The Assyrian copies of the work are from the great library which was founded at Nineveh by Ashur-bani-pal, king of Assyria from B.C. 668 to about B.C. 626; the Babylonian copies and extracts were inscribed during the period of the kings of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods; and one copy of the Seventh Tablet may probably be assigned to as late a date as the period of the Arsacidae. All the tablets and fragments, which have hitherto been identified as inscribed with portions of the text of the poem, are preserved in the British Museum. From the time of the first discovery of fragments of the poem considerable attention has been directed towards them, for not only are the legends themselves the principal source of our knowledge of the Babylonian cosmogony, but passages in them bear a striking resemblance to the cognate narratives in the Book of Genesis concerning the creation of the world. The late Mr. George Smith, who was the first to publish an account of the poem, recognized this resemblance and emphasized it in his papers on the subject in 1875.¹ In the following year in his work "The Chaldean Account of Genesis"² he gave translations of the fragments of the poem which had been identified, and the copies which he had made of the principal fragments were published.³ After Smith's death the interest in the texts which he had published did not cease, and scholars continued to produce renderings and studies of the legends.⁴ In 1883 Dr. Wallis Budge gave an account of a fine Babylonian duplicate of what proved to be the Fourth Tablet of the Creation Series; this document restored considerable portions of the narrative of the fight between Marduk and the dragon Tiamat, and added considerably to our knowledge of the story of Creation and of the order in which the events related in the story took place.⁵ In the Hibbert Lectures for 1887 Professor Sayce translated the new fragment of the text,⁶ and in the following year published a complete translation⁷ of all fragments of the Creation Legends which had up to that time been identified. In 1890 Professor Jensen, in his studies on the Babylonian cosmogony, included a translation of the legends together with a transliteration and a number of valuable philological notes and discussion.⁸ In 1895 Professor Zimmern published a translation of the legends, similar in plan to Sayce's earlier edition; in it he took advantage of some recently identified fragments and duplicates, and put forward a number of new renderings of difficult passages.⁹ In 1896 a third German translation of the legends made its appearance; it was published by Professor Delitzsch and included transliterations and descriptions of the various tablets and fragments inscribed with portions of the text.¹⁰ Finally, in 1900 Professor Jensen published a second edition of his rendering of the legends in his Mythen und Epen;¹¹ this work was the best which could be prepared with the material then available.¹² In the most recent translations of the Creation Series, those of Delitzsch and Jensen, use was made in all of twenty-one separate tablets and fragments which had been identified as inscribed with portions of the text of the poem.¹³ In the present work thirty-four additional tablets and fragments, inscribed with portions of the text of the Creation Series, have been employed; but, as six of these join other similar fragments, the number of separate tablets and fragments here used for the first time is reduced to twenty-eight. Thus, in place of the twenty-one tablets previously known, the total number of separate fragments of the text of the Creation Series is thus brought up to forty-nine.¹⁴ The new material is distributed among the Seven Tablets of the Creation Series as follows:--To the four known fragments of the First Tablet may now be added eight others,¹⁵ consisting of two fragments of an Assyrian tablet and four Babylonian fragments and two extracts inscribed upon Babylonian "practice-tablets." To the three known fragments of the Second Tablet may be added four others,¹⁶ consisting of parts of one Assyrian and of three Babylonian tablets. To the four known fragments of the Third Tablet may be added five other,¹⁷ consisting of fragments of one Assyrian and one Babylonian tablet and extracts inscribed upon three Babylonian "practice-tablets." To the five known fragments of the Fourth Tablet only one new duplicate can be added,¹⁸ which is inscribed upon a Babylonian "practice-tablet." To the three known fragments of the Fifth Tablet may be added two others,¹⁹ consisting of parts of two Assyrian tablets. Of the Sixth Tablet no fragment has previously been known, and its existence was only inferred from a fragment of the catch-line preserved on copies of the Fifth Tablet; fragments of the text of the Sixth Tablet are published for the first time in the present work from part of a Babylonian tablet.²⁰ Finally, to the two known fragments of the Seventh Tablet may now be added seven other²¹ inscribed upon five Assyrian fragments and portions of two Babylonian tablets.

The new fragments of the text of the First and Second Tablets of the Creation Series throw light on the earlier episodes in the story of Creation, and enable us to fill up some of the gaps in the narrative. By the identification of the Tablet K. 5,419c,⁵ George Smith recovered the opening lines of the First Tablet, which describes the condition of things before Creation when the primeval water-gods, Apsū and Tiamat, personifying chaos, mingled their waters in confusion. The text then briefly relates how to Apsū and Tiamat were born the oldest of the gods, the first pair, Lahmu and Lahamu, being followed after a long interval by Anshar and Kishar, and after a second interval by other deities, of whose names the text of K. 5,419c only preserves that of Anu. George Smith perceived that this theogony had been reproduced by Damascius in his summary of the beliefs of the Babylonians concerning the creation of the world. Now, since Damascius mentions Ἴλλινος and Ἀός along with Ἀνός, it was clear that the text of the poem included a description of the birth of the elder Bēl (i.e. Enlil or Illil) and of Ea in the passage in which Anu's name occurs.¹

But, as the text inscribed upon the obverse of K. 5,419c, and of its Neo-Babylonian duplicate 82-7-14, 402,¹ breaks off at l. 15, the course of the story after this point has hitherto been purely a matter for conjecture. It appeared probable that the lines which followed contained a full account of the origin of the younger gods, and from the fact that Damascius states that Βῆλος, the Creator of the world, was the son of Ἀός (i.e. Ea) and Δαύκη (i.e. Damkina), it has been concluded that at any rate special prominence was given to the birth of Bēl, i.e. Marduk, who figures so prominently in the story from the close of the Second Tablet onwards.

The new fragments of the First Tablet show that the account of the birth of the gods in the Creation Series is even shorter than that given by Damascius, for the poem contains no mention of the birth and parentage of Marduk. After mentioning the birth of Nudimmud (i.e. Ea),² the text proceeds to describe his marvellous wisdom and strength, and states that he had no rival among the gods; the birth of no other god is recorded after that of Ea, and, when Marduk is introduced later on, his existence, like that of Mummu and of Gaga, appears to be tacitly assumed. It would seem, therefore, that the reference made by Damascius to Marduk's parentage was not derived from the text of the Creation Series, but was added by him to complete his summary of the Babylonian beliefs concerning the origin of the gods.

This omission of Marduk's name from the earlier lines of the First Tablet and the prominence given to that of Ea may at first sight seem strange, but it is in accordance with the other newly recovered portions of the text of the First and Second Tablets, which indirectly throw an interesting light on the composite character and literary history of the great poem.¹ It will be seen that of the deities mentioned in these earlier lines Nudimmud (Ea) is the only god whose characteristics are described in detail; his birth, moreover, forms the climax to which the previous lines lead up, and, after the description of his character, the story proceeds at once to relate the rebellion of the primeval gods and the part which Ea played in detecting and frustrating their plans. In fact, Ea and not Marduk is the hero of the earlier episodes of the Creation story.

The new fragments of the text show, moreover, that it was Apsū and not Tiamat who began the rebellion against the gods. While the newly created gods represented the birth of order and system in the universe, Apsū and Tiamat still remained in confusion and undiminished in might. Apsū, however, finding the earlier part that his slothful rest was disturbed by the new order of beings whom he had begotten, summoned Mummu,¹ his minister, and the two went together to Tiamat, and lying down before her, took counsel with her regarding the means to be adopted to restore the old order of things. It may be noted that the text contains no direct statement that it was the creation of light which caused the rebellion of the primeval gods.¹ Apsū merely states his hatred of the alkatu or "way" of the gods, in consequence of which he can get no rest by day or night; and, from the fact that he makes use of the expressions "by day" and "by night," it may be inferred that day and night were vaguely conceived as already in existence. It was therefore the substitution of order in place of chaos which, according to the text of the poem, roused Apsū's resentment and led to his rebellion and downfall.²

Our knowledge of the part played by Ea in the overthrow of Apsū and Mummu is still fragmentary, but we know from l. 60 of the First Tablet that it was he who detected the plot against the gods; it is also certain that the following twenty lines recorded the fate of Apsū and his minister, and there are clear indications that it was Ea to whom their overthrow was due. In Tablet II, ll. 53 ff., Anshar, on learning from Ea the news of Tiamat's preparations for battle, contrasts the conquest of Mummu and Apsū with the task of opposing Tiamat, and the former achievement he implies has been accomplished by Ea. It is clear, therefore, that Ea caused the overthrow of Apsū and the capture of Mummu, but in what way he brought it about, whether by actual fighting or by "his pure incantation," is still a matter for conjecture. In view of the fact that Anshar at first tried peaceful means for overcoming Tiamat before exhorting Marduk to wage battle against her, the latter supposition is the more probable of the two. The subjugation of Apsū by Ea explains his subsequent disappearance from the Creation story. When Apsū is next mentioned, it is as "the Deep," and not as an active and Tiamat's malevolent deity.

After the overthrow of Apsū, Tiamat remained unconquered, and she continued to represent in her own person the unsubdued forces of chaos.¹ But, as at first she had not herself begun the rebellion, so now her continuation of the war against the gods was due to the prompting of another deity. The speech in which this deity urges Tiamat to avenge Apsū and Mummu occurs in Tablet I, ll. 93-104, and, inasmuch as she subsequently promoted Kingu to be the leader of her forces "because he had given her support," it may be concluded that it was Kingu who now prompted her to avenge her former spouse.² Ea, however, did not cease his active opposition to the forces of disorder, but continued to play the chief rôle on the side of the gods. He heard of Tiamat's preparations for battle, he carried the news to Anshar, his father, and he was sent by him against the monster. It was only after both he and Anu had failed in their attempts to approach and appease Tiamat³ that Anshar appealed to Marduk to become the champion of the gods.

Another point completely explained by the new fragments of the text is the reason for the repetitions which occur in the first three tablets of the series. It will be seen that Tablet I, ll. 109-142, are repeated in Tablet II, ll. 15-48; that Tablet II, ll. 1-48, are repeated in Tablet III, ll. 15-52; and that Tablet III, ll. 15-66, are repeated in the same Tablet, ll. 73-124. The lines which are repeated have reference to Tiamat's preparations for battle against the gods, and to Anshar's summons of the gods in order that they may confer power on Marduk as their champion. From the new fragments of the text we now know that the lines relating to Tiamat's preparations occur on the First Tablet in the form of narrative, immediately after she had adopted Kingu's suggestion that she should avenge the overthrow of Apsū and Mummu; and that in the Second Tablet they are repeated by Ea in his speech to Anshar, to whom he carried the news. The context of the repetitions in the Third Tablet is already known; Anshar first repeats the lines to his minister Gaga, when telling him to go and summon the gods to an assembly, and later on in the Tablet Gaga repeats the message word for word to Lahmu and Lahamu.

The constant repetition of these lines was doubtless intended to emphasize the terrible nature of the opposition which Marduk successfully overcame; and the fact that Berossus omits all mention of the part played by Ea in the earlier portions of the story is also due to the tendency of the Babylonian priests to exalt their local god at the expense of other deities. The account which we have received from Berossus of the Babylonian beliefs concerning the origin of the universe is largely taken up with a description of the mythical monsters which dwelt in the deep at a time when the world had not come into being and when darkness and water alone existed. Over these monsters, according to Berossus, reigned a woman whom the Greek writers call Omorka, who is to be identified with Tiamat, while the creatures themselves represent the monster-brood which Tiamat formed to aid her in her fight against the gods.¹ Compared with the description of the monsters, the summary from Berossus of the incidents related on the Fourth Tablet is not very full; the text states that Βῆλος (i.e. Bēl) slew Ὁμόρκα,² and having cleft her in twain, from one half of her he made the earth, and from the other the heavens, while he overcame the creatures that were within her, i.e. the monsters of the deep.

The actual account of the creation of the world by Marduk, as related in the Creation Series, begins towards the end of the Fourth Tablet, where the narrative closely agrees with the summary from Berossus. Marduk is there related to have split Tiamat into halves, and to have used one half of her as a covering for heaven. The text then goes on to state that he founded heaven, which is termed E-shara, a mansion like unto the Deep in structure,¹ and that he caused Anu, Bēl, and Ea to inhabit their respective districts therein.² The Fifth Tablet does not begin with the account of the creation of the earth, but records the fixing of the constellations of the Zodiac, the founding of the year, and Marduk's charge to the Moon-god and the Sun-god, to the former of whom he entrusted the night, his instructions relating to the phases of the Moon, and the relative positions of the Moon and the Sun during the month. The new fragments of the Fifth Tablet contain some interesting variants to this portion of the text,³ but, with the exception of the last few lines of the text, they throw no light on what the missing portions of the Tablet contained.

In view, however, of the statement of Berossus that from one half of Tiamat Bēl formed the earth, we may conjecture that an account of the creation of the earth occurred upon some part of the Fifth Tablet. It is also probable that the Fifth Tablet recorded the creation of vegetation. That this formed the subject of some portion of the poem is certain from the opening lines of the Seventh Tablet, where Marduk is hailed as "Asari, 'Bestower of planting,' '[Founder of sowing],' 'Creator of grain and plants,' 'who caused [the green herb to spring up]!'"; and the creation of plants and herbs would naturally follow that of the earth.

From the new fragment of the Sixth Tablet, No. 92,629, we know that this portion of the poem related the story of the creation of man. As at the beginning of his work of creation Marduk is said to have "devised a cunning plan"¹ while gazing upon the dead body of Tiamat, so now, before proceeding to man's creation, it is said that "his heart prompted him and he devised [a cunning plan]."² In the repetition of this phrase we may see an indication of the importance which was ascribed to this portion of the story, and it is probable that the creation of man was regarded as the culmination of Marduk's creative work. It is interesting to note, however, that the creation of man is not related as a natural sequel to the formation of the rest of the universe, but forms the solution of a difficulty with which Marduk has been met in the course of his work as Creator. To overcome this difficulty Marduk devised the "cunning plan" already referred to; the context of this passage is not very clear, but the reason for man's creation may be gathered from certain indications in the text.

We learn from the beginning of the Sixth Tablet that Marduk devised his cunning plan after he had "heard the word of the gods," and from this it is clear that the Fifth Tablet ends with a speech of the gods. Now in Tablet VI, l. 8, Marduk states that he will create man "that the service of the gods may be established"; in l. 9 f., however, he adds that he will change the ways of the gods, and he appears to threaten them with punishment. It may be conjectured, therefore, that after Marduk had completed the creation of the world, the gods came to him and complained that there were no shrines built in their honour, nor was there anyone to worship them. To supply this need Marduk formed the device of creating man, but at the same time he appears to have decided to vent his wrath upon the gods because of their discontent. It is possible, however, that Ea dissuaded Marduk from punishing the gods, though he no doubt assisted him in carrying out the first part of his proposal.¹

In ll. 5 ff. of the Sixth Tablet Marduk indicates the means he will employ for forming man, and this portion of the text corroborates in a remarkable manner the account given by Berossus of the method employed by Bēl for man's creation. The text of the summary from Berossus, in the form in which it has come down to us,² is not quite satisfactory, as the

In ll. 5 ff. of the Sixth Tablet Marduk indicates the means he will employ for forming man, and this portion of the text corroborates in a remarkable manner the account given by Berossus of the method employed by Bēl for man's creation. The text of the summary from Berossus, in the form in which it has come down to us, is not quite satisfactory, as the course of the narrative is confused. The confusion is apparent in the repetition of the description of man's creation and in the interruption of the naturalistic explanation of the slaying of Omorka. An ingenious but simple emendation of the text, however, was suggested by von Gutschmidt which removes both these difficulties.¹ The passage which interrupts the naturalistic explanation, and apparently describes a first creation of man, he regarded as having been transposed; but if it is placed at the end of the extract it falls naturally into place as a summary by Eusebius of the preceding account of man's creation which is said by Alexander Polyhistor to have been given by Berossus in the First Book of his History. By adopting this emendation we obtain the text a clear and consecutive account of how Bēl, after the creation of heaven and earth, perceived that the land was desolate; and how he ordered one of the gods to cut off his (i.e. Bēl's) head, and, by mixing the blood which flowed forth with earth, to create men and animals.

This passage from Berossus has given rise to considerable discussion, and more than one scholar has attempted to explain away the beheading of Bēl, the Creator, that man might be formed from his blood. Gunkel has suggested that in the original legend the blood of Tiamat was used for this purpose;¹ Stucken,² followed by Cheyne,³ has emended the text so that it may suggest that the head of Tiamat, and not that of Bēl, was cut off; while Zimmern would take the original meaning of the passage to be that the god beheaded was not Bēl, but the other deity whom he addressed.¹ In l. 5 of the Sixth Tablet, however, Marduk states that he will use his own blood for creating man; the text of this passage from Berossus is thus shown to be correct, and it follows that the account which he gave of the Babylonian beliefs concerning man's creation does not require to be emended or explained away.²

Jensen has already suggested that the god whom Bēl addressed was Ea, and the new fragment of the Sixth Tablet proves that this suggestion is correct. In the Sixth Tablet Marduk recounts to Ea his intention of forming man, and tells him the means he will employ. We may therefore conclude that it was Ea who beheaded Marduk at his request, and, according to his instructions, formed mankind from his blood. Ea may thus have performed the actual work of making man, but he acted under Marduk's directions, and it is clear from Tablet VII, ll. 29 and 32, that Marduk, and not Ea, was regarded as man's Creator.

According to Berossus, man was formed from the blood of Bēl mixed with earth. The new fragment of the Sixth Tablet does not mention the mixing of the blood with earth, but it is quite possible that this detail was recounted in the subsequent narrative. On the other hand, in the Babylonian poem Marduk declares that, in addition to using his own blood, he will create bone for forming man. Berossus makes no mention of bone,¹ but it is interesting to note that issimtu, the Assyrian word here used for "bone,"² is doubtless the equivalent of the Hebrew word 'esem, "bone," which occurs at the end of the narrative of the creation of woman in Gen. ii, 23.

The blood of Bēl, according to Berossus, was employed not only in man's creation but in that of animals also, and it is possible that this represents the form of the legend as it was preserved upon the Sixth Tablet. Though, in that case, the creation of animals would follow that of man, the opening lines of the Sixth Tablet prove that man's creation was regarded as the culmination of Marduk's creative work. The "cunning plan," which Marduk devised in order to furnish worshippers for the gods, concerned the creation of man, and if that of animals followed it must have been recorded as a subsidiary and less important act.¹ In this connection it may be noted that the expression τὰ δυνάμενα τὸν ἀέρα φέρειν, which Berossus applies to the men and animals created from the blood of Bēl, was probably not based on any description or episode in the Creation story as recorded on the Seven Tablets, but was suggested by the naturalistic interpretation of the legend furnished by Berossus himself.

With reference to the creation of man, it was suggested by George Smith that the tablet K. 3,364 was a fragment of the Creation Series, and contained the instructions given to man after his creation by Marduk. This view has been provisionally adopted by other translators of the poem, but in Appendix II I have shown by means of a duplicate, No. 33,851, that the suggestion must be given up. Apart from other reasons there enumerated, it may be stated that there would be no room upon the Sixth Tablet of the Creation Series for such a long series of moral precepts as is inscribed upon the tablets K. 3,364 and No. 33,851. It may be that Marduk, after creating man, gave him some instructions with regard to the worship of the gods and the building of shrines in their honour, but the greater part of the text must have been taken up with other matter.

The concluding lines of the Sixth Tablet are partly preserved, and they afford us a glimpse of the final scene in the Creation story.¹ As the gods had previously been summoned to a solemn assembly that they might confer power upon Marduk before he set out to do battle on their behalf, so now, when he had vanquished Tiamat and had finished his work of creation, they again gathered together in Upshukkinaku, their council-chamber, and proceeded to magnify him by every title of honour. We thus obtain the context or setting of the Seventh, and last, Tablet of the Creation Series, the greater part of which consists of the hymn of praise addressed by the gods to Marduk as the conqueror of Tiamat and the Creator of the world.

The hymn of the gods takes up lines 1-124 of the Seventh Tablet, and consists of a series of addresses in which Marduk is hailed by them under fifty titles of honour. The titles are Sumerian, not Semitic, and each is followed by one or more Assyrian phrases descriptive of Marduk, which either explain the title or are suggested by it. Of the fifty titles which the hymn contained, the following list of eleven occur in the first forty-seven lines of the text:—

By these titles of honour the gods are represented as conferring supreme power upon Marduk, and the climax is reached in ll. 116 ff. of the Seventh Tablet, when the elder Bēl and Ea, Marduk's father, confer their own names and power upon him. Marduk's name of Ḫanshā, "Fifty," by which he is finally addressed, in itself sums up and symbolizes his fifty titles. At the conclusion of these addresses there follows an epilogue² of eighteen lines, in which the study of the poem is commended to mankind, and prosperity is promised to those that rejoice in Marduk and keep his works in remembrance.

The hymn of the gods takes up lines 1-124 of the Seventh Tablet, and consists of a series of addresses in which Marduk is hailed by them under fifty titles of honour. The titles are Sumerian, not Semitic, and each is followed by one or more Assyrian phrases descriptive of Marduk, which either explain the title or are suggested by it.

The story of the Creation, in the form in which it has come down to us upon tablets of the seventh and later centuries before Christ, is of a distinctly composite character, and bears traces of a long process of editing and modification at the hands of the Babylonian priests. Five principal strands may be traced which have been combined to form the poem; these may be described as (1) The Birth of the gods; (2) The Legend of Ea and Apsū; (3) The Dragon-Myth; (4) The actual account of Creation; and (5) The Hymn to Marduk under his fifty titles. Since the poem in its present form is a glorification of Marduk as the champion of the gods and the Creator of the world, it is natural that more prominence should be given to episodes in which Marduk is the hero than is assigned to other portions of the narrative in which he plays no part. Thus the description of Tiamat and her monster-brood, whom Marduk conquered, is repeated no less than four times,¹ and the preparations of Marduk for battle and his actual fight with the dragon take up the greater part of the Fourth Tablet. On the other hand, the birth of the older gods, among whom Marduk does not figure, is confined to the first twenty-one lines of the First Tablet; and not more than twenty lines are given to the account of the subjugation of Apsū by Ea. That these elements should have been incorporated at all in the Babylonian version of the Creation story may be explained by the fact that they serve to enhance the position of prominence subsequently attained by Marduk. Thus the description of the birth of the older gods and of the opposition they excited among the forces of disorder, was necessarily included in order to make it clear how Marduk was appointed their champion; and the account of Ea's success against Apsū served to accentuate the terrible nature of Tiamat, whom he was unable to withstand. From the latter half of the Second Tablet onwards, Marduk alone is the hero of the poem.

The central episode of the poem is the fight between Marduk and Tiamat, and there is evidence to prove that this legend existed in other forms than that under which it occurs in the Creation Series. The conquest of the dragon was ascribed by the Babylonian priests to their local god, and in the poem the death of Tiamat is made a necessary preliminary to the creation of the world. On a fragment of a tablet from Ashur-bani-pal's library we possess, however, part of a copy of a legend¹ which describes the conquest of a dragon by some deity other than Marduk.² Moreover, the fight is there described as taking place, not before creation, but at a time when men existed and cities had been built. In this version men and gods are described as equally terrified at the dragon's appearance, and it was to deliver the land from the monster that one of the gods went out and slew him. This fragmentary tablet serves to prove that the Dragon-Myth existed in more than one form in Babylonian mythology, and it is not improbable that many of the great cities of Babylonia possessed local versions of the legend in each of which the city-god figured as the hero.¹

In the Creation Series the creation of the world is narrated as the result of Marduk's conquest of the dragon, and there is no doubt that this version of the story represents the belief most generally held during the reigns of the later Assyrian and Babylonian kings. We possess, however, fragments of other legends in which the creation of the world is not connected with the death of a dragon. In one of these, which is written both in Sumerian and Babylonian,² the great Babylonian cities and temples are described as coming into existence in consequence of a movement in the waters which alone existed before the creation of the world. Marduk in this version also figures as the Creator, for, together with the goddess Aruru,¹ he created man by laying a reed upon the face of the waters and forming dust which he poured out beside it; according to this version also he is described as creating animals and vegetation. In other legends which have come down to us, not only is the story of Creation unconnected with the Dragon-Myth, but Marduk does not figure as the Creator. In one of these "the gods" generally are referred to as having created the heavens and the earth and the cattle and beasts of the field;² while in another the creation of the Moon and the Sun is ascribed to Anu, Bēl, and Ea.³

From the variant accounts of the story of Creation and of the Dragon-Myth, which are referred to in the preceding paragraphs, it will be clear that the priests of Babylon made use of independent legends in the composition of their great poem of Creation;⁴ by assigning to Marduk the conquest of the Dragon¹ and the creation of the world they justified his claim to the chief place among the gods. As a fit ending to the great poem they incorporated the hymn to Marduk, consisting of addresses to him under his fifty titles. This portion of the poem² is proved by the Assyrian commentary, R. 366, etc.,³ as well as by fragments of parallel, but not duplicate, texts⁴ to have been an independent composition which had at one time no connection with the series Enuma elish. In the poem the hymn is placed in the mouth of the gods, who at the end of the Creation have assembled together in Upshukkinaku; and to it is added the epilogue of eighteen lines, which completes the Seventh Tablet of the series.

In discussing the question as to the date of the Creation legends, it is necessary to distinguish clearly between the date at which the legends assumed the form in which they have come down to us upon the Seven Tablets of the series Enuma elish, and the date which may be assigned to the legends themselves before they were incorporated in the poem. Of the actual tablets inscribed with portions of the text of the Creation Series we possess none which dates from an earlier period than the seventh century B.C. The tablets of this date were made for the library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh, but it is obvious that the poem was not composed in Assyria at this time. The legends in the form in which we possess them are not intended to glorify Ashur, the national god of Assyria, but Marduk, the god of Babylon, and it is clear that the scribes of Ashur-bani-pal merely made copies for their master of older tablets of Babylonian origin. To what earlier date we may assign the actual composition of the poem and its arrangement upon the Seven Tablets, is still a matter for conjecture; but it is possible to offer a conjecture, with some degree of probability, after an examination of the various indirect sources of evidence we possess with regard to the age of Babylonian legends in general, and of the Creation legends in particular.

With regard to the internal evidence of date furnished by the Creation legends themselves, we may note that the variant forms of the Dragon-Myth and of the account of the Creation, to which reference has already been made, presuppose many centuries of tradition during which the legends, though derived probably from common originals, were handed down independently of one another. During this period we may suppose that the same story was related in different cities in different ways, and that in course of time variations crept in, with the result that two or more forms of the same story were developed along different lines. The process must have been gradual, and the considerable differences which can be traced in the resultant forms of the same legend may be cited as evidence in favour of assigning an early date to the original tradition from which they were derived.

Evidence as to the existence of the Creation legends at least as early as the ninth century B.C. may be deduced from the representations of the fight between Marduk and the dragon Tiamat, which was found sculptured upon two limestone slabs in the temple of Ninib at Nimrūd.¹ The temple was built by Ashur-nasir-pal, who reigned from B.C. 884 to B.C. 860, and across the actual sculpture was inscribed the text of a dedication to Ninib by this king. The slab therefore furnishes direct proof of the existence of the legend more than two hundred years before the formation of Ashur-bani-pal's library. Moreover, the fight between Marduk and Tiamat is frequently found engraved upon cylinder-seals, and, although the majority of such seals probably date from the later Assyrian and Persian periods, the varied treatment of the scene which they present points to the existence of variant forms of the legend, and so indirectly furnishes evidence of the early origin of the legend itself.

From an examination of the Babylonian historical inscriptions which record the setting up of statues and the making of temple furniture, we are enabled to trace back the existence of the Creation legends to still earlier periods. For instance, in a text of Agum,¹ a Babylonian king who reigned not later than the seventeenth century B.C., we find descriptions of the figures of a dragon² and of other monsters³ which he set up in the temple E-sagil at Babylon; and in this passage we may trace an unmistakable reference to the legend of Tiamat and her monster-brood. Agum also set up in the temple beside the dragon a great basin, or laver, termed in the inscription a tāmtu, or "sea."⁴ From the name of the laver, and from its position beside the figure of the dragon, we may conclude that it was symbolical of the abyss of water personified in the Creation legends by Tiamat and Apsū. Moreover, in historical inscriptions of still earlier periods we find allusions to similar vessels termed apsē, i.e. "deeps" or "oceans,"¹ the presence of which in the temples is probably to be traced to the existence of the same traditions.

The three classes of evidence briefly summarized above tend to show that the most important elements in the Creation legends were not of late origin, but must be traced back in some form or other to remote periods, and may well date from the first half of the third millennium B.C., or even earlier. It remains to consider to what date we may assign the actual weaving together of these legends into the poem termed by the Babylonians and Assyrians Enuma elish. Although, as has already been remarked, we do not possess any early copies of the text of the Creation Series, this is not the case with other Babylonian legends. Among the tablets found at Tell el-Amarna, which date from the fifteenth century B.C., were fragments of copies of two Babylonian legends, the one containing the story of Nergal and Ereshkigal,² and the other inscribed with a part of the legend of Adapa and the South Wind.¹ Both these compositions, in style and general arrangement, closely resemble the legends known from late Assyrian copies, while of the legend of Adapa an actual fragment, though not a duplicate, exists in the library of Ashur-bani-pal.² Fragments of legends have also been recently found in Babylonia which date from the end of the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon, about B.C. 2100, and the resemblance which these documents bear to certain legends previously known from Assyrian copies only is not only of a general nature, but extends even to identity of language. Thus one of the recovered fragments is in part a duplicate of the so-called "Cuthaean Legend of Creation";³ two others contain phrases found upon the legend of Ea and Atar-ḫasis, while upon one of them are traces of a new version of the Deluge-story.¹ Still more recently the Trustees of the British Museum have acquired three fragments of Babylonian legends inscribed upon tablets which date from a still earlier period, i.e. from the period of the kings of the Second Dynasty of Ur, before B.C. 2200;²

and to the same period is to be assigned the fragment of a legend which was published a few weeks ago by Dr. Meissner,¹ and probably also the new fragment of the Etana-myth, published last year by Father Scheil.² These five fragments are of peculiar interest, for they show that early Semitic, as opposed to Sumerian, legends were in existence, and were carefully preserved and studied in other cities of Mesopotamia than Babylon, and at a period before the rise of that city to a position of importance under the kings of the First Dynasty.

The evidence furnished by these recently discovered tablets with regard to the date of Babylonian legends in general may be applied to the date of the Creation legends. While the origin of much of the Creation legends may be traced to Sumerian sources,¹ it is clear that the Semitic inhabitants of Mesopotamia at a very early period produced their own versions of the compositions which they borrowed, modifying and augmenting them to suit their own legends and beliefs. The connection of Marduk with the Dragon-Myth, and with the stories of the creation of the world and man, may with considerable probability be assigned to the subsequent period during which Babylon gradually attained to the position of the principal city in Mesopotamia. On tablets inscribed during the reigns of kings of the First Dynasty we may therefore expect to find copies of the Creation legends corresponding closely with the text of the series Enuma elish. It is possible that the division of the poem into seven sections, inscribed upon separate tablets, took place at a later period; but, be this as it may, we may conclude with a considerable degree of confidence that the bulk of the poem, as we know it from late Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian copies, was composed at a period not later than B.C. 2000.

The political influence which the Babylonians exerted over neighbouring nations during long periods of their history was considerable, and it is not surprising that their beliefs concerning the origin of the universe should have been partially adopted by the races with whom they came in contact. That Babylonian elements may be traced in the Phoenician cosmogony has long been admitted, but the imperfect, and probably distorted, form in which the latter has come down to us renders uncertain any comparison of details.¹ Some of the beliefs concerning the creation of the world which were current among the Egyptians bear a more striking resemblance to the corresponding legends of Babylonia. Whether this resemblance was due to the proto-Semitic strain which probably existed in the ancient Egyptian race,¹ or is to be explained as the result of later Babylonian influence from without, is yet uncertain. But, whatever explanation be adopted, it is clear that the conception of chaos as a watery mass out of which came forth successive generations of primeval gods is common to both races.² It is in Hebrew literature, however, that the most striking examples of the influence of the Babylonian Creation legends are to be found.

The close relation existing between the Babylonian account of the Creation and the narrative in Genesis i, 1-ii, 4a has been recognized from the time of the first discovery of the former,¹ and the old and new points of resemblance between them may here be briefly discussed. According to each account the existence of a watery chaos preceded the creation of the universe; and the Hebrew word tehōm, translated "the deep" in Gen. i, 2, is the equivalent of the Babylonian Tiamat, the monster of the deep personifying chaos and confusion. In the details of the Creation there is also a close resemblance between the two accounts. In the Hebrew narrative the first act of creation is that of light (Gen. i, 3-5), and it has been suggested that a parallel possibly existed in the Babylonian account, in that the creation of light may have been the cause of the revolt of Tiamat. From the new fragments of the poem we now know that the rebellion of the forces of disorder, which was incited by Apsū and not Tiamat, was due, not to the creation of light, but to his hatred of the way of the gods which produced order in place of chaos.² A parallelism may still be found, however, in the original form of the Babylonian myth, according to which the conqueror of the dragon was undoubtedly a solar deity.³ Moreover, as has been pointed out above,⁴ day and night are vaguely conceived in the poem as already in existence at the time of Apsū's revolt, so that the belief in the existence of light before the creation of the heavenly bodies is a common feature of the Hebrew and the Babylonian account.

The second act of creation in the Hebrew narrative is that of a firmament which divided the waters that were under the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament (Gen. i, 6-8). In the Babylonian poem the body of Tiamat is divided by Marduk, and from one-half of her he formed a covering or dome for heaven, i.e. a firmament, which kept her upper waters in place. Moreover, on the fragment S. 2,013¹ we find mention of a Ti-amat e-li-ti and a Ti-amat šap-li-ti, that is, an Upper Tiamat (or Ocean) and a Lower Tiamat (or Ocean), which are the exact equivalents of the waters above and under the firmament.²

The third and fourth acts of creation, as narrated in Gen. i, 9-13, are those of the earth and of vegetation. Although no portion of the Babylonian poem has yet been recovered which contains the corresponding account, it is probable that these acts of creation were related on the Fifth Tablet of the series.¹ Berossus expressly states that Bēl formed the earth out of one half of Omorka's body, and as his summary of the Babylonian Creation story is proved to be correct wherever it can be controlled, it is legitimate to assume that he is correct in this detail also. Moreover, in three passages in the Seventh Tablet the creation of the earth by Marduk is referred to: one reads, "Since he created the heaven and fashioned the firm earth";² another new fragment states, "He named the four quarters (of the world)";³ and a third definitely ascribes to Marduk the title "Creator of the earth."⁴ That the creation of vegetation by Marduk was also recorded in the poem may be concluded from the opening lines of the Seventh Tablet, which ascribe to him the titles "Bestower of planting," "Founder of sowing," "Creator of grain and plants," and add that he "caused the green herb to spring up."¹

To the fifth act of creation, that of the heavenly bodies (Gen. i, 14-15), we find an exceedingly close parallel in the opening lines of the Fifth Tablet of the series.² In the Hebrew account, lights were created in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night, and to be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. In the Babylonian poem also the stars were created and the year was ordained at the same time; the twelve months were to be regulated by the stars; and the Moon-god was appointed "to determine the days." As according to the Hebrew account two great lights were created in the firmament of heaven, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night, so according to the Babylonian poem the night was entrusted to the Moon-god, and the Moon-god's relations to the Sun-god are described in detail. On the Seventh Tablet, also, the creation of heaven and the heavenly bodies is referred to; in one line Marduk is stated "to have established for the gods the bright heavens,"³ and another reads, "For the stars of heaven he upheld the paths, he shepherded all the gods like sheep!"⁴ To the sixth and seventh acts of creation, i.e., the creation of creatures of the sea and winged fowl, and of beasts and cattle and creeping things (Gen. i, 20-25), the Babylonian poem as yet offers no parallel, for the portion of the text which refers to the creation of animals is still wanting. But since Berossus states that animals were created at the same time as man, it is probable that their creation was recorded in a missing portion either of the Fifth or of the Sixth Tablet. If the account was on the lines suggested by Berossus, and animals shared in the blood of Bēl, it is clear that their creation was narrated, as a subsidiary and less important episode, after that of man.¹ But, although this episode is still wanting in the poem, we find references on other Assyrian Creation fragments to the creation of beasts. Thus, for the creation of the creatures of the sea in Genesis, we may compare the fragmentary text K. 3445 + R. 396, which records the creation of nahirē, "dolphins(?)."² And for the creation of beasts of the earth and cattle, we may compare the tablet D.T. 41,³ which, after referring generally to the creation of "living creatures" by "the gods," proceeds to classify them as the cattle and beasts of the field, and the creatures of the city, the two classes referring respectively to wild and domesticated animals.¹

The account of the creation of man, which is recorded as the eighth and last act of creation in the Hebrew account (Gen. i, 26-31), at length finds its parallel in the Babylonian poem upon the new fragment of the Sixth Tablet, No. 92,629.² It has already been pointed out that the Babylonian account closely follows the version of the story handed down to us from Berossus,³ and it may here be added that the employment by Marduk, the Creator, of his own blood in the creation of man may perhaps be compared to the Hebrew account of the creation of man in the image and after the likeness of Elohim.⁴ Moreover, the use of the plural in the phrase "Let us make man" in Gen. i, 26, may be compared with the Babylonian narrative which relates that Marduk imparted his purpose of forming man to his father Ea, whom he probably afterwards instructed to carry out the actual work of man's creation.

A parallel to the charge which, according to the Hebrew account, Elohim gave to man and woman after their creation, has hitherto been believed to exist on the tablet K. 3,364,¹ which was supposed to contain a list of the duties of man as delivered to him after his creation by Marduk. A newly identified Babylonian duplicate of this text proves that it is not part of the Creation Series, but is merely a tablet of moral precepts, so that its suggested resemblance to the Hebrew narrative must be given up. It is not improbable, however, that a missing portion of the Sixth Tablet did contain a short series of instructions by Marduk to man, since man was created with the special object of supplying the gods with worshippers and building shrines in their honour. That to these instructions to worship the gods was added the gift of dominion over beasts, birds, and vegetation is possible, but it must be pointed out that the Babylonian version of man's creation is related from the point of view of the gods, not from that of man. Although his creation forms the culmination of Marduk's work, it was conceived, not as an end and aim in itself, but merely as an expedient to satisfy the discontented gods.² This expedient is referred to in the Seventh Tablet in the phrase "For their forgiveness (i.e., the forgiveness of the gods) did he create mankind," and other passages in the Seventh Tablet tend to show that Marduk's mercy and goodness are extolled in his relations, not to mankind, but to the gods.¹ In one passage man's creation is referred to, but it is in connection with the charge that he forget not the deeds of his Creator.²

The above considerations render it unlikely that the Babylonian poem contained an exact parallel to the exalted charge of Elohim in which He placed the rest of creation under man's dominion. It is possible, however, that upon a new fragment of the Seventh Tablet, K. 12,830 (restored from the commentary K. 8,299),³ we have a reference to the superiority of man over animals, in the phrase "mankind [he created], [and upon] him understanding [he bestowed(?) . . .]"; and if this be so, we may compare it to Gen. i, 28b. Moreover, if my suggested restoration of the last word in l. 7 of the Sixth Tablet be correct, so that it may read "I will create man who shall inhabit [the earth],"⁴ we may compare it to Gen. i, 28a, in which man is commanded to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.¹

A suggestion has been made that the prominence given to the word of the Creator in the Hebrew account may have found its parallel in the creation by a word in the Babylonian poem. It is true that the word of Marduk had magical power and could destroy and create alike; but Marduk did not employ his word in any of his acts of creation which are at present known to us. He first conceived a cunning device, and then proceeded to carry it out by hand. The only occasion on which he did employ his word to destroy and to create is in the Fourth Tablet, ll. 19-26,² when, at the invitation of the gods, he tested his power by making a garment disappear and then appear again at the word of his mouth. The parallelism between the two accounts under this heading is not very close.

The order of the separate acts of creation is also not quite the same in the two accounts, for, while in the Babylonian poem the heavenly bodies are created immediately after the formation of the firmament, in the Hebrew account their creation is postponed until after the earth and vegetation have been made. It is possible that the creation of the earth and plants has been displaced by the writer to whom the present form of the Hebrew account is due, and that the order of creation was precisely the same in the original forms of the two narratives. But even according to the present arrangement of the Hebrew account, there are several striking points of resemblance to the Babylonian poem. These may be seen in the existence of light before the creation of the heavenly bodies; in the dividing of the waters of the primeval flood by means of a firmament also before the creation of the heavenly bodies; and in the culminating act of creation being that of man.

It would be tempting to trace the framework of the Seven Days of Creation, upon which the narrative in Genesis is stretched, to the influence of the Seven Tablets of Creation, of which we now know that the great Creation Series was composed. The reasons for the employment of the Seven Days in the Hebrew account are, however, not the same which led to the arrangement of the Babylonian poem upon Seven Tablets. In the one the writer's intention is to give the original authority for the observance of the Sabbath; in the other there appears to have been no special reason for this arrangement of the poem beyond the mystical nature of the number "seven." Moreover, acts of creation are recorded on all of the first six Days in the Hebrew narrative, while in the Babylonian poem the creation only begins at the end of the Fourth Tablet.¹ The resemblance, therefore, is somewhat superficial, but it is possible that the employment of the number "seven" in the two accounts was not fortuitous. Whether the Sabbath was of Babylonian origin (as seems probable) or not, it is clear that the writer of the narrative in Genesis was keenly interested in its propagation and its due observance. Now in Exilic and post-Exilic times the account of the Creation most prevalent in Babylonia was that in the poem Enuma elish, the text of which was at this time absolutely fixed and its arrangement upon Seven Tablets invariable. That the late revival of mythology among the Jews was partly due to their actual study of the Babylonian legends at this period is sufficiently proved by the minute points of resemblance between the accounts of the Deluge in Genesis and in the poem of Gilgamesh.¹ It is probable, therefore, that the writer who was responsible for the final form of Gen. i-ii, 4a, was familiar with the Babylonian legend of Creation in the form in which it has come down to us. The supposition, then, is perhaps not too fanciful, that the connection of the Sabbath with the story of Creation was suggested by the mystical number of the Tablets upon which the Babylonian poem was inscribed.

Further resemblances to the Babylonian Creation legends may be traced in the second Hebrew account of the Creation which follows the first in Gen. ii, 4b-7. According to this version man was formed from the dust of the ground, which may be compared to the mixing of Bēl's blood with earth according to the account of Berossus, the use of the Creator's blood in the one account being paralleled by the employment of His breath in the other for the purpose of giving life to the dust or earth. Earth is not mentioned in the recovered portion of the Sixth Tablet, but its use in the creation of men is fully in accordance with Babylonian beliefs. Thus, according to the second Babylonian account of the Creation,¹ Marduk formed man by pouring out dust beside a reed which he had set upon the face of the waters. Clay is also related to have been employed in the creation of special men and heroes; thus it was used in Ea-bani's creation by Aruru,² and it is related to have been mixed with divine blood for a similar purpose in the fragmentary legend Bu. 91-5-9, 269.³ To the account of the creation of woman in Gen. ii, 18 ff. we find a new parallel in l. 5 of the Sixth Tablet of the Creation Series, in the use of the word issimtu, "bone," corresponding to the Hebrew 'esem which occurs in the phrase "bone of my bones" in Gen. ii, 23.

In addition to the Babylonian colouring of much of the story of Paradise we may now add a new parallel from the Babylonian address to a mythical River of Creation, inscribed on S. 1704 and the Neo-Babylonian Tablet 82-9-18, 5311.¹ This short composition is addressed to a River to whom the creation of all things is ascribed,² and with this river we may compare the mythical river of Paradise which watered the garden, and on leaving it was divided into four branches. That the Hebrew River of Paradise is Babylonian in character is clear; and the origin of the Babylonian River of Creation is also to be found in the Euphrates, from whose waters southern Babylonia derived its great fertility.³ The life-giving stream of Paradise is met with elsewhere in the Old Testament, as, for instance, in Ezekiel xlvii, and it is probable that we may trace its influence in the Apocalypse.¹

It is unnecessary here to discuss in detail the evidence to prove that the Hebrew narratives of Creation and mythology were ultimately derived from Babylonia, and were not inherited independently by the Babylonians and Hebrews from a common Semitic ancestor.² For the local Babylonian colouring of the stories, and the great age to which their existence can be traced, extending back to the time of the Sumerian inhabitants of Mesopotamia,³ are conclusive evidence against the second alternative. On the other hand, it is equally unnecessary to cite the well-known arguments to prove the existence among the Hebrews of Creation legends similar to those of Babylonia for centuries before the Exile. The allusions to variant Hebrew forms of the Babylonian Dragon-Myth in Amos ix, 3, Isaiah li, 9, Psalm lxxiv, 13 f., and lxxxix, 9 f., and Job xxvi, 12 f., and ix, 13, may be cited as sufficient proof of the early period at which the borrowing from Babylonian sources must have taken place; and the striking differences between the Biblical and the known Babylonian versions of the legends prove that the Exilic and post-Exilic Jews must have found ready to their hand ancient Hebrew versions of the stories, and that the changes they introduced must in the main have been confined to details of arrangement and to omissions necessitated by their own more spiritual conceptions and beliefs. The discovery of the Tell el-Amarna tablets proved conclusively that Babylonian influence extended throughout Egypt and Western Asia in the fifteenth century B.C., and the existence of legends among the letters demonstrated the fact that Babylonian mythology exerted an influence coextensive with the range of her political ties and interests. We may therefore conjecture that Babylonian myths had become naturalized in Palestine before the conquest of that country by the Israelites. Many such Palestinian versions of Babylonian myths the Israelites no doubt absorbed; while during the subsequent period of the Hebrew kings Assyria and Babylonia exerted a direct influence upon them. It is clear, therefore, that at the time of their exile the captive Jews did not find in Babylonian mythology an entirely new and unfamiliar subject, but recognized in it a series of kindred beliefs, differing much from their own in spiritual conceptions, but presenting a startling resemblance on many material points.

↑ 目次

VI. AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT / VII. RECONSTRUCTION AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE TEXT

Now that the principal problems with regard to the contents, date, and influence of the Creation Series, Enuma elish, have been dealt with, it remains to describe in some detail the forty-nine fragments and tablets from which the text, transliterated and translated in the following pages, has been made up. After each registration-number is given a reference to the published copy of the text in Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum, pt. xiii, or in Vol. II of this work, or in Appendices I and II of this volume; a brief description of each tablet is added, together with references to any previous publication of the text. After the enumeration of the known copies of each tablet, a list is given of the authorities for the separate lines of the tablet, in order to enable the reader to verify any passage in the text with as little delay as possible.

The following twelve tablets and fragments are inscribed with portions of the text of the First Tablet of the series:--

1. K. 5,419c: Cuneiform Texts, pt. xiii (illegible), pl. I. Obverse: ll. 1-16; Reverse: catch-line and colophon. Upper part of an Assyrian tablet, 3¼ in. by 1 7/8 in. For earlier publications of the text, see George Smith, T.S.B.A., vol. iv, the Creation Series, p. 363 f., pl. i; Fox Talbot, T.S.B.A., vol. v, pp. 428 ff.; Menant, Manuel de la langue Asyrienne, p. 378 f.; Delitzsch, Asyrische Lesestücke, 1st ed., p. 40, 2nd ed., p. 78, 3rd ed., p. 93; Lyon, Assyrian Manual, p. 62; and my First Steps in Assyrian, p. 122 f.

2. No. 93,015 (82-7-14, 402): Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pls. 1 and 3. Obverse: ll. 1-16; Reverse: ll. 124-142 and colophon. Upper part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 2 1/8 in. by 2¼ in. For an earlier publication of the text, see Pinches, Bab. Or. Rec., vol. iv, p. 26 f. The fragment is probably part of the same tablet as that to which No. 10 belonged.

3. No. 45,528 + 46,614: Vol. II, pls. i-vi. Obverse: ll. 1-48; Reverse: ll. 111-142, catch-line, and colophon. Part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, formed from two fragments which I have joined; 2¼ in. by 5½ in. This text has not been previously published.

4. No. 35,134: Vol. II, pl. vii. Obverse: ll. 11-21; no reverse. Part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 1 3/8 in. by 2 in. This text has not been previously published.

5. No. 36,726: Vol. II, pl. viii. Obverse: ll. 28-33. Neo-Babylonian "practice-tablet"; the text, which forms an extract, measures 2 7/8 in. by 1¼ in. This text has not been previously published.

6. 81-7-27, 80: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 2. Obverse: ll. 31-56; Reverse: ll. 118-142. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 2 5/8 in. by 3 in. This text, which was referred to by Pinches in the Bab. Or. Rec., vol. iv, p. 33, was used by Zimmern for his translation in Gunkel's Schöpfung und Chaos, p. 402 f.; it was given in transliteration by Delitzsch, Weltschöpfungsepos, p. 25 f., and by Jensen, Mythen und Epen, pp. 2 ff.

7. K. 3,938: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 3. Obverse: ll. 33-42; Reverse: ll. 128-142. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 1 1/6 in. by 1¾ in. This fragment was used by George Smith, Chaldean Account of Genesis, p. 93 f., and by subsequent translators; the text was given in transliteration by Delitzsch, Weltschöpfungsepos, p. 27.

8. K. 7,871: Vol. I, Appendix II, pp. 183 ff. Obverse: ll. 33-47; no reverse. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 1 1/6 in. by 1¾ in. The fragment may belong to the same tablet as No. 11. This text has not been previously published.

9. No. 36,688: Vol. II, pl. vii. Obverse: ll. 38-44. Part of a Neo-Babylonian "practice-tablet"; the text, which forms an abstract, measures 1½ in. by 1 1/8 in. This text has not been previously published.

10. No. 46,803: Vol. II, pls. ix-xi. Obverse: ll. 46-67; Reverse: ll. 83-103. Part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 2 in. by 2 in. The fragment is probably part of the same tablet as that to which No. 2 belonged. This text has not been previously published.

11. K. 4,488: Vol. I, Appendix II, pp. 185 ff. Obverse: ll. 50-63; no reverse. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 1¾ in. by 1½ in.; see above, No. 8. This text has not been previously published.

12. 82-9-18, 6,879: Vol. II, pls. xii and xiii. No obverse; Reverse: ll. 93-118. Part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 1 7/8 in. by 2 5/8 in. This text has not been previously published.

The authorities for the lines of the First Tablet are as follows:-- TABLET I. ll. 1-10: Nos. 1, 2, and 3. ll. 11-16: Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. ll. 17-21: Nos. 3 and 4. ll. 22-27: No. 3. ll. 28-30: Nos. 3 and 5. ll. 31-32: Nos. 3, 5, and 6. l. 33: Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. ll. 34-37: Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 8. ll. 38-42: Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. l. 43: Nos. 3, 6, and 8. l. 44: Nos. 3, 6, 8, and 9. l. 45: Nos. 3, 6, and 8. ll. 46-47: Nos. 3, 6, 8, and 10. l. 48: Nos. 3, 6, and 10. l. 49: Nos. 6 and 10. ll. 53-56: Nos. 6, 10, and 11. ll. 57-63: Nos. 10 and 11. ll. 64-67: No. 10. ll. 68-82: Wanting. ll. 83-92: No. 10. ll. 93-103: Nos. 10 and 12. ll. 104-110: No. 12. ll. 111-117: Nos. 3 and 12. l. 118: Nos. 3, 6, and 12. ll. 119-123: Nos. 3 and 6. ll. 124-127: Nos. 2, 3, and 6. ll. 128-142: Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 7.

The following seven tablets and fragments are inscribed with portions of the text of the Second Tablet of the series:-- 13. No. 40,559: Vol. II, pls. xiv-xxi. Obverse: ll. 1-40; Reverse: ll. (111)-(140), catch-line, and colophon. Upper part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 2 5/8 in. by 4 1/6 in. This text has not been previously published. 14. No. 38,396: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 4. Obverse: ll. 11-29; Reverse: ll. (105)-(132). Part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 3¼ in. by 2 in. This text has not been previously published. 15. No. 92,632 + 93,048: Vol. II, pls. xxii-xxiv. Obverse: ll. 14-29; Reverse: ll. (104)-(138). Part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, formed from two fragments which I have joined; 1 7/8 in. by 1 6/8 in. This text has not been previously published. 16. K. 4,832: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 5. Obverse: ll. 32-58; Reverse: ll. (104)-(138). Part of an Assyrian tablet, 1½ in. by 3¼ in. This tablet was known to George Smith, see Chald. Acc. of Gen., p. 92; its text was published by S. A. Smith, Miscellaneous Texts, pl. 8 f. 17. 79-7-8, 178: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 6. Obverse: ll. (69)-(75); Reverse: ll. (76)-(85). Part of an Assyrian tablet, 3 1/8 in. by 1¾ in. This text, which was identified by Pinches, was given in transliteration by Delitzsch, Weltschöpfungsepos, p. 30, and by Jensen, Mythen und Epen, p. 10 f. 18. K. 10,008: Vol. I, App. II, pp. 187 ff. No obverse; Reverse: probably between ll. 85 and 104. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 1 5/8 in. by 2¼ in. This text has not been previously published.

19. K. 292: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 6. No obverse; Reverse: ll. (131)-(140). Lower part of an Assyrian tablet, 2½ in. by 2¼ in. The text of this tablet, which was known to George Smith, was given in transliteration by Delitzsch, Weltschöpfungsepos, p. 31, and by Jensen, Mythen und Epen, p. 10. The authorities for the lines of the Second Tablet are as follows:-- TABLET II. ll. 1-10: No. 13. ll. 11-13: Nos. 13 and 14. ll. 14-29: Nos. 13, 14, and 15. ll. 30-31: No. 13. ll. 32-40: Nos. 13 and 16. ll. 41-58: No. 16. ll. 59-(68): Wanting. ll. (69)-(85): No. 17. between ll. (86) and (103): No. 18. l. (104): No. 16. ll. (105)-(110): Nos. 14 and 16. ll. (111)-(113): Nos. 13, 14, and 16. ll. (114)-(126): Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16. l. (127): Nos. 13, 15, and 16. ll. (128)-(129): Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16. l. (130): Nos. 13, 15, and 16. l. (131): Nos. 13, 15, 16, and 19. l. (132): Nos. 13, 14, 16, and 19. ll. (133)-(138): Nos. 13, 16, and 19. ll. (139)-(140): Nos. 13 and 19.

The following nine tablets and fragments are inscribed with portions of the text of the Third Tablet:-- 20. K. 3,473 + 79-7-8, 296 + R. 615: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pls. 7-9. Obverse: ll. 1-85; Reverse: ll. 86-138. Parts of an Assyrian tablet, 2½ in. by 8 3/8 in. The three fragments of this tablet, which have been recovered, join, but, as they are much warped by fire, they have not been stuck together. For earlier publications of the text, see S. A. Smith, Miscellaneous Texts, pls. 1-5, and my First Steps in Assyrian, pp. 124 ff. The text of K. 3,473 had been already recognized by George Smith, see Chald. Acc. Gen., p. 92 f. 21. No. 93,017 [88-4-19, 13]: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pls. 10 and 11. Obverse: ll. 47-77; Reverse: ll. 78-105. Part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 2½ in. by 3 5/8 in. This text, which was identified by Pinches, was given in transliteration by Delitzsch, Weltschöpfungsepos, p. 35 f., and by Jensen, Mythen und Epen, pp. 14 ff. 22. 82-9-18, 1,403+6,316 [No. 61,429]: Vol. II, pls. xxv-xxviii. Obverse: ll. 5-15, 52-61; Reverse: ll. 62-76, 124-128. Part of a Neo-Babylonian "practice-tablet," inscribed with a series of five-line extracts from the text; 2 in. by 3 in. A copy of the text of 82-9-18, 1,403, is given in Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 13: since then I have joined to it the fragment 82-9-18, 6,316, and the text is therefore repeated in Vol. II. This text has not been previously published. 23. K. 8,524: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 12. Fragment from the end of Obv. or beginning of Rev.: ll. 75-86. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 1 7/8 in. by 1 3/8 in. The text was referred to by Pinches in the Bab. Or. Rec., vol. iv, p. 30, and was given in transliteration by Delitzsch, Weltschöpfungsepos, p. 31. 24. 82-9-18, 6,950+83-1-18, 1,868: Vol. II, pl. xxix. Duplicate of ll. 19-26 and 77-84; variants are noted in the text under ll. 19-26. Neo-Babylonian "practice-tablet"; the text forms an extract measuring 2 5/8 in. by 1¼ in. A copy of the text of 83-1-18, 1,868, is given in Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 12; since then I have joined to it the fragment 82-9-18, 6,950, and the text is therefore repeated in Vol. II. This text has not been previously published. 25. K. 6,650: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 9. Duplicate of ll. 38-55 and 96-113; variants are noted in the text under ll. 38-55. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 3 in. by 3 3/8 in. This text has not been previously published. 26. No. 42,285: Vol. II, pls. xxx-xxxiii. Obverse: ll. 46-68; Reverse: ll. 69-87. Part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 2½ in. by 2 5/8 in. This text has not been previously published. 27. 82-9-18, 5,448+83-1-18, 2,116: Vol. II, pl. xxxiv. Obverse: ll. 64-72. Part of a Neo-Babylonian "practice-tablet"; the text, which forms an extract, measures 2 3/4 in. by 1½ in. A copy of the text of 83-1-18, 2,116, is given in Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 12; since then I have joined to it the fragment 82-9-18, 5,448, and the text is therefore repeated in Vol. II. This text has not been previously published. 28. K. 8,575: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 12. Obverse: ll. 69-76; Reverse: ll. 77-85. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 2 5/8 in. by 2 1/6 in. This text, which was identified by Bezold, Catalogue, p. 941, was given in transliteration by Delitzsch, Weltschöpfungsepos, p. 38.

The authorities for the lines of the Third Tablet are as follows:-- TABLET III. ll. 1-4: No. 20. ll. 5-15: Nos. 20 and 22. ll. 16-18: No. 20. ll. 19-26: Nos. 20 and 24. ll. 27-37: No. 20. ll. 38-45: Nos. 20 and 25. l. 46: Nos. 20, 25, and 26. ll. 47-51: Nos. 20, 21, 25, and 26. ll. 52-55: Nos. 20, 21, 22, 25, and 26. ll. 56-63: Nos. 20, 21, 22, and 26. ll. 64-68: Nos. 20, 21, 22, 26, and 27. ll. 69-72: Nos. 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, and 28. ll. 73-74: Nos. 20, 21, 22, 26, and 28. ll. 75-76: Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, and 28. ll. 77-84: Nos. 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28. l. 85: Nos. 20, 21, 23, 26, and 28. l. 86: Nos. 20, 21, 23, and 26. l. 87: Nos. 20, 21, and 26. ll. 88-95: Nos. 20 and 21. ll. 96-105: Nos. 20, 21, and 25. ll. 106-113: Nos. 20 and 25. ll. 114-123: No. 20. ll. 124-128: Nos. 20 and 22. ll. 129-138: No. 20.

The following six tablets and fragments are inscribed with portions of the text of the Fourth Tablet:-- 29. No. 93,016 [82-9-18, 3,737]: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pls. 14-15. Obverse: ll. 1-44; Reverse: ll. 116-146. Upper part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 3 3/8 in. by 4 7/8 in. For an earlier publication of the text, see Budge, P.S.B.A., vol. x, p. 86, pls. 1-6. 30. K. 3,437 + R. 641: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pls. 16-19. Obverse: ll. 36-83; Reverse: ll. 84-119. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 3 in. by 5½ in. For an earlier publication of the text of K. 3,437, see George Smith, T.S.B.A., vol. iv, p. 363 f., pls. 5 and 6; and of K. 3,437+R. 641, see Delitzsch, Asyrische Lesestücke, pp. 97 ff., and my First Steps in Assyrian, pp. 137 ff. 31. 79-7-8, 251: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 20. Obverse: ll. 35-49; Reverse: ll. 103-107. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 1 in. by 2 1/8 in. The text, which was identified by Pinches, was used in transliteration by Delitzsch, Weltschöpfungsepos, pp. 41 ff., and by Jensen, Mythen und Epen, pp. 22 ff. This fragment probably belongs to the same tablet as No. 34. 32. No. 93,051: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 20. Obverse: ll. 42-54; Reverse: ll. 85-94. Part of a Neo-Babylonian "practice-tablet," inscribed with the text divided into sections of five lines; 2¼ in. by 1¾ in. This text has not been previously published. 33. K. 5,420c: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 21. Obverse: ll. 74-92; Reverse: ll. 93-119. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 3 3/8 in. by 3 1/8 in. Restorations and variants were taken from this tablet by George Smith for his edition of K. 3,437; see above, No. 30. 34. R. 283: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 19. No obverse; Reverse: ll. 117-129.

Part of an Assyrian tablet, 2¼ in. by 1 5/8 in. The text, which was identified by Pinches, was given in transliteration by Delitzsch, Weltschöpfungsepos, p. 45. This fragment probably belongs to the same tablet as No. 31. The authorities for the lines of the Fourth Tablet are as follows:-- TABLET IV. ll. 1-34: No. 29. l. 35: Nos. 29 and 31. ll. 36-41: Nos. 29, 30, and 31. ll. 42-44: Nos. 29, 30, 31, and 32. ll. 45-49: Nos. 30, 31, and 32. ll. 50-54: Nos. 30 and 32. ll. 55-73: No. 30. ll. 74-84: Nos. 30 and 33. ll. 85-94: Nos. 30, 32, and 33. ll. 95-102: Nos. 30 and 33. ll. 103-107: Nos. 30, 31, and 33. ll. 108-115: Nos. 30 and 33. l. 116: Nos. 29, 30, and 33. ll. 117-119: Nos. 29, 30, 33, and 34. ll. 120-129: Nos. 29 and 34. ll. 130-146: No. 29.

The following five tablets and fragments are inscribed with portions of the text of the Fifth Tablet:-- 35. K. 3,567 + K. 8,588: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 22. Obverse: ll. 1-26; Reverse: catch-line. Upper part of an Assyrian tablet, 3 1/8 in. by 2 7/8 in. For earlier publications of the text, see George Smith, T.S.B.A., vol. iv, p. 363 f., pl. 2; Delitzsch, Assyrische Lesestücke, 3rd ed., p. 94; and my First Steps in Assyrian, pp. 158 ff. 36. K. 8,526: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 23. Obverse: ll. 1-18; Reverse: ll. (138)-(140).

Upper part of an Assyrian tablet, 1½ in. by 2¼ in. The text was used by George Smith for his edition of No. 35, and in the other copies of that tablet mentioned above; it was given in transliteration by Delitzsch, Weltschöpfungsepos, p. 48 f. 37. K. 13,774: Vol. I, Appendix II, pp. 190 ff. Obverse: ll. 6-19; no reverse. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 1¼ in. by 1½ in. This text has not been previously published. 38. K. 11,641: Vol. I, Appendix II, pp. 192 ff. Obverse: ll. 14-22; Reverse: ll. (128)-(140), catch-line, and colophon. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 2 3/4 in. by 3 3/8 in. This text has not been previously published. 39. K. 3,449a: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 23. Obverse: ll. (66)-(74); Reverse: ll. (75)-(87). Part of an Assyrian tablet, 2½ in. by 1½ in. This text, which was first identified and translated by George Smith, Chald. Acc. of Gen., p. 94 f., was given in transliteration by Delitzsch, Weltschöpfungsepos, p. 50, and the reverse by Jensen, Mythen und Epen, p. 32. The authorities for the lines of the Fifth Tablet are as follows:-- TABLET V. ll. 1-5: Nos. 35 and 36. ll. 6-13: Nos. 35, 36, and 37. ll. 14-18: Nos. 35, 36, 37, and 38. l. 19: Nos. 35, 37, and 38. ll. 20-22: Nos. 35 and 38. ll. 23-26: No. 35.

ll. 27-(65): Wanting. ll. (66)-(87): No. 39. ll. (88)-(127): Wanting. ll. (128)-(137): No. 38. ll. (138)-(140): Nos. 36 and 38.

The following fragment is inscribed with a portion of the text of the Sixth Tablet:-- 40. No. 92,629: Vol. II, pls. xxxv and xxxvi. Obverse: ll. 1-21; Reverse: ll. 138-146, catch-line, and colophon. Part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 2 1/8 in. by 2¼ in. This text has not been previously published.

The following nine tablets and fragments are inscribed with portions of the text of the Seventh Tablet:-- 41. K. 2,854: Vol. I, Appendix I, p. 159. Obverse: ll. 1-18; Reverse uninscribed. Upper part of an Assyrian tablet, 2½ in. by 1¾ in. This text has not been previously published. 42. No. 91,139 + 93,073: Vol. II, pls. xxxviii-xlv. Obverse: ll. 3-40; Reverse: ll. 106-141. Part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 2 3/4 in. by 4 7/8 in. This text is made up of two fragments which I have joined; it has not previously been published. 43. K. 8,522: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pls. 26 and 27. Obverse: ll. 15-45; Reverse: ll. 105-137. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 2½ in. by 3¼ in. For earlier publications of the text, see George Smith, T.S.B.A., vol. iv, p. 363 f., pls. 3 and 4, and Delitzsch, Assyrische Lesestücke, 3rd ed., p. 95 f.

44. No. 35,506: Vol. II, pls. xlvi-xlviii. Obverse: ll. 14-36; Reverse: ll. 105-142. Part of a Neo-Babylonian tablet, 2¼ in. by 4¼ in. This text, which probably dates from the period of the Arsacidae, has not been previously published. 45. K. 9,267: Cun. Texts, pt. xiii, pl. 28. Obverse: ll. 40-47; Reverse: ll. 109-138. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 3 5/8 in. by 2 in. Restorations and variants were taken from this tablet by George Smith for his edition of K. 8,522; see above, No. 43. 46. K. 12,830: Vol. I, Appendix I, p. 163. Obverse or Reverse: between ll. 47 and 105. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 7/8 in. by 7/8 in. This text has not been previously published. 47. K. 13,761: Vol. I, Appendix I, p. 164. End of Obverse and beginning of Reverse: between ll. 47 and 105. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 1 1/8 in. by 1 5/8 in. This text has not been previously published. 48. K. 8,519: Vol. I, Appendix I, p. 165. End of Obverse and beginning of Reverse: between ll. 47 and 105. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 1¾ in. by 1 3/8 in. This text has not been previously published. 49. K. 13,337: Vol. I, Appendix I, p. 166. Duplicate of No. 48; between ll. 47 and 105. Part of an Assyrian tablet, 7/8 in. by 1 in. This text, which is a duplicate of K. 8,519, has not been previously published.

The authorities for the lines of the Seventh Tablet are as follows:-- TABLET VII. ll. 1-2: No. 41. ll. 3-13: Nos. 41 and 42. l. 14: Nos. 41, 42, and 44. ll. 15-18: Nos. 41, 42, 43, and 44. ll. 19-36: Nos. 42, 43, and 44. ll. 37-39: Nos. 42 and 43. l. 40: Nos. 42, 43, and 45. ll. 41-45: Nos. 43 and 45. ll. 46-47: No. 45. between ll. 47 and 105: Nos. 46, 47, 48, and 49. l. 105: Nos. 43 and 44. ll. 106-108: Nos. 42, 43, and 44. ll. 109-137: Nos. 42, 43, 44, and 45. l. 138: Nos. 42, 44, and 45. ll. 139-141: Nos. 42 and 44. l. 142: No. 44.

The above forty-nine tablets and fragments, inscribed with portions of the text of the Creation Series, belong to two distinct periods. The older class of tablets were made for the library of Ashur-bani-pal at Nineveh, and they are beautifully written in the Assyrian character upon tablets of fine clay. The Neo-Babylonian tablets, on the other hand, are, as a rule, less carefully written; they vary considerably in size and shape, and were made at different periods for private individuals, either for their own use,¹ or that they might be deposited in the temples as votive offerings.² Some of these Babylonian copies are fine specimens of their class, e.g. Nos. 3, 13, 21, 29, and 42, and the characters and words upon them are carefully written and spaced; others, however, consist of small, carelessly made tablets, on to which the poem is crowded. On all the tablets, whether Assyrian or Babylonian, which possess colophons, the number of the Tablet in the Series is carefully given. The extracts from the text, which were written out by students upon "practice-tablets," no doubt in order to give them practice in writing and at the same time to enable them to learn the text by heart, are naturally rather rough productions. One characteristic which applies to all the tablets, whether Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian, is that the text is never written in columns, but each line of the poem is written across the tablet from edge to edge. As a result, the tablets are long and narrow in shape, and are handled far more conveniently than broader tablets inscribed with two or more columns of writing on each side.

The forms of the text of the poem, which were in use in the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, are identical, and it is incorrect to speak of an Assyrian and a Babylonian "recension." At the time of Ashur-bani-pal the text had already been definitely fixed, and, with the exception of one or two phrases, the words of each line remained unchanged from that time forward. It is true that on the Babylonian tablets the words are, as a rule, written more syllabically, but this is a general characteristic of Babylonian copies of historical and literary texts. Moreover, upon several of the more carefully written tablets, the metre is indicated by the division of the halves of each verse, an arrangement which is not met with on any of the Assyrian tablets. But both the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian copies represent the same "recension" of the text, and, as has already been indicated, are probably the descendants of a common Babylonian original. The following table will serve to show the number of Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian copies of each of the Seven Tablets under which the forty-nine separate fragments of the text may be arranged:--

In the arrangement and interpretation of the text of the Seventh Tablet we receive considerable assistance from some fragments of Assyrian commentaries which have come down to us. These were compiled by the Assyrian scribes in order to explain that composition, and they are of the greatest value for the study of the text. The contents of these documents, and their relation to the text of the Seventh Tablet, are described in detail in Appendix I, but the following facts with regard to the size of the tablets inscribed with the commentaries, and to previous publications of portions of them, may here be conveniently given.

The most important class of commentary takes the form of a bilingual list, and, as has been pointed out elsewhere, presupposes the existence of a Sumerian version of part of the text of the Seventh Tablet of the Creation Series. The text of the commentary is inscribed in a series of double columns; in the left half of each column it gives a list of the Sumerian words, or ideograms, and, in the right half, opposite each word is added its Assyrian equivalent. It is noteworthy that the list is generally arranged in the order in which the words occur in the Assyrian text of the Seventh Tablet. The columns of the commentary are divided into a number of compartments, or sections, by horizontal lines impressed upon the clay, and the words within each compartment refer either to separate couplets, or to separate lines, of the Seventh Tablet. Of this class of commentary we possess six fragments of two large tablets which were inscribed with five or six double columns of writing on each side; the two tablets are duplicates of one another, having been inscribed with the same version of the commentary. The following is a description of the six separate fragments, the two large tablets, to which they belong, being headed respectively A and B:--

A. (1) S. 11 + S. 980 + S. 1,416. For the text, see Vol. II, pls. li-liii and lv; cf. also App. I, pp. 158 ff., 167 f. The fragment is the top left hand portion of the tablet; it measures 4 in. by 7 in. The text of S. 11 + S. 980 was published in V R., pl. 21, No. 4. The fragment S. 1,416, which I have joined to the other two, has not been previously published.

(2) K. 4,406. For the text, see Vol. II, pls. liv-lv; cf. also App. I, pp. 163 ff. The fragment is the top right hand portion of the tablet; it measures 4¼ in. by 4 7/8 in. The text has been previously published in II R., pl. 31, No. 2.

(3) 82-3-23, 151. For the text, see Vol. II, pl. liv; cf. also App. I, p. 162. The fragment measures 1 3/8 in. by 2 1/8 in.; it has not been previously published.

B. (1) R. 366+80-7-19, 288+293. For the text, see Vol. II, pls. lvi-lviii; cf. also App. I, pp. 160, 168 f. The fragment is from the left side of the tablet; it measures 2 1/8 in. by 5 1/8 in. The fragment R. 366 was published in V R., pl. 21, No. 3; 80-7-19, 293, was joined to it by Bezold, Catalogue, p. 1,608. The third fragment, 80-7-19, 288, was identified by Zimmern and published in the Zeits. für Assyr., xii, p. 401 f.

(2) K. 2,053. For the text, see Vol. II, pls. lix-lx; cf. also App. I, pp. 161, 167 f. This fragment measures 2 3/8 in. by 2½ in.; it has long been known to be a duplicate of S. 11 + S. 980 (see Bezold, Catalogue, p. 396), but its text has not been previously published.

(3) K. 8,299. For the text, see Vol. II, pl. lx; cf. also App. I, p. 162 f. This fragment measures 3 in. by 1½ in.; it has not been previously published.

In addition to the above commentary in the form of a bilingual list, we possess single specimens of a second and a third class of explanatory text. The second class contains a running commentary to passages selected from other Tablets of the Creation Series in addition to the Seventh, and is represented by the tablet S. 747. The third class, represented by the obverse of the tablet K. 2,107 + K. 6,086, gives explanations of a number of titles of Marduk, several of which occur in the recovered portions of the text of the Seventh Tablet. Each of these two commentaries furnishes information on various points with regard to the interpretation of the Seventh Tablet, but, as may be supposed, they do not approach in interest the six fragments of the commentary of the first class.

The transliteration of the text of the Creation Series, which is given in the following pages, has been made up from the tablets, fragments, and extracts enumerated on pp. xcvii ff.; while several passages in the Seventh Tablet have been conjecturally restored from the Assyrian Commentaries just described. In the reconstruction of the text preference has usually been given to the readings found upon the Assyrian tablets, and the variant readings of all duplicates, both Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian, are given in the notes at the foot of the page. The lines upon each tablet of the Series have been numbered, and, where the numbering of a line is conjectural, it is placed within parentheses. Great assistance in the numbering of the lines of detached fragments of the text has been afforded by the fact that upon many of the Neo-Babylonian copies every tenth line is marked with a figure "10" in the left-hand margin; in but few instances can the position of a detached fragment be accurately ascertained by its shape. The lines upon the Second and Fifth Tablets have been conjecturally numbered up to one hundred and forty. Upon the Sixth Tablet the total number of lines was one hundred and thirty-six or one hundred and forty-six; and, in view of the fact that the scribe of No. 92,629 has continued the text to the bottom of the reverse of the tablet, the larger number is the more probable of the two. The following is a list of the total number of lines inscribed upon each of the Seven Tablets of the Series:-- Tablet I, 142 lines. Tablet II, (140) lines. Tablet III, 138 lines. Tablet IV, 146 lines. Tablet V, (140) lines. Tablet VI, 146 lines. Tablet VII, 142 lines.

Although it is now possible to accurately estimate the number of lines contained by the Creation Series, there are still considerable gaps in the text of several of the Tablets. The only Tablets in which the whole or portions of every line are preserved are the Third and Fourth of the Series. Gaps, where the text is completely wanting, occur in Tablet I, ll. 68-82, and in Tablet II, ll. 59-(68). The greater part of the text of Tablet V is wanting, but by roughly estimating the position of the fragment K. 3,449a, which occurs about in the centre of the text, we obtain two gaps, between ll. 26 and (66) and between ll. (87) and (128). Of Tablet VI we possess only the opening and closing lines, the rest of the text, from l. 22 to l. 137, being wanting. Finally, the gap in the text of Tablet VII, between ll. 47 and 105, is partly filled up by the fragments K. 12,830, 13,761, 8,519, 13,337, which together give portions of thirty-nine lines.

Upon some of the Babylonian copies the metre is indicated in writing by the division of the halves of each verse,¹ and, wherever this occurs upon any tablet or duplicate, the division has, as far as possible, been retained in the transliteration of the text. In accordance with the rules of Babylonian poetry, the text generally falls into couplets, the second verse frequently echoing or supplementing the first; each of the two verses of a couplet is divided into halves, and each half-verse may be further subdivided by an accented syllable.² This four-fold division of each verse will be apparent from the following connected transliteration of the first half-dozen lines of the poem, in which the subdivisions of the verses are marked in accordance with the system of the Babylonian scribes as found upon the tablet Sp. ii, 265a¹:--

1. enuma | elish || la nabu | shamamu 2. shaplish | ammatum || shuma | la zakrat 3. Apsuma | reshtu || zaru- shun 4. mummu | Tiamat || muallidat | gimrishun 5. me- shunu || ishtenish | ihikuma It will be seen that the second verse of each couplet balances the first, and the caesura, or division, in the centre of each verse is well marked. The second half of verse 3 and the first half of verse 5, each of which contains only one word, may appear rather short for scansion, but the rhythm is retained by dwelling on the first part of the word and treating the suffix almost as an independent word. It is unnecessary to transliterate more of the text of the poem in this manner, as the simple metre, or rather rhythm, can be detected without difficulty from the syllabic transliteration which is given in the following pages.

↑ 目次

TRANSLITERATIONS AND TRANSLATIONS

I. THE SEVEN TABLETS OF THE HISTORY OF CREATION

↑ 目次

THE FIRST TABLET

※底本は対向頁にアッカド語の翻字（transliteration）を配した対訳形式のため、偶数頁（翻字）は本ファイルの頁アンカー付与対象から外し、英訳が印字された奇数頁（3, 5, 7…）のみを付与しています（デカルト『省察』等、対訳形式の他の作品と同じ扱いです）。底本には脚注があり、本ファイルでは一部のみ収録しています。収録していないものは、各頁の脚注欄に注記しています。

↑ 目次

THE SECOND TABLET

※頁アンカーの扱い（対訳形式のため英訳頁のみ付与）は第一書板と同様です。59〜68行・86〜103行は底本で欠落区間（ギャップ）として明示されているとおり示しています。

↑ 目次

THE THIRD TABLET

※頁アンカーの扱いは第一・第二書板と同様です。第三書板は欠落区間の明示（ギャップ表記）がなく、全138行が連続して収録されています。

↑ 目次

THE FOURTH TABLET

※頁アンカーの扱いは第一〜第三書板と同様です。序論VI節でも述べられているとおり、第三・第四書板は全行が保存されている（欠落区間のない）唯一の書板です。

↑ 目次

THE FIFTH TABLET

※第五書板は欠損が大きく、断片ごとに出典が分かれています（本文中の欠落表記は底本のまま）。

↑ 目次

THE SIXTH TABLET

※第六書板は最も断片が少なく（序論VI節既述のとおり新発見断片1点のみ）、冒頭21行と末尾9行以外は欠落しています。

↑ 目次

THE SEVENTH TABLET

※第七書板は複数の断片（K.12,830／K.13,761／K.8,519＋K.13,337／No.91,139+93,073）を組み合わせて再構成されており、行番号の付き方も断片ごとに異なります（底本のとおり、番号のない行はそのまま無番号で収録）。125行目からのエピローグも同じ書板内に含まれています。

↑ 目次

II.

Other Accounts of the History of Creation

I. Another Version of the Dragon-Myth¹

OBV.

[The rest of the Obverse and the upper part of the Reverse of the tablet are wanting.⁵]

REV.

II. A Reference to the Creation of the Cattle and the Beasts of the Field¹

[The rest of the text is wanting.]

III. A Reference to the Creation of the Moon and the Sun⁴

頁アンカーについての注記：頁125にIII節見出しと1行目、頁127に2行目以降が含まれます（頁126は対訳形式の翻字側のため、第一〜四書板と同様に頁アンカー付与対象から外しています）。

IV. An Address to the River of Creation¹

V. Another Version of the Creation of the World by Marduk¹

OBV.²

[The rest of the Obverse and the beginning of the Reverse of the tablet are wanting.]

REV.