george smith

Enuma Elish Creation Story

May 28, 2009 by Chris Field Leave a Comment

In 1876, just four years after publication of the Epic of Gilgamesh, George Smith completed and published his translation of Enuma Elish. This ancient Assyrian document was immediately acclaimed as an equivalent creation story to that given in the Bible.

Part of the Barrage

This new document came as yet another wave of challenge to the authenticity of the Book of Genesis. Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”, published in 1859 compounded the growing scientific assault on Genesis, propelled forward by Charles Lyell’s geological uniformity concepts.

The 1872 publication of the Gilgamesh Epic brought criticism of Genesis from a new quarter. Archaeology seemed to bring solid evidence that the supposedly divine revelations in Genesis were mere re-workings of ancient stories. The pile of discarded clay tablets, with their “bird track” markings proved to be more valuable than the initial treasure hunters expected. While the ruins of ancient Assyrian palaces from the Nineveh site were scoured for gold and priceless artefacts, the tens of thousands of small clay tablets were simply shovelled out of the way. But when George Smith put his unique self-taught talents to work on deciphering the cuneiform script new evidence against Genesis seemed to leap from the rubble.

Evidence of the exaltation of Enuma Elish as a direct challenge to the authority of Genesis is testified by George Smith’s title for publication of his translation, under the auspices of the British Museum, “The Chaldean Genesis“.

The Link Asserted

In 1895 German author Herrmann Gunkel HeHerrr

published an influential book, proclaiming that the Genesis account is merely an expansion of the pre-existing Enuma Elish story. Since that book scholars have taken it for granted that the two accounts are directly linked.

Gunkel contended that the ancient Near Eastern myth of creation, especially as formulated in the Enuma Elish, was the underlying document upon which the Genesis account was formulated. He claimed that the myth was modified by Bible writers to bring it into agreement with the Israelite religion.

Seven Clay Tablets

Enuma Elish is an ancient story about warfare and barbarism among a group of gods. Seven clay tablets from the ancient library of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal told the story as it existed in Babylon. Variations of the story have been found, reducing the status of Enuma Elish as a “creation” narrative, since the battle story is presented in some cases, without any reference to creation.

King Ashurbanipal ordered his servants to collect written works from around the realm, from Egypt to India. 100,000 clay tablets filled his famous library, which housed the first such collection in history. From the excavations of his library some 26,000 tablets survived, with many being destroyed or damaged in the hunt for more valuable antiquities.

The seven clay tablets were not without damage and some parts of the story have been untranslatable. George Smith translated what was still readable. The fifth tablet speaks of creation of the earth and sky from the carcase of a murdered god. The sixth of seven tablets mentions the plan by the victorious warring gods to create mankind. Note, then, that creation is a small part of the overall story, and is not recorded in other telling of the same war among the gods.

Rebellion in Heaven

Enuma Elish is a grotesque and barbaric story about bloodshed among the gods. These gods, rather than being divine in nature, are very human in their relationships and actions. They marry, give birth to other gods, are able to be killed and so on.

When the family of gods makes too much disturbance for the principal male god, Apsu, from whom the others sprang in several generations, he decides to destroy them all. One of the younger gods, Ea, great-grandson to Apsu, kills the patriarch god. The widow and great-grandmother, Tiamat, is enraged and seeks vengeance against Ea. She creates eleven monsters, marries Kingu, and goes to war.

Tiamat’s vengeful rampage at first seems unstoppable. However, a great-great grandson god, Marduk, who is supposed to have founded Babylon, successfully destroys Tiamat, by bludgeoning her to death and cutting her body in pieces from which various creations are made. Marduk then appoints the various gods their own places, which researchers have noted correspond to Babylonian astrology.

Marduk decides to create mankind to serve the gods by maintaining temples for their worship, and to perform menial tasks for the gods. Marduk murders Kingu, using his blood and bones as the substance to form humanity.

The Creation Account

Since Enuma Elish is cited today as proof that the Genesis creation record is somehow taken from earlier creation accounts, it is important to see the account from which Moses is supposed to have gained his inspiration.

There are approx 1,160 lines of text in the whole Enuma Elish story. Of that complete text the account of earth’s creation occupies no more than 30 lines and the account of the man’s creation occupies 8 lines. Here I quote text related the creation, from LW Kings 1902 translation, published as The Seven Tablets of Creation.

“He split her up like a flat fish into two halves;
One half of her he stablished as a covering for heaven.
He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman,
And bade them not to let her waters come forth.
He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions thereof,
And over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.
And the lord measured the structure of the Deep,
And he founded E-sara, a mansion like unto it.
The mansion E-sara which he created as heaven,
He caused Anu, Bel, and Ea in their districts to inhabit.”

Another 24 lines speak of the moon and sun in their orbits, as dividing the year into twelve months.

Thus less than four percent of the whole document relates to creation, and that account, as you can see by what is quoted here, has no meaningful relationship with the account of Genesis 1.

The Creation of Man

Of the more than one thousand lines on seven tablets there are but a few scant words about the creation of man. Here I again quote from LW Kings The Seven Tablets of Creation.

“My blood will I take and bone will I fashion
I will make man, that man may ….
I will create man who shall inhabit the earth,
That the service of the gods may be established, and that their shrines may be built.”

A more complete translation of the Enuma Elish document, compiled from other sources as well, adds to these four lines just a few more.

“Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.
He imposed on him the service and let free the gods.
After Ea, the wise, had created mankind,
Had imposed upon them the service of the gods-”

What Comparison?

Enuma Elish has nothing to do with the Genesis account. The fact that the reality of creation is reflected in an ancient myth only goes to prove the human consciousness of that event, not the creation of a lie which Moses inherited.

The one true God, acting in a fashion consistent with His actions through the whole of recorded history, created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, as described in the Book of Genesis. He acted as a holy, loving creator, who made man in His own image, to enjoy the delight of inclusion into His eternal existence. God does not need man, nor does God act with the vain impulses we see in man.

God created out of nothing (ex nihilo) not from the remains of some other deity whom He butchered. God created life as a gift to those He made. He did not create as a self-serving exercise to indulge His needs or have menials at His disposal.

There is next to nothing that links the Enuma Elish to the Genesis record, except that it speaks of creation. Yet thousands of ignorant people were beguiled into believing that the authority of scripture had been decimated by the sunburnt clay tablets.

I am thankful to Dr Clifford Wilson and his wife Dr Barbara Wilson for their inspiration and guidance in my own exploration of Biblical archaeology. As friend, academic supervisor and mentor, Dr Clifford has keenly encouraged my interest in archaeology, as he has for many others in decades past.
In honour of his on-going work and his world-wide impact I am compiling various posts on archaeology, based on the excellent work of Drs Clifford and Barbara, while adding my own personal style and insights. Drs Clifford and Barbara Wilson are building a website to present their work. You can visit the website at http://www.drcliffordwilson.com

Epic of Gilgamesh

May 26, 2009 by Chris Field 2 Comments

The surprise discovery of an ancient Assyrian story about a world-wide flood produced its own flood of suspicion about the inspired nature of the Bible and the Genesis account of Noah’s Flood. Since its publication in 1872, the Epic of Gilgamesh, with its flood narrative, has been proclaimed as the true source of Moses’ documentation of Noah and the global flood.

Because of this significance, it is appropriate for Christians to look at the story of Gilgamesh and his epic journey. Misinformation is most effective when it can be promoted to the ignorant.

Ignorance and Assumption

Ignorance is highly dangerous among people who are prone to making assumptions. Misleading information fed into such a person will have great effect. Take for example the claim that scientists have discovered “life on Mars“. For those who know little about the planets and the conditions on those planets, the headline “life on Mars” could suggest living creatures, vegetation and the like, in living or fossil form. The tendency to assume an interpretation for information enables people to project images into their own mind, build from assumption that is unchecked. Ignorance means there is no boundary to the assumptions that can be made, based on the misleading or deceptive information.

To a well informed scientist the notion of any evidence for life on Mars is quite hard to accept. They would never expect living creatures or even fossils. The 1996 Headlines and Science magazine article proclaiming life on Mars was based on microscopic traces believed to indicate the former presence of primitive bacterial life. An astronomically far cry from the reality we take for granted on earth.

Flood Story

The 1872 proclamation that the story of Noah’s Flood had been found in a fanciful ancient story gives the impression that something closely paralleling the Genesis account must have been uncovered. That impression was enhanced by the ready assertion that the ancient tale paralleled the Bible account.

Self-taught Assyriologist, George Smith, who learned to read cuneiform at the British Museum in his lunch breaks, quickly rose to fame as the foremost translator of the clay inscriptions. His training as an engraver had given him a sharp eye that picked up details which were missed by the other museum staff.

When he translated the world’s oldest literary work, the Epic of Gilgamesh, he was stunned to find the final tablet talking about a flood. Elements of the story resonated with details of the Bible account. Assumption sprang to life, linking the two accounts as if there were directly related to each other.

Celebrated Similarities

The Gilgamesh story is readily accepted today, as it was when first translated, as directly linked to the Genesis account. Following is a quotation from a modern source, explaining the importance of the Gilgamesh story.

“The narrative he (Smith) was reading was nothing other than the Biblical story of The Flood-but the Epic of Gilgamesh was centuries old when Genesis was written! ….. it was all there: the Lord’s flood advisory warning, directions for building the Ark and stocking it with all the animals in pairs, the prodigious rainstorm. The landing on a mountain peak, the dispatch of birds as scouts, and the rainbow of promise at the end. Everything was the same except for Noah, who went under the name of Ut-Nipishtim in the earlier version.”

Note the assertions in this, as in many other references to Gilgamesh. “Everything was the same”, “it was all there”, “nothing other than the Biblical story of The Flood”.

Differences

The claim that “everything was the same” is a far cry from the truth. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a fanciful story involving the actions and jealousies of a group of deities, a monster, a giant and immortality. None of these things are remotely reflective of the Bible’s themes and even its discussions about monsters, giants and eternal life.

The Epic is not about the flood, but concludes with a flood story. The flood story occurs in the 11^th and final clay tablet. The other ten tablets have no connection with the Bible account and so the link to Genesis is made on the basis of a small portion of the story, not some significant section.

The universe that is depicted in the Gilgamesh story includes many gods of capricious nature. The gods rely on eating what man sacrifices to them. A flood to destroy all mankind was planned by the gods, for no good reason. The story asks, “How couldst thou, unreasoning, bring on the deluge?”

One god warned a man to save his life, when the other gods intended for all humanity to be killed.

The boat was a significantly different specification to Noah’s ark and was built by paid tradesmen who were also rescued on the boat. Whereas only Noah and his family were saved in the real flood, the mythical flood story involves wealth and extended family and friends being rescued also.

There is no direct reference to a ‘rainbow of promise’ as claimed in the above comparison. There is no unique, holy God who acted on moral imperative and with righteous authority.

The Gilgamesh boat and survival was an act of defiance, not obedience. The actions of the Gilgamesh gods were capricious and situational, not purposeful and holy. The Gilgamesh gods were angry that a man had used a boat to survive the flood saying, “No man was to survive the destruction!” Yet the Gilgamesh story ends with the boatman and his wife being made immortal and being sent into exile.

The Gilgamesh flood story contains elements which we know from the Bible account, but it is a vastly different scenario in many ways.

Why the Similarities

Rather than the Epic of Gilgamesh being a fanciful idea that fed the development of the account of Noah’s Flood, the reality is that there was a worldwide flood, as described in Genesis. Following that event every culture had opportunity to remember it, and to distort its memory in their own way. That is why there are ancient flood narratives or allusions from around the world.

It is claimed that there are over 500 flood legends around the world, with many striking parallels to the Bible account. The Aztec story names the boat-builder as Nene, while stories from the Near East name him Atra-Hasis, Utnapishtim (in the Gilgamesh story) or Ziusudra. Stories have been documented from Australia, Africa, China, Mexico, Greece, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, USA, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia

The Gilgamesh story did not prompt Moses’ writings, but was merely a distortion of the facts which had been preserved and passed down to Moses, for his inclusion in the Book of Genesis.

However, such an explanation is unpalatable to secular scholars who insist that God does not exist, the global flood did not happen and divine judgement will never take place. They, therefore, see the Bible account as fanciful, right at the outset. They can then readily connect the fanciful Gilgamesh with Genesis, since they cannot discern folly from facts.

Moral Consistency

What is unique about the Genesis account of the global flood is that it is morally consistent with all that the Bible teaches. Forty writers spanning more than a millennium in time and writing in different parts of the world, from different backgrounds to different audiences, in different languages, have their texts included in the Bible. The Genesis account of Noah’s Flood fits perfectly into the history, moral themes, character of God and divine plan which run seamlessly through those 66 books.

The Gilgamesh story is nonsense. It has no moral authority. The deities and personalities described in its tale have no lasting relevance or historical authenticity. It is now assumed that Gilgamesh, himself, was a real king from ancient times. But even that fact is not able to be confirmed.

Historical Accuracy

Compare that to the continued confidence that the man Noah actually existed and the events recorded about him are historically accurate. Jesus Christ, living one and a half millennia after Moses, referred to Noah as a real person, whose historical life was a model for Jesus’ own situation.

The historian Dr Luke, held in high esteem for his historical accuracy with the Book of Acts, confidently identifies Noah (Noe) in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Luke 3:36). There is no similar authority given to the identity of Gilgamesh or any of the other characters identified in the various flood stories from around the world.

The Bible account is the true historical record of a worldwide flood which actually took place, as described in Genesis.

Genesis Challenged

May 24, 2009 by Chris Field Leave a Comment

Christianity faced troubled times at the close of the nineteenth century. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution fed scientific scepticism about the Genesis account of creation by providing what seemed to be a viable alternative. At the same time, clay tablets from the ruins of the ancient city of Nineveh provided alternative accounts of the Flood and Creation, in clearly mythical form, suggesting that the Genesis record was similarly a mere myth.

Foundations Shaken

Creationist Ken Ham points out that Christianity has been distracted with taking pot shots at issues while its detractors have been aiming their weapons at Christianity’s foundations. If the Book of Genesis can be discredited then all that follows in the Bible can be brought into question.

During the nineteenth century (the 1800’s) assault on the Book of Genesis was vigorously pursued by some, based on emerging scientific hypotheses and on archaeological discoveries.

Charles Lyell, who lived from 1797 to 1875, proposed a non-catastrophic view of geography, despite the abundant evidence for upheaval in the geological record. His propositions of uniformity allowed for extended periods of time in the earth’s history. That extension of historical time was required by the proponents of gradual change over time (evolution).

The emerging notion of evolution was given seeming scientific status by Charles Darwin with his 1959 “Origin of Species” with its account of exotic creatures in the mysterious and remote Galapagos Islands. The notions of “survival of the fittest”, “natural selection” and “missing links” created a new scientific myth which had everything but substance and common sense.

Within days of the release of Darwin’s book, Thomas Henry Huxley, eventually dubbing himself “Darwin’s Bulldog“, began vigorously promoting the scientific worth of evolution over the religious notions carried in the Book of Genesis.

Enter Archaeology

As the battle for Genesis gained intensity, a new dimension emerged to give impetus to detractors. A pile of rubble in ancient mounds in the Near East yielded documents which dated back almost 1,000 years before Christ. Included in that rubble were ancient mythologies of events similar to those described in Genesis.

The city of Nineveh was a sprawling metropolis at its height. Successive rulers moved their principal residence to different parts of the city and so several palace buildings were established over time. Add to that the fact that Nineveh housed the world’s greatest library collection of its time, and you have the creation of a treasure trove of antiquity.

The ancient palaces and libraries of Assyria began to be excavated in the 1840’s, leading to the discovery of a vast collection of ancient documents on clay tablets. In 1850 English archaeologist Henry Layard uncovered the palace of the Assyrian King Sennacherib at tell Kouyunjik (one of the three principal palace locations in Nineveh – Kouyunjik, Khorsabad, and Nimrud).

In 1853 Layard’s former assistant, Hormuzd Rassam, found the famous library of the Assyrian King Ashur-bani-pal, in a different part of the Nineveh ruins. 26,000 of the original 100,000 clay tablets survived with decipherable text. Many were taken to the British Museum for translation.

Among those tablets were found Assyrian myths about creation and a fiction story which featured a great flood. When they were finally translated by George Smith he published them under the title “Chaldean Account of Genesis” in 1876 under the auspices of the British Museum of Oriental Antiquities. The very title suggests a direct link between the tablets and Genesis and those discoveries fuelled the accusation that Moses’ Genesis document was a mere evolution of earlier mythological writings. Note that George Smith died that same year, on his way back from his third visit to the ruins of Nineveh.

Assyrian Flood Story

In December 1872 George Smith published his translation of the oldest known literary work in human history. Smith was the first person to read the story in 2,000 years. But the Epic of Gilgamesh was not made famous for its literary worth, but for its reference to a great flood.

George Smith is an interesting character in that he was not a great scholar and came from a working class background. But he was fascinated with antiquities and taught himself to decipher ancient cuneiform inscriptions. He soon became more knowledgeable and skilled in the task than the staff at the British Museum where he pored over antiquities. Consequently Henry Rawlinson, the great Assyriologist of the day, arranged for Smith to be employed in the Assyriology Department to work on translating the thousands of clay tablets from Nineveh.

Smith translated several tablets in the fictional story of a man named Gilgamesh, who travelled the world facing various adventures. He came to a blank in the story, where a missing tablet was needed to continue the adventure. Smith then ventured to Mesopotamia to attack the pile of rubble left by Layard and Rassam, and, against all odds, found the missing tablet.

It told of a great flood, and of a boat and animals. It even mentioned birds being released at the end of the flood. This bore striking resemblance to the Genesis record of Noah’s Flood.

Assyrian Creation Story

Following Smith’s translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh he then came across another set of clay tablets telling a story which led to the creation of man. The series of seven tablets is known as the Enuma Elish.

While some tablets were broken and accurate translation is impossible, the general text of the story has been translated several times by different scholars. It was first titled “The Chaldean Genesis” by Smith. LW King’s 1902 translation was titled “The Seven Tablets of Creation“. EA Speiser’s translation was published in a 1969 book titled “Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament“. It is obvious that scholars readily link the Enuma Elish with the book of Genesis.

Mounting Evidence

When Smith followed his Assyrian Flood translation with the Assyrian Creation story in 1876 there seemed to be growing proof that the Bible was merely another expression of ancient mythological writings.

Combine that with the pseudo-scientific crusading of Huxley and other evolutionists and you can see that Genesis was under solid attack by the end of the 1800’s. That assault has played a large part in the increased secularisation of western society during the twentieth century.

Clay Tablets are No Threat

Despite the perception that the clay tablets from antiquity have demolished the Bible, the truth is quite the opposite. The abiding impact of archaeology at Nineveh is to confirm the first-hand authenticity of the Bible accounts. The clay tablets confirmed details, customs, language and similar details provided in the Bible, which had previously not been corroborated.

Further to that, the seeming case against the Bible crumbled on closer investigation. The Assyrian stories are vastly different to the Bible account and the differences set the Bible apart, rather than put it down.

Ignorance and Assumption

People who are ignorant are prone to making assumptions. This tendency can be exploited by those who wish to deceive or who make suggestions which are misleading.

When the public is told that the Assyrian stories of the flood and creation match the Bible, many people will gullibly assume that the parallels are striking and that the Bible’s authority has been damaged. Few are likely to read the source documents and remove their ignorance.

In a follow up post I will explain some of the glaring contrasts between the Assyrian and Biblical accounts which people have been led to believe are closely related.

George Smith Translates Gilgamesh

March 26, 2009 by Chris Field Leave a Comment

George Smith was born on March 26, 1840, in Chelsea, England. He became a bank note engraver with an interest in archaeology.

Smith was an intelligent and talented young man who was held back by his working-class background. Education was not readily available to him, so he made a point of educating himself. He excelled as an engraver and, with a wife and young family, he spent his lunch hours in the British Museum, teaching himself cuneiform.
Smith’s proficiency with cuneiform soon surpassed the staff at the Museum and thus he came to the attention of Henry Rawlinson, the leading Assyrian scholar of the day. Rawlinson arranged for Smith to be made assistant to the Assyriology department, to work at translations of Babylonian tablets.

So it was in 1872 that he sat in a small room in the British Museum poring over the recently acquired tablets from Assyria.

These tablets were first unearthed near Mosul by Austen Henry Layard and his Iraqi assistant Hormuzd Rassam during an archeological expedition in 1840.

Among the tablets Smith deciphered the famous Epic of Gilgamesh, about an ancient Babylonian folk hero who travelled the world facing new and exciting adventures. This epic story is the oldest-known written work of literature in the world.

Get a Free Church History Post every day by Subscribing at http://chrisfieldblog.com

As George Smith read this difficult cuneiform script he came across the story of Gilgamesh’s meeting with Uta-napishtim, who told him…

But there the epic of Gilgamesh ended. Alas! The last piece of the puzzle was missing. One tablet still lay buried in the mounds of greater Nineveh. The “London Daily Telegraph” offered 1000 guineas to the person who would go and find the missing tablet!

George Smith went, and in Mesopotamia he attacked the pile of rubble left by Layard and Rassam. It was, as one writer says, like looking for a needle in a haystack! (Gods, Graves and Scholars, by C. Ceram, page 274). But he found it!

Not only did it complete Uta-napishtam’s story … it told of a flood … and a boat and animals … and of birds being sent forth when the boat rested on a mountain.

Here was the Babylonian version of Noah’s Ark. There are some real differences from the Biblical account. But it is obvious that both have a common origin.

As Christians we believe this Babylonian version was handed down by word of mouth, being distorted along the way; whereas the Biblical account, vouched for by the Lord Jesus Himself (Matthew 24:37), is an inspired record of what really happened.

Smith made three visits to Mesopotamia, and specifically Assurbanipal’s ancient library at tell Kouyunjik (ancient Nineveh). On his third trip, with the British Museum Professor George Smith fell ill with dysentery and died at Aleppo at the age of 36 on August 19, 1876.

Find hundreds of succinct Church History posts at: http://chrisfieldblog.com/topics/ministry/church-history

This post is based on notes by my late friend Donald Prout. I have updated these historical posts with information gleaned from other sources. I am indebted to Don for awakening in me an interest in Church History. Don’s notes can be found at: www.donaldprout.com

Recent Posts

Tags

Social Icons