Vernon Jenkins and Paul Seely recently exchanged
views on this listserv concerning the relation
between Genesis 1 and the Enuma elish with the
central issue being whether there could have
been many versions of Genesis 1. To me, this exchange
pointed to a metaphor that I have been curious about,
that of
--0__=SepeR3icbR0uEwavll2gkpegtFNAlxG4xo4HtZGmm9w87Be5fGZLlW40
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
?Genesis 1 as archaeological artifact?.
One of the concerns in the exchange was the possibility
that Genesis 1 was revealed to Adam, then routinized by
his descendants (that included Noah and Abram). Seely
argued against this possibility: If Genesis 1 was
carried by the children of Noah as they established
cities and nations (Gen 10), then the Creation Story
motif of the ?division of waters? should show up in
ancient origin myths other than the Enuma elish.
It does not.
But does that argument necessarily rest the case?
What follows is an alternative pathway, which I
present in order to get some feedback in order
to clarify my thoughts:
What would have been the social trajectory of Genesis 1
if it had been revealed to an ancestor of Noah?
Taking Dick Fischer (and the archaeologist Mallowan)
at face value, we can consider Noah and Zuisudra of
Sumerian myth to be the same character, say ?Noah?.
?Noah? was a Sumerian elite (priest or king) who
managed to survive a catastrophic local flood.
?Noah? also belonged to the family of Adam. Each
of these roles has implications.
First, ?Noah? as elite implies that part of Adam?s
lineage was incorporated into what ultimately turned
out to be Sumerian elite society. This is coherent
with the style of the Genesis genealogies (similar
to the Sumerian king?s list); the sons of God marrying
the daughters of men (Gen 6); intermarriage with war
heroes (Gen 6); the mention that men began to call
on the name of the Lord with the birth of Seth (Gen 4);
and the founding of a city by Cain (the city, we might
imagine, that was first to call upon the service of
Adam?s family).
If this incorporation was so, then syncretism with
elite traditions from other Sumerian cities would
explain why the Enuma Elish parallels the Creation
Story (and visa versa) and is one of a larger set of
Sumerian origin stories. Adam?s lineage did not
prevail over other elite families. Syncretism was
fueled by the failure of any particular family to
dominate Sumerian elite society. The syncretism
observed in Sumerian origin myths suggests that
"Noah? and is family held public duties
(perhaps performing or supporting Sumerian
priestly or royal duties) while privately practicing
a familial Adamic tradition.
?Noah?, then, was a complicated character. When
he survived ? with the help of the divine - a
catastrophic local flood, word spread to other
locales. His children received invitations to
rule and wed rulers. Thus ?Noah?s? children
?established nations?, had the resources to become
?mighty hunters?, ?founded cities? (Gen 10) and
eventually spoke different languages.
The children of ?Noah?, despite their success,
continued to adhere to different public societal
and private familial traditions. This idea is
coherent with the fairly uncomplimentary mythic
portrayal of Noah and his kin in the post-flood
stories. That type of dirty laundry typically
remains in-house.
The family tradition included rites and legends.
The ritual aspect is coherent with the P style and
the legend aspect with the J and E styles.
Abram, who lived in the twilight of Sumerian civilization,
was also a founder. As with all foundings, some
aspects of the prior tradition were lost and some
kept. The public roles and responsibilities had
already been lost when Terah fled Ur. In addition,
the calling of Abram involved a repudiation of
those public roles. This coheres with the tone
of the Tower of Babel story. Here, Abram could
have been chastising his own family and the dying
bureaucracy that they were enmeshed in. Other
than Abram?s second founding, the entire Adamic
family tradition either sank with the Titanic
of Ur III (or whatever last gasp of Sumerian
power one chooses) or was enculturated into a
post-Sumerian civilization.
Abram rejected parts of his own great family tradition
and jettisoned any association with Sumerian cult.
This rejection is coherent with the change in
clarity going from Gen 11 to 12. Abram?s story
is vivid and clear compared to Noah?s or even Terah?s.
The rejection is also consistent with the observation
that there is no mention of the elite status of any
Biblical characters prior to Abram. We can imagine
that Abram performed the same type of editing as the
hypothesized ?redactors? of the Pentateuch.
If we posit that the Adamic lineage that led to
Abram involved public elites that practiced a private
family tradition, then we can aesthetically account
for ?Genesis 1 as an archaeological artifact?; the J
and E styles of the Genesis legends; the P style of
the Genesis ritual text; the apparent elite status
of ?Noah? implied by the Sumerian flood myth; the
creation of nations through Noah?s descendants in
Gen 10; the similarity between the Enuma elish and
Genesis 1; the derivative syncretic nature of the
Enuma elish; the lack of widespread ?waters from
waters? ancient origin stories, and other observations.
The scenario depicted above is necessarily
aesthetic and speculative and, to me, raises some
interesting questions. It was manufactured to
cohere with as many concepts as possible, and I
was wondering whether it might be plausible ?
or ? is there some fatal flaw?
Ray
=
--0__=SepeR3icbR0uEwavll2gkpegtFNAlxG4xo4HtZGmm9w87Be5fGZLlW40--