Hurowitz 2013 an Underestimated Aspect of Enki-Ea JANER 13

7/23/2019 Hurowitz 2013 an Underestimated Aspect of Enki-Ea JANER 13

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hurowitz-2013-an-underestimated-aspect-of-enki-ea-janer-13 1/8

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15692124-12341242

Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 13 (2013) 3–10

Journal ofAncient Near

EasternReligions

brill.com/jane

An Underestimated Aspect of Enki/Ea

Avigdor Hurowitz†Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheba

[email protected]

Abstract Te god Enki (Sumerian)/Ea (Akkadian) is central to Mesopotamian myth, ritual and scholar-ship but there is still disagreement as to precisely what he is the god of. He governs subterraneanwater, magic, and ‘wisdom’—but what kind of wisdom was it? A traditional argument in Assyri-ology claims that Enki is more trickster than sage; his knowledge has to do with craft and cun-ning, not ethics or rectitude. Tis essay analyzes important neglected associations of Enki withMesopotamian wisdom literature, demonstrating parallels with ideals found in the biblical bookof Proverbs. In these texts Enki is associated with the proper conduct of human life, making himnot just crafty and cunning but wise.

KeywordsEnki/Ea, wisdom, proverbs, trickster

Enki/Ea is one of the most familiar deities in the Mesopotamian pantheon,high in rank and pedigree, and a major player in many myths. Nonetheless,his exact role is still somewhat tricky to determine. According to Ebeling,1 heis “Gott des Süßwasserozeans, der Weisheit, und der Könste.” allqvist, Akka-dische Gütterepitheta 287 defines his functions as including “der Weisheit, der

Kunste, der Magie, u. s. w.” and lists a group of titles depicting him as a godof “Weisheit und Besonnenheit” (prudence, circumspection). Te popularguide of Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of

Ancient Mesopotamia ,2 is slightly more expansive in its basic definition with:“Enki (Akkadian Ea) was god of the subterranean freshwater ocean (abzu),and was associated with wisdom, magic and incantations, and with the artsand crafts of civilisation”.

1 E. Ebeling, s.v. Enki (Ea), RLA 2 374.2 J. Black, A. Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. An Illustrated Dic-

tionary (Austin: University of exas, 1992), 75.



4 A. Hurowitz / Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 13 (2013) 3–10

Tere is no question about Enki’s habitat and domain, and all three author-ities agree about Enki’s wisdom. As a matter of fact, anyone familiar with

Mesopotamian religion will, if asked, immediately say that Enki was a god ofwisdom. It is noteworthy, therefore, that Torkild Jacobsen in his reasures ofDarkness 3 avoids the term “wisdom”. Instead, he equates Enki with “cunning”,and characterizes him as clever, trouble-shooter, manipulator and expert, butnot even once as simply “wise”. Te hesitation to use “wisdom” in depictingEnki’s role is explained by Samuel Noah Kramer and John Maier, co-authorsof a book titled Myths of Enki, Te Crafty (double entendre) God .4 Tey state:“Te second characteristic of Enki is wisdom” (p. 4); but immediately qualifytheir statement, explaining that Enki’s wisdom is not like the wisdom of the

Hebrew Bible. Citing several verses from Proverbs, they comment “Such prac-tical advice, drawing general principles from ordinary experiences of humanbeings, is not to be found in the Enki texts in this book”. Tey do, however,find ground for comparing some aspects of Enki with Wisdom as described inthe apocryphal book “Wisdom of Solomon”. In other words, assyriologicalaversion to “biblifying” Mesopotamian religion, as well as difficulties in defin-ing what constitutes “wisdom”, seem to be behind avoidance of the term onthe one hand, and has inspired attempts to be more precise in defining the roleof the god in question on the other.5 In the most detailed study of Enki thus

far, that of Hannes D. Galter,6 Enki’s role as Weisheitsgott is retained, but theaspects covered by this term include: offering correct advice, tricks and plansin given situations; crafts and professions of all sorts; creator, and determinerof destinies. Any type of practical, ethical or moral wisdom or piety relating toproper daily behavior which is the hallmark of the wisdom of the Book ofProverbs are not mentioned in Galter’s survey or that of any other scholar.

Nonetheless, it seems that these studies have overlooked several texts thatpoint to an additional, albeit minor, role of Enki/Ea—and in particular, thatof patron of the type of “wisdom” characteristic of the biblical Book ofProverbs. Scores of collections of sayings that can be described as proverbs,

3 . Jacobsen, Te reasures of Darkness. A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven andLondon: Yale University, 1976), 110–116.

4 S. N. Kramer, J. Maier, Myths of Enki, the Crafty God (New York, Oxford: Oxford, 1989).5 Kramer’s and Maier’s position is reiterated by Sara Denning-Bolle, Wisdom in Akkadian

Literature. Expression, Instruction, Dialogue , Mededelingen en verhandelingen van het Voorazi-atisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” Memoires de la Société d’Ėtudes Orientales“Ex Oriente Lux” 28 (Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux, 1992) 40–41. For the problems with “wisdom”

in Mesopotamia see, inter alia, Lambert, BWL 1ff. And G. Buccellati, “Wisdom and Not? TeCase of Mesopotamia”, JAOS 101 (1981) 15–47.6 H. D. Galter, Der Gott Ea/Enki in der akkadischenüberlieferung. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des

vorhandenen Materials , Dissertationen der Karl-Franzens Universität Graz 58 (1981) 95–103;idem, s.v. Aya in Dictionary of Deities and Demons , 236–237.



A. Hurowitz / Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 13 (2013) 3–10 5

adages, precepts, instructions, warnings, and admonitions have reached usfrom Mesopotamia and adjacent areas in both Sumerian and Akkadian. Tese

texts have been published in collections such as Wilfred Lambert’s BabylonianWisdom Literature and Bendt Alster’s Proverbs of Ancient Sumer , as well as inseparate scholarly monographs and articles. Although specific parallels withthe Book of Proverbs are few and far between, it can hardly be doubted thatthe type of material is, in literary form, didactic function, and perhaps Sitz imLeben, fully analogous with the material collected in the biblical book.7 Mostof these collections lack introductory sections that would place the body of thetext into some sort of literary, ideological, or theological context. Even so, asmall number of compositions are provided with introductory or concluding

passages revealing what was perceived to be the origin of the mental acumenof the purveyor of the instructions and their source of authority. It is preciselyin these sections where we find references to Enki/Ea, thereby disclosing anadditional aspect of his character and scope of his responsibility.

a. Te first of these texts is a short Sumerian composition “Te Instructionsof Ur-Ninurta”, king of Isin.8 It is perhaps of interest that a rather long tigi -hymn to Enki with a prayer for Ur-Ninurta may indicate a special closeness ofthe god to the king.9 Te introductory section of the “Instructions” resembles

the prologues to historical inscriptions and even law codes, and tells of theking’s selection by Ninurta, or perhaps Enlil. Significantly, the very first titlesof the king are “the one given wisdom by Enki, the one . . . by Nidaba” (5–6).But the body of the text is neither a narrative nor a set of laws but a smallcorpus of moral, ethical principles including (19–29):10

He who knows how to respect religious affairs, who voluntarily [pleases his god], whoperforms the rites, to whom the name of his god is dear,

7 Tis article makes no claim whatsoever that the Mesopotamian compositions discussedhere are in any way connected genetically with any biblical book or that the “wisdom” referredto has been borrowed from one corpus to the other. It is strictly a typological comparison claim-ing only that certain types of wisdom associated with the Biblical book of Proverbs can also befound in Mesopotamian texts associated with Enki/Ea.

8 See B. Alster, “Te Instructions of Ur-Ninurta and Related Compositions”, Orientalia n.s.60 (1991) 141–157; idem in W. W. Hallo, ed. Context of Scriptures , I 570; idem Wisdom of

Ancient Sumer (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 2005), pp. 221–240.9 Ur-Ninurta B; Kramer and Maier, Myths of Enki , 89–92, 235–236; ECSL 2.5.6.2.

10

Tis follows Alster’s 2005 translation. His older translation was:Te man who knows fear of god, . . . he keeps(?) (idle?) swearing away from his house,he walks straight from the cult place, what he gives out(?) is satisfactory.

Days will be added to his days, the name he has will become even greater, after hisdeath the people will be consolidated, a son will be born to him.




who keeps away from swearing, he goes straight to the place of worship— What he has lost will be restored (to him). Days will be added to his days. Years will be plenty in addition to the years he (already) has.

His descendants will experience food health. His heir will pour water libations forhim.

Tis is followed immediately by a similar, opposite, description of the manwho does not fear the gods (30–37). In the margins of Bendt Alster’s transla-tion appearing in W. W. Hallo’s Context of Scripture , this passage is comparedwith Proverbs 10:27:

Te fear of the Lord gives an increase of days,

but the years of the wicked are cut short.

It would be unwarranted and we have no intention to claim that the passagesin Ur-Ninurta’s instructions are somehow genetically related to the verse inProverbs, but one can hardly deny that the texts express exactly the samemoral and religious sentiments in very similar language. If the adage in Prov-erbs can be described as “wisdom” the parallel brief oration of the king of Isindeserves the same characterization. Since the mental faculty that enabledUr-Ninurta to express such an idea is attributed to Enki and Nidaba, we maysafely say that they are responsible for imparting to the king what is typical ofthe book of Proverbs. If the later is “wisdom”, so is the former. Tis faculty isneither cunning nor craftiness, skill nor creative power, the traits generallyattributed to Enki, but piety and moral rectitude.

b. Te second text of interest, and perhaps the most significant, is the Akka-dian “Dialogue between a father and his son Šūpē-amēli”. Tis composition,recently discovered and published, is known in Akkadian manuscripts from

Ugarit and Emar and in a Hittite version from Boğazköy.11

It is a collection of

11 M. Dietrich, G. Keydana, “Der Dialog zwischen Šūpē-amēli und seinem ‘Vater’”, UF 23(1991) 33–74; M. Dietrich, “Babylonian Literary exts from Western Libraries” in J. C. deMoor, W. G. E. Watson ed. Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose , AOA 42 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener, 1993) 41–67 esp. 52–62; S. Seminara, “Le Istrozioni di Šūpê-amēli: Vecchio enuovo a confront nella ‘sapienza’ siriana del ardo Bronzo”, UF . 32 (2000), 487–529. For stud-ies of the text see V. A. Hurowitz, “Te Wisdom of Šūpê-Amēli—A Deathbed Debate Betweena Father and a Son”, in Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel , ed. R. J. Clifford, SBLSymposium Series 36 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2007), pp. 37–51; W. Sallaberger,

“Skepsis gegenüber väterlicher Weisheit: Zum altbabylonischen Dialog zwischen Vater undSohn”, Your Praise is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from Students, Colleagues andFriends , ed. H. D. Baker, E. Robson, G. Zólyomi, (London: British Institute for the Study ofIraq 2010) pp. 303–317.




instructions and precepts provided with an introductory passage telling of thecircumstances under which the instructions were uttered, and a concluding

passage in which Šūpē-amēli answers his father. In the opening passage weread:

Hear the (following) advice, Šūpē-amēli Whose ear (the wise) Enlil-banda has opened,Te (following) wise advice, Šūpē-amēlio whom Enlil-banda has granted understanding.

Enlil-banda, as is well known, is a name for Ea. Jacobsen renders this title

“Junior Enlil”, while Galter adduces suggestions that it means either “littleEnlil”, “Second Enlil”, or “like Enlil”,12 but Edzard has proposed that it means“Enlil of Prudence, insight, and sharp-sightedness”.13 Tis god is said here togrant wisdom and understanding to Šūpē-amēli who is the audience of theinstructions about to be proffered by his father. Again, if we examine types ofinstructions in practical as well as ethical matters we find similarities with thebook of Proverbs and other examples of biblical wisdom literature. Several ofthe instructions start with the vocative “my son”. Among the instructions wefind advice concerning the value of companionship (cf. Ecclesiastes 4:9–12);

discretion in speech; warning not to join the wicked to commit a theft (cf.Proverbs 1:5–19); advice about women; and advice on practical matters ofbusiness. Te critique of worldly accomplishments in this dialogue resemblesthat in Ecclesiastes. Again, all these topics can be found in the Book of Prov-erbs and Ecclesiastes, and by analogy may be considered wisdom. In otherwords, Enlil-banda/Ea has granted Šūpē-amēli the mental faculty whichenables him to grasp instruction of the type found in the Book of Proverbsand the critique voiced by Qohelet. Again, if the one can be called wisdom, somay the other.

c. Te third text of interest is the so-called “Counsels of Wisdom”, a collec-tion or instructions known in Akkadian (BWL 96–107, 311–315, 345–346;UA III/1 163–168). Te beginning of this text has been lost and attemptsto identify one have not been convincing. What has not been noticed, how-ever, is that there seems to be a concluding passage which has not been givenproper attention.

Te tablet containing the last eleven lines of the text (K. 10652 = BWL p. 106 ll. 156–166; pl. 29) is only partially preserved, so any interpretation of

12 H. Galter, Der Gott Ea/Enki , 26 n. 33.13 D. O. Edzard, ZA 55 (1962) 98; allqvist, Akkadische Gotterepitheta 287; PSD B 83.




the final section will be highly conjectural, yet there are certain things whichare clear. Te last four lines are translated by Lambert (supplemented follow-

ing Von Soden) as follows:

. . .] to create trust and then to abandon,o the poor] not to give is an abomination to Marduk,[And dIšme-k]arābu son of Enlil-banda.[. . . a praye]r to Ea, he will pray and will [prosper]

Te last line refers to a prayer to Ea and a resultant blessing. It can be com-pared with the doxology to Nidaba concluding the Instructions of Shurup-

pak. Since a prayer or blessing at the end of a composition can be expected tobe on behalf of the person for whom the text was written, we may assume thatEa’s blessing is for the “son” to whom the “Counsels” are addressed and whois referred to in line 81. If so, Ea is again the patron god of the person receptiveto the main instructions of the text.

Te next to last line mentions a certain [dIšme-k]ārabu son of dEnlil-banda.Enlil-banda, as we have already noted, is Ea, and it is perhaps of significancethat this is the name by which he was referred to in the introduction to the“Dialogue between Šūpē-amēli and his Father”. In any case his son [dIšme-k]

arābu is a little known deity from the circle of Šamaš,14

and since he is Ea’s sonhere, he could be Šamaš himself, brother of Marduk who is mentioned in theprevious line. It is of course most unusual to refer to Šamaš by this name, butit may also be asked why did the author choose to designate this god as the sonof his father. Te natural explanation for this peculiarity will be that the textwants to emphasize Ea, who is mentioned explicitly in the very next line as thebenefactor of the “son”. aking the two passages together we find that theauthor wants to end his text with a double reference to Ea, first in the finaladmonition, where he is called Enlil-banda, and again in the concluding

prayer. As in the case of the previous two works, here too, the content resembles

the book of Proverbs in its scope of interests. Many specific parallels of con-tent have been pointed out already by Robert H. Pfeiffer in his translation in

ANE 1,2 , pp. 426–427. In line 81 the audience is addressed “my son” as iscustomary in Proverbs. Te text combines instructions about practical mattersand of special interest is the combination of such matters with about piety andproper disposition towards the gods. Lines 146:

He who fears the gods is not slighted by [. . .]He who fears the Anunnaki extends [his days]

14 See W. Lambert, s.v. Išme-karāb, RLA 5 p. 196; W. von Soden in UA III/1 164.




can be compared with Proverbs 14:27 ' מקור חיים , “the fear of the Lordיר תis a source of life.”

We read about avoiding disputes, behavior towards woman, kindnesstowards adversaries, leading a pious life of worshiping the gods, and so on.Once again Ea is associated with a composition comparable in all aspects withthe Book of Proverbs and may be said, therefore, to be related to the same typeof wisdom found in Proverbs.

d. We conclude with the well-known Instructions of Shuruppak. Tis com-position exists in an Early Dynastic (ED III) version from Abu-Salabikh, asomewhat younger version from Adab, a “classical” old-Babylonian version,

and a fragmentary Akkadian version (BWL 92–95). It was most recently re-edited by Bendt Alster.15 Similarities of content and form between this workand the Book of Proverbs have been noted by several scholars, includingRaphael Kutscher and Moshe Weinfeld.16

In this text Enki/Ea is nowhere mentioned, so it would seem to be of noconcern for us. As a matter of fact, the composition concludes with a doxologyin praise of Nidaba, goddess of scribes and scribal art.

Nonetheless, it is difficult to elude the feeling of Enki’s presence lurkingnearby. We should recall that in the “Instructions of Ur-Ninurta” Enki is

mentioned alongside Nidaba, and in the bilingual composition “In Praise ofthe Scribal Art” the main god is Ammanki, who is Enki, and he has replacedNidaba as the patron of scribal art.17 In the hymn to Nidaba, Nin-mul-an-gim, Enki is the ultimate source of Nidaba’s powers. So where we find Nidaba,Enki is not far away.

According to the Sumerian King List and the Eridu Genesis the Floodcame at the time Shuruppak was the city of kingship, and brought to an enda golden age which began when kingship was first lowered from heaven to besituated in Eridu, Nudimmud/Enki’s city. In later tradition this is the primor-dial period in which seven apkallus, creatures of Enki formed in the Apsu,dominated the world as advisors to the kings in seven different cities. Berossusreports that Xisouthros was commanded by Cronos, who is Ea, to hide in the

15 Wisdom of Ancient Sumer , pp. 31–220. For previous treatments see R. D. Biggs, Inscriptions from ell Abū Şalābīkh, OIP 99, (Chicago: Te Oriental Institute, 1974); B. Alster, Te Instruc-tions of Šuruppak. A Sumerian Proverb Collection, Mesopotamia 2 (Copenhagen, 1974);C. Wilcke, “Philologische Bemerkungen zum Rat des Šuruppag und versuch einer neuenüber-setzung”, ZA 68 (1978) 202–232.

16

R. Kutscher, Review of B. Alster, Te Instructions of Shuruppak , (In Hebrew) Shnaton 4(1980) 308–313; M. Weinfeld, “Teology and Wisdom in the Mesopotamian radition of theTird Millennium and its Relationship to the Bible”, (in Hebrew) Shnaton 4 (1980) 285–287.

17 See H. Galter, Der Gott Ea/Enki , 99; V. Hurowitz, “Literary Observations on ‘In Praise ofthe Scribal Art’ ”, JANES 27 (2000), pp. 49–56.




earth at Sippar for preservation “the beginnings, middles, and ends of allwritings”, indicating that the stored up wisdom of this period was of particu-

lar importance and Enki was interested in preserving it. Te survivor of theFlood is thus a survivor of a period in which Enki played a founding role andcontinued to dominate. Te instructions Shuruppak imparts to his sonZiusudra may be considered the distillation of the wisdom of this period, anage of Enki.

Moreover, we cannot escape recalling the fact that in the Old-Babylonianand Akkadian versions of the text the recipient of the instruction is, respec-tively, Ziusudra and Utnapishtim, the well-known survivors of the Flood. It isof particular significance that Ea’s decision to “leak” to a human the secret

plans of the gods and thereby save mankind is related to more than his generalconcern for humanity whom he was a partner in creating. As a matter of fact,the selection of Ziusudra from among all other men is directly the result of hisbeing Ea’s favorite. Te particular closeness of Ea to the survivor of the floodis certainly reflected in the name of the third Flood survivor, Atra-hasis,“exceedingly wise”. o be sure, his wisdom can only be a gift of Ea.

If the wisdom granted Atra-hasis by Ea is what, behind the scenes of litera-ture, enables Ziusudra/Utnapishtim to receive the instructions of his fatherShuruppak, again we find Ea involved in a Mesopotamian equivalent of the

biblical Book of Proverbs. In any case, introduction of Ziusudra/Utnapishtiminto the Instructions of Shuruppak silently lets in Ea/Enki as well.

Conclusion

Te relevance of the Instructions of Shuruppak to our discussion may, admit-tedly, be questionable because of the time when Ziusudra entered the text andbecause even then Enki is not mentioned specifically.18 Even so, the other

compositions speak with a single voice, indicating that Enki/Ea is involvedwith precisely the type of literary material contained in the biblical book ofProverbs and Ecclesiastes. If so, whatever type of wisdom typifies the biblicalbook characterizes the Mesopotamian god of the sweet waters as well. Enki isnot only crafty, but wise.

18 I have suggested elsewhere that Ea is the prominent deity in “Advice to A Prince” (the“Fürstenspiegel”) and may even be considered its author. See V. Hurowitz, “ ‘Advice to aPrince’—A Message From Ea”, SAAB 12 (1998), pp. 39–53. However, this composition is rele-

vant to the present paper only to the extent that “Advice to a Prince” can be considered analo-gous in content, form, Sitz im Leben, etc. to the Book of Proverbs. Although this text is includedin BWL and even UA III/1 (Weisheitsliterature), scholarly opinion relates it more to thegenre of omens than to wisdom literature.

Hurowitz 2013 an Underestimated Aspect of Enki-Ea JANER 13

Documents

Transcript of Hurowitz 2013 an Underestimated Aspect of Enki-Ea JANER 13