لخّصلي

The Assyrian Recension of Enüma Eliš WILFRED GEORGE LAMBERT Birmingham Heinrich Zimmern first drew attention to the existence of an Assyrian recension of Enuma Elis in 1917, a form of the text in which the hero Marduk, god of Babylon, was replaced by Ashur, state god of Assyria Ebeling's publication of KAR 117 and 118 (judged by the present writer to be two parts of sone tablet) in the year 1917 provided the evidence. This just published copy of Tablet I of the text at the point in the story where the birth of Marduk was described uses the signs AN.ŠÁR in place of the Ename Marduk. This pair of signs was known to have served as a sophisticated writing of the name Ashur in Late Assyrian texts. Thus an Assyrian editor had boldly replaced the Babylonian Marduk with the Assyrian Ashur. Zimmern's observation has been accepted by all later scholars concerned with the matter, and it has been further suggested that this pro-Assyrian revision was provoked by Sennacherib's religious reforms, when he destroyed the city of Babylon, carried away the holy statue of the god Mar Edik, so preventing the occurrence of the annual Akitu festival in which Marduk was re-affirmed as king of the gods. Sennacherib also restarted an Assyrian Akitu rite, in which Ashur took part in rites similar to those of the Babylonian Akitu house. However, despite the vast increase in MS evidence for Enüma Elis since 1917 there has been no further study of this phenomenon, a lack which the present contribu on aims to supply. Of the surviving copies of this text, the earliest are a few fragments from Assur, undated, but prob ably to be put about 900 B.C. The largest quantity of copies are Late Assyrian, dating to c, 700-612 B.C. A lesser quantity of Late Babylonian copies survive, to be dated c. 600-250 B.C. Only the Late Assyrian copies attest the Assyrian recension, and only those from Assur and Nineveh. The two frag ments from Nimrud are too small to supply any evidence, and though the Sultantepe copies cover the passages where the name Marduk could have been altered to Ashur they conspicuously fail to show any sign of this revision. However, among the copies from Assur and Nineveh only very few offer the recen sion under study, namely two from Assur and one from Nineveh. The following are the passages, under the lines of the Tablets of the series, with the standard reading first, followed by that of the Assyrian recension

Thus the process of writing the name 'Ashur' by the signs an.šár resulted, in this text, in Ashur be identified with his own great-grandfather. Thus Marduk's parents Ea and Damkina are replaced Lahrau and Lahamu The replacement of Anu by Lahmu can be justified in that Anu and Ansar identified in some traditions, though emphatically not in Enuma Eliš. Thus conclusions can be draw without delay. This is an ill-conceived attempt to put Ashur in place of Marduk by using the writing ansár for Ashur's name. Further, this very amateurish revision is little attested in Late Assyrian copies of Enuma Elis, and in one of the three tablets concerned is incompletely done. It may be suspected that Sennacherib's anti-Babylonian policies spurred this literary activity, but its imperfections make one won der whether flattering courtiers assured the king without bothering to make sure that all new copies were fully and correctly changed. Not one of the three copies concerned has a colophon preserved. K 3445 has the shape and scribal hand of a Late Assyrian letter tablet, but that does not provide any informa tion on its precise origin. Outside the text of the myth, the commentaries do quote lines with matter needing alteration to conform to the Assyrian recension, but so far as preserved Late Assyrian copies are free from any changes of this sort. There is, however, a Late Assyrian letter, ABL 1336 S. Parpola, LAS 288, which quotes Tablet IV 17 with Anšar in place of Bel anšár ša tak-lu-ka [napištašu gi-mi]l-ma (collated) Anšar, spare [the life] of him who trusts in you

Parpola dates this letter to the reign of Esarhaddon (AOAT 5/2 p. 285), which, if correct, would in dicate that some Assyrian scholars continued to support this revised text after Sennacherib's death. Scribal antecedents to the revision can be found. The replacement of one divine name by another is well known in prayers, for example in the penitential psalm in the Nineveh copy the worshipper asks to be taken care of by Marduk: šu-ri-ba-an-ni-ma a-na é-sag-íl é-kál iläni bit balati(tila) a-na marduk re-me-ni-i a-na damigtim(sigstim a-na qāte" damgati(sigsmes pig-dan-ni IV R2 59 no. 2 rev. 25-26 Send me in to Esagil, palace of the gods, temple of life, entrust me to merciful Marduk for favour, to kind hands. In the Assur copy of this prayer, LKA 29k rev. 23-24, another temple is named: .. é]-šár-ra é-kál ilani bit ba-lá-ti .sigsi u gate" damgati(sigs)mes pig-dan-ni While Ešarra could allude to cither Enlil's or Ashur's temple, the latter is more probable in this case, and-no doubt 'Ashur should be restored in the second line of the couplet. Further, the very ineptitude of the writing anšár for Enüma Eliš, where it raises a conflict with a different Anšar already in the text presumes that it was current in Assyria as a writing for the state god's name. This is confirmed in that it occurs in the royal inscriptions of Sargon II, but not, according to H. Tadmor in JCS 12 (1958) 82 n 231, earlier. Thus what we have of the Assyrian recension of Enuma Elis is of interest for Sennacherib's reforms, but of no consequence for study of the myth. A question is raised, however, by the theological text in Late Assyrian dialect referring to tribulations of Marduk and generally, and no doubt rightly, considered a product of the period of Sennacherib's reign. It is known in two recensions, one from Assur, the other

from Nineveh, recently edited by A. Livingstone in SAA III pp. 82–91, from which we quote. It pro ses to quote from Enuma Eliš, and this can only be (one would suppose) the text Enuma Eliš known o us since there is specific allusion to its being recited to Marduk in the month Nisan: e-nu-ma e-liš ša da-bi-ib-u-ni ina pan/mahar bel ina itinisanni (bára) i-za-mur-ú-šú-ni ina muhhi ša sa-bit-u-ni [šu-ú] P. 84 34 Enuma Eliš, as it is called, which they chant in the presence of Bel in the month Nisan, refers to his imprisonment. There is one alleged quotation from the myth, fully preserved in the Assur copy, almost completely restored in the Nineveh copy. The former only is given here: šu-ú ina libbi e-nu-ma e-lis ig-ti-bi ki-i šamê ersetimtim la ib-ba-nu-ni anšár it-tab-si] ki-i alu u bitu ib-šu-u-ni šu-ú it-tab-si It is said in Enuma Elis p. 85 54-55 When heaven and earth were not yet created, Ashur had [come into beingl, When city and temple came into being, Ashur had come into being, 2 The fact is that in our text of Enüma Eliš these lines do not occur, indeed they never could have oc Fcurred. The opening section of our Enüma Eliš begins at the time when heaven and earth did not exist, but at that time Apsû and Tiämat, not Anšar, existed. Thus the words cited cannot even be considered a free paraphrase of our text. Similarly the second line agrees neither verbally nor conceptually with our text. Two possible conclusions exist. Either there was another text, composed at Sennacherib's bidding presumably, beginning enûma eliš and containing this couplet, centering on the god Ashur, or there was no such text and the quotation is bogus. If there was a complete, original Enuma Eliš composed in As syria to support Sennacherib's reforms, then so far no single fragment has been found which might be as signed to it. This is not a fatal objection to the idea, since such a text might have been considered hereti cal and blasphemous on the part of many, and so have enjoyed limited circulation. The idea of quota Stions from a non-existant text is also not to be rejected out of hand. This document in which the pro fessed quotation from Enuma Eliš is made was most likely composed as part of Sennacherib's religious reforms, and no doubt scribes were instructed what was needed. Since Ashur was meant to be replacing

Marduk, the king might easily grasp that an Assyrian version of Enuma Eliš was needed to explain how Ashur had risen to be king of the gods, which is what Enüma Eliš explained about Marduk. But to per ceive the need was not the same as having the finished new composition. Scribes might have hesitated and wondered whether the old text could not be suitably altered. The conclusion then has to be that there were attempts to revise the only one genuine Enuma Eliš to put Ashur in the place of Marduk, attempts that were doomed to failure because use of the signs an.šár tor Ashur put the whole plot of the myth in confusion. It is possible that a completely different myth, Esimilar only in the opening phrase and in having a plot meant to do for Ashur what Enuma Elis does for Marduk, was composed to suit Sennacherib's religious ideology, but proof of this is so far lacking. Note the Acsvrian nhiunctive suffix -mi in both lines, evidence that the lines were developed in Assvria.