“Inuma ilu awilu,” When gods [were] men. (translation, genesis, mythology)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gods were reported to having been born in caves, to have taken their meals along with humans, to have made love to human women, to have behaved in the worst possible way (by introducing slavery, racism and ethnic/racial cleansing) and to have died and been buried.
However, at about 20,000 BCE, the rumor went around that the gods ascended to the heavens and since then they are considered by everybody (with the exception of Euhemerus) either as some sort of immaterial beings or products of the imagination.
Unfortunately, scholars and translators who are aware of the ancient texts describing the gods as common human beings, suffer from the same preconceptions as the uninformed layman; thus, when they encounter the ancient scribe reporting in plain language that gods were initially men, they do their best to persuade themselves that the scribe did not write what they are reading.
Following is an excerpt from a book by Esther J. Hamori, entitled “When Gods were Men” (pg 138).
The Akkadian myth of Atrahasis opens with the words “When gods were men” (Inuma ilu awilum). This phrase has been analyzed and translated in numerous ways, but the essential meaning is clear from the context. The text goes on to describe how the lower gods (the Igigi) were initially required to do the labour necessary on earth, and then rebelled against the higher gods (the Anunnaki), eventually instigating the creation of humanity as a work force. In other words the term “man” in the opening phrase defines a role, a function in the universe, rather than a separate species; when gods served that function, they too “were men.” For this reason the term “awilum,” literally “man”(sg), is perhaps best rendered in English as “men” (pl). Lambert and Millard translate “When the gods like men” or “When the gods like man” understanding awilum as ending with the locative –um with the same meaning as the comparative –is. They note that this would be the first example of the comparative –um. This grammatical analysis of the phrase renders the same meaning as discussed above, only through a simile, rather than a metaphor. As Foster observes, “The line is a metaphor… meaning “When gods were (like) men (in that they had to work).” Later in the myth, the terms are used in their more common sense, as when Ea prepares to create humanity and says “Let man bear the load of the gods.”
Common sense demands to translate Inuma ilu awilum as “When gods were human”; justifying thus the word awilum being in the singular.
To claim that the expression is a metaphor because… gods were like men in that they had to work, the work they were doing should have been a god’s work:
(5) The seven(?) great Anunna-gods were burdening The Igigi-gods with forced labor. [The gods] were digging watercourses, [Canals they opened, the] life of the land. [The Igigi-gods] were digging watercourses, [Canals they opened, the] life of the land. (25) [The Igigi-gods dug the Ti]gris river, [And the Euphrates thereafter. [Springs they opened up from] the depths, [Wells ... ] they established. [They heaped up] all the mountains.
So it seems, that it was gods’ work they were doing, but the fact that the men who took over did the same work with the same tools indicates that the heaping up of the mountains is just a poetic exaggeration.
When the Igigi gods rebelled they destroyed their tools:
They set fire to their tools, (65) They put fire to their spaces(spades), And flame to their workbaskets.2
Gloss No. 2 reads:In effect, the first work stoppage in world history, or at least in world literature.
A story about gods is world history but yet he (Foster) refuses to acknowledge that gods were actually men.
(a) Ea made ready to speak, And said to the gods [his brothers]: "What calumny do we lay to their charge? Their forced labor was heavy, [their misery too much]! (e) Every day [ ] The outcry [was loud, we could hear the clamor]. There is [ ] "[Belet-ili, the midwife], is present, (190) Let the midwife create a human being, Let man assume the drudgery of god." They summoned and asked the goddess, The midwife of the gods, wise Mami: "Will you be the birth goddess, creatress of mankind? (195) Create a human being that he bear the yoke, Let him bear the yoke, the task of Enlil, Let man assume the drudgery of god."(COS, pg I:450-1)
Man can and did the work of god and, of course, the above also serves as evidence that the gods created mankind to be their slaves (who eventually rebelled as the Igigi did... but that is another story).
The usual renderings of “inuma ilu awilu”, apart from the literal one: When gods [were] men, are: When the gods instead of man, When the gods, like man, When gods instead of humans
It is to be noted that the phrase in questionwas used as the title of the epic in antiquity and it occurs as a colophon at the end of each tablet. It is also found in Akkadian catalogues and it is thus a well known phrase.
Scholars dare not ask “What if the scribe was correct and gods were actually men?” because they will end up with a story that will completely ridicule the idea of God, and that they cannot bring themselves to do.
Scholars dare not ask “What if the scribe was correct and gods were actually men?” because they will end up with a story that will completely ridicule the idea of God, and that they cannot bring themselves to do.
As I suspected you would do (and predicted in the other thread - gee, what a surprise that I would know exactly what your point would be!), you take the opening lines of Atrahasis as literal, not being aware of the form of traditional opening phrases in Akkadian epics, the use of metaphor and simile, and your desire to approach a text with a biased wishful thinking that suits your purpose. Scholars "dare" not ask your question because it is no longer a "question", and that would entirely ignore the content of the story, and of the content of the two Sumerian stories (Enki and Ninmah, and the Sumerian Flood Story) that the Akkadian scribe Nur-Aya combined to form his new epic: Atrahasis.
There are several myths concerning Enki and the creation of humans, but it is in the following that the motif of humans from clay is found, and the Slavery Motif.
In Enki and Ninmah, humans were created to be the slaves of the gods (that position being previously filled by lesser gods). This was used in Atrahasis for the same purpose: the lesser gods rebel against the high gods and a decision is made to create humans to take their place. The creation of humans is distinctly different from the creation of the gods, and there is no possibility of misreading them as being gods. Later, their humanity is confirmed even more after the events that led up to the Flood, in which humans are given innate mortality (among other things) to keep their rising numbers in check.
When the opening line of Atrahasis says "When the gods were human" it is referring to a time when the lesser gods performed the tasks of humans. It is pretty simple, and not meant literally. Of course - one must be familiar with the entire story, and it's predecessors, (or just simple reading comprehension) to realize this - but this doesn't mean that just because a few people are determined to read a typical opening line (when these conditions were/were not) as literal, that this isn't so.
Dtango, I suggest you read the stories (all three) the whole way through to get a better sense of what gave rise to this opening line in Atrahasis. I cannot remember how badly COS edits the stories (they do edit them), but it's essential that you read all three. Notice that the concept is conspicuously absent from Enki and Ninmah, or any other story involving Enki and the creation of humanity.
As I suspected you would do (and predicted in the other thread - gee, what a surprise that I would know exactly what your point would be!), you take the opening lines of Atrahasis as literal, not being aware of the form of traditional opening phrases in Akkadian epics, the use of metaphor and simile, and your desire to approach a text with a biased wishful thinking that suits your purpose. Scholars "dare" not ask your question because it is no longer a "question", and that would entirely ignore the content of the story, and of the content of the two Sumerian stories (Enki and Ninmah, and the Sumerian Flood Story) that the Akkadian scribe Nur-Aya combined to form his new epic: Atrahasis.
My dear friend, you are an artist in your craft of twisting data to have them suit your beliefs or preferences.
Let us listen to what Speiser had to say:
The name Atrahasis (Old Babylonian Atramhasis), i.e “Exceeding wise,” is associated with more than one hero of the epic literature of Mesopotamia. The Epic of Gilgamesh applies it to Utnapishtim, the hero of the Flood. The poems of Etana and Adapa make use of the same epithet. More specifically, however, the name is associated with a large epic cycle dealing with man’s sins and his subsequent punishment through plagues and the deluge. This cycle, which thus provides a parallel to the biblical motivation for the Flood, bore originally the name Enuma ilu awelum ”When God, Man...” Today it is commonly known as the Atrahasis Epic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
The creation of humans is distinctly different from the creation of the gods, and there is no possibility of misreading them as being gods.
Line 12 At that time, the one of immense wisdom, the creator of all the senior gods, Enki,…
line 17 Nammu,the primeval mother, the bearer (birthgiver) of the senior gods,
The parents of pure gods were both gods (Enki and spouse)
The parents of the gods who were found to be gods by means of the procedure of the judgment were mixed, god and Mother-womb, or primeval mother, or mother earth, or simply a woman bearing the title of “Mother of gods” (Virgin Mary).
Pure gods were, of course, created differently. Pure gods were no hybrids as human and second generation gods (Jesus) were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Dtango, I suggest you read the stories (all three) the whole way through to get a better sense of what gave rise to this opening line in Atrahasis. I cannot remember how badly COS edits the stories (they do edit them), but it's essential that you read all three. Notice that the concept is conspicuously absent from Enki and Ninmah, or any other story involving Enki and the creation of humanity.
I suggest that we read and analyze all relevant texts here, in this board, without loosing our temper.
I have no time right now but I’ll come back soon with notes on some verses from “Enki and Ninmah.”
My dear friend, you are an artist in your craft of twisting data to have them suit your beliefs or preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
I suggest that we read and analyze all relevant texts here, in this board, without loosing our temper.
You seem to be in the habit of repeating one's words back to them still ("No, no! YOU are the twister!") Yes, you should read all 3 texts. Once your idea of "relevant" reaches beyond to disparate and unrelated texts, however, then we are wasting our time.
As for "losing our temper" - don't include me in that phrase. Writing forcefully does not denote anger, even though you keep insisting I am angry. Perhaps I need to include some more "foul language", again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Let us listen to what Speiser had to say:
That's fine, as long as you understand that Atrahasis was much less undestood before the publication of it's editio princeps in 1969, and further discoveries have helped flesh out the fragmentary nature of the story. On a side-note, Speiser is one of my favorite older scholars. There is much to disagree with in his translations, but he is always a good read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
The parents of pure gods were both gods (Enki and spouse)
The parents of the gods who were found to be gods by means of the procedure of the judgment were mixed, god and Mother-womb, or primeval mother, or mother earth, or simply a woman bearing the title of “Mother of gods” (Virgin Mary).
Pure gods were, of course, created differently. Pure gods were no hybrids as human and second generation gods (Jesus) were.
I don't find anything in these 3 texts that support these views, nor do I find them being held as a common belief among Sumerian and Akkadian scribes en masse - so it appears we cannot rely on them as interpretive tools at the moment. I'll be honest with you, Dtango - I'm not interested in the slightest in applying mono-myth ideas to this story. If you've gathered these notions from somewhere else, but cannot demonstrate dependence, then they are not helpful. There were five Creation stories involving Enki as Creator in Sumer and they all had different notions of Creation, for example. If one tried to apply your above assertions to these 5 separate stories, it wouldn't work. That should be evidence enough that they were not a commonly held belief of divinity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
I have no time right now but I’ll come back soon with notes on some verses from “Enki and Ninmah.”
Don't just pick and choose verses that suit your purpose - read the entire story and study it for what it is. Do the same for the other two. Context will always trump a reading based on just one or two lines.
As for the opening line, as I briefly alluded to before, it seems to follow the standard syntactic structure of most Mesopotamian Cosmologies (also found in the Hebrew Bible, as well - Gen. 6:1-4 should be a good example that you might like): a) temporal clause, b) parenthetical statement leading up to c) the narrative statement. The opening line of Atrahasis has been debated, however, and one will find various translations of it. Nowhere in the debate, however, is there a hint that the line alludes to certain gods having been human literally. Introductory sentences are just that - introductions. They set the stage, they help place the reader in the proper time period the writer is alluding to.
It's also important to realize that the opening line is not just those 3 words used in the thread title.
From our other conversations, where you assume that scholars never delve outside of the Bible for their understanding of it - you've finally latched onto a story (Atrahasis) that probably had a great influence on how the Yahwist formed Genesis 2-11 (and which has not escaped the notice of Biblical Scholars, of course). Many elements in the latter can be found in the former, as well as in the story of Adapa. The Sumero-Akkadian scribal tradition reached far and wide at certain times, and it's highly likely that many of the same stories and practices reached the Yahwist or some of the previous writers that eventually contributed to the "J Source" of the Hebrew Bible.
Scholars dare not ask “What if the scribe was correct and gods were actually men?” because they will end up with a story that will completely ridicule the idea of God
I have no idea why he thinks that.
Anyway they were no exactly 'men'.
They were kings.
Dtango apparantly thinks all scholars of the Ancient Near East have some sort of agenda, a conspiracy(!), to defend the Biblical god - simply because they do not agree with Dtango's personal views, as a layman taking his inspiration from Joseph Campbell. He is apparantly not aware of how secular the field has become, despite having this pointed out to him multiple times - not to mention the fact that it's common knowledge, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa
Anyway they were no exactly 'men'.
They were kings.
Who were kings, and why? Care to be more specific?
no, I mean that I have no idea why he thinks that "that will completely ridicule the idea of God"
I know what you mean. dtango's presentation of the idea that men were originally gods would somehow reduce gods to the level of men.
That is clearly nonsense, since, just become some angels rebel and become demons, that hardly makes all angels no better than demons. And of course it seems that some Top Gods put the other 'doomed to become men' gods to work. 'God' would not obviously dig his own ditches, so the whole thesis doesn't apply. Gods who get sent down to the greengrass league and even have to give up eternal life are obviously nothing to do with El, Enlil, Shamash and the rest and it is absurd to suggest that scholarship refuses to swallow mythology as fact simply because of a fear that this might somehow unseat the top Gods.
As Woppers pointed out, a lot of scholarship in that area couldn't care less what happens to Biblegod anyway.
Originally Posted by whoppers;24690773[COLOR=black
][/color]
I don't find anything in these 3 texts that support these views, nor do I find them being held as a common belief among Sumerian and Akkadian scribes en masse - so it appears we cannot rely on them as interpretive tools at the moment. I'll be honest with you, Dtango - I'm not interested in the slightest in applying mono-myth ideas to this story. If you've gathered these notions from somewhere else, but cannot demonstrate dependence, then they are not helpful. There were five Creation stories involving Enki as Creator in Sumer and they all had different notions of Creation, for example. If one tried to apply your above assertions to these 5 separate stories, it wouldn't work. That should be evidence enough that they were not a commonly held belief of divinity.
You wrote: The creation of humans is distinctly different from the creation of the gods, and there is no possibility of misreading them as being gods. But there are two different creators of gods:
Line 12 At that time, the one of immense wisdom, the creator of all the senior gods, Enki,…
line 17 Nammu,the primeval mother, the bearer (birthgiver) of the senior gods,
The birth giving Mother is also creator of humans.
Lines 6-7 When the goddesses were distributed in heaven and earth, When the goddesses were inseminated, became pregnant and gave birth,
From Genesis 6:1-4 we know that the “goddesses” were the daughters of men and that they were inseminated by the sons of God.
Different stories of creation (anthropogony) reflect different theological views. In the older accounts the creator is a number of Mother-wombs, then it is only the Mother goddess and then she is gradually removed until humans are created by a male god by means of completely silly ways while the original accounts are quite reasonable.
Line 38 [Thus(?)] she created mankind ma[le and female(?) ].'
Why bother with theologians’ fantasies? Only the original account deserves understanding. You say you find no support for my views but you do not reveal your views on the subject
The gods, you say, were not men; they only worked like men. But as you see they also created men in the fashion of men. So, what sort of gods were they?
[font=Verdana]
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers;24690773[/FONT
]Don't just pick and choose verses that suit your purpose - read the entire story and study it for what it is. Do the same for the other two. Context will always trump a reading based on just one or two lines.
Well, when the older text informs that she created mankind and the OT writer insists that He created mankind we do not bother with... standard syntactic structure of most Mesopotamian Cosmologies but with what the texts convey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers;24690773[COLOR=black
]From our other conversations, where you assume that scholars never delve outside of the Bible for their understanding of it - you've finally latched onto a story (Atrahasis) that probably had a great influence on how the Yahwist formed Genesis 2-11 (and which has not escaped the notice of Biblical Scholars, of course). Many elements in the latter can be found in the former, as well as in the story of Adapa. The Sumero-Akkadian scribal tradition reached far and wide at certain times, and it's highly likely that many of the same stories and practices reached the Yahwist or some of the previous writers that eventually contributed to the "J Source" of the Hebrew Bible.[/color]
Correct! But they have no right to treat those texts as mere literary works.
Line 59 of “Enki and Ninmah”
She fashioned from it the first man: one (who) could not bend his stiffened(?) hands to: reach out (for anything).
They have to explain certain motifs, as the one above: the inability of the gods to create proper humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa
I have no idea why he thinks that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa
Anyway they were no exactly 'men'.
They were kings.
You are right!
Gilgamesh was a king. He is mentioned in “The Sumerian King List”, the entry reads:
The divine Gilgamesh, his father was a lillu, a high priest of Kullab, ruled 126 years.
He is thought to have ruled between 2700 and 2500 BCE. In the epic, as father of Gilgamesh appears Lugalbanda who is also mentioned in the Sumerian King List:
The god Lugalbanda, a shepherd, ruled 1200 years.
Of the early kings in the list, who are stated to have ruled before the flood, there is one more who enjoys the triple status of god, shepherd, and king:
The god Dumuzi, a shepherd, ruled 36,000 years.
The gods became the first kings of humanity. The point, however, is “why are they called Shepherds?”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
