Avatar photoairtonjo

Resenhas no JHS: Volume 7 – 2007

| Por

As seguintes obras foram recentemente resenhadas pelo Journal of Hebrew Scriptures:

Athas, George, The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2005.

Bienkowski, Piotr; Christopher Mee; Elizabeth Slater (eds.), Writing and Ancient Near East Society: Papers in Honor of Alan R. Millard. New York/London: T & T Clark International, 2005.

Campbell, Antony F.; Mark A. O’Brien, Rethinking the Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the Theology of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

Douglas, Mary, Jacob’s Tears: The Priestly Work of Reconciliation. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Lipschits Oded; Manfred Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Scurlock, JoAnn, Magico-Medical Means of Treating Ghost-Induced Illnesses in Ancient Mesopotamia. Leiden: Brill/Styx, 2006.

Scurlock, JoAnn; Burton Andersen, Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine: Ancient Sources, Translations, and Modern Medical Analyses. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2005.

Resenhas na RBL – 03.04.2007

| Por

As seguintes resenhas foram recentemente publicadas pela Review of Biblical Literature:

Bob Becking
Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30-31
Reviewed by Donald C. Raney II

Stephen S. Carver
The UnGospel: The Life and Teachings of the Historical Jesus
Reviewed by Pieter J. J. Botha

Joan E. Cook
Hear O Heavens and Listen O Earth: An Introduction to the Prophets
Reviewed by Hallvard Hagelia

Philippe Hugo
Les deux visages d’Élie: Texte massorétique et Septante dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 17-18
Reviewed by Graeme Auld

Joseph Jensen
Ethical Dimensions of the Prophets
Reviewed by J. Gordon McConville

Hilmar Klinkott
Der Satrap: Ein achaimenidischer Amtsträger und seine Handlungsspielräume
Reviewed by Jacob L. Wright

Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young, eds.
The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine
Reviewed by Everett Ferguson

Henrik Pfeiffer
Jahwes Kommen von Süden: Jdc 5; Hab 3; Dtn 33 und Ps 68 in ihrem literatur- und theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld
Reviewed by Stefan Beyerle

Eva Schönemann
Bund und Tora: Kategorien einer im christlich-jüdischen Dialog verantworteten Christologie
Reviewed by Judith Lieu

Isac Leo Seeligmann
Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel
Editor(s): Erhard Blum
Reviewed by Martin Rösel

Manuel Vogel
Commentatio mortis: 2Kor 5,1-10 auf dem Hintergrund antiker ars moriendi
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas

James Ware
The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism
Reviewed by Torrey Seland

Mark W. Waterman
The Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark: Text, History, and Theological Struggles
Reviewed by Michael R. Licona

Ben Witherington III
1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
Reviewed by Mark R. Fairchild
Reviewed by Craig L. Blomberg

Edição crítica do Evangelho de João

| Por

Uma edição crítica do Evangelho de João está sendo preparada por um grupo de respeito. Boa notícia para os especialistas em João.

The Gospel according to John: Editio Critica Maior. O que leio?

The International Greek New Testament Project is currently preparing a critical edition of the Gospel according to John as a collaborative effort between the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Edition (University of Birmingham), the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung (University of Münster), the Theological Faculty of the University of Salzburg (Department of Coptology) and Dr P.J. Williams (University of Aberdeen). The end result will include a print publication in the series of the Editio Critica Maior and electronic editions of the Greek, Coptic, Syriac and Old Latin traditions of the Gospel which will be hosted on this site. A bibliography giving details of the IGNTP, its history, publications and procedures is available at the IGNTP website. It is hoped to link electronic editions of the Greek Majuscule manuscripts of John and the Old Latin manuscripts of John to this site in Autumn 2007.

 

Em The International Greek New Testament Project, site do IGNTP, leio:

Editions of John in different languages are being produced at the following institutions:

  • Greek: Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing (ITSEE), University of Birmingham, under the direction of Professor D.C. Parker.
  • Latin: Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing (ITSEE), University of Birmingham, under the direction of Dr P.H. Burton.
  • Coptic: Faculty of Theology, Department of Coptology (Forschungsabteilung Koptologie und Ägyptenkunde), University of Salzburg, under the direction of Professor Karlheinz Schüssler.
  • Syriac: Old Syriac – Dr P.J. Williams, (University of Aberdeen).
  • Syriac: Peshitta and Harclean version – Dr Andreas Juckel, (INTF), Münster.

Como construir uma pirâmide

| Por

Circula na web, entre egiptólogos e curiosos, uma persistente discussão sobre “novas teorias” acerca da construção das pirâmides egípcias, mais especificamente, sobre como teria sido construída a Grande Pirâmide de Quéops.

Segundo alguns especialistas, estas teorias não são assim tão novas, mas esta pode ser uma boa oportunidade para se ler um pouco sobre o assunto.

No blog Egyptology News, Andie recomenda, no post Bob Brier on pyramid construction, o artigo do egiptólogo Bob Brier, How to Build a Pyramid, no site da revista Archaeology, publicação de respeito da AIA.

Segundo Andie esta é a melhor síntese que ela conhece sobre novas e velhas teorias acerca das possibilidades de construção de pirâmides.

Quem não acompanhou a discussão, leia primeiro, por favor, a notícia abaixo, da BBC.

 

Francês diz que desvendou mistério de pirâmide egípcia

O arquiteto francês Jean-Pierre Houdin afirmou ter encontrado a chave para desvendar os mistérios da construção da pirâmide de Quéops, a maior das pirâmides do Egito.

Houdin diz que a construção de 4,5 mil anos, nos arredores do Cairo, foi executada com o auxílio de uma rampa interna para elevar os enormes blocos de pedra até os seus lugares.

As outras teorias afirmam que os 3 milhões de pedras – cada uma com 2,5 toneladas – foram empurradas até os locais em que se encontram por cima de rampas externas.

Houdin passou oito anos estudando o assunto e construiu um modelo computadorizado para ilustrar a sua teoria sobre a construção da pirâmide.

“Esta é melhor que as outras teorias, porque é a única que realmente funciona”, disse o arquiteto ao divulgar a sua tese com o auxílio de uma simulação em três dimensões.

Rampa externa

Ele acredita que uma rampa externa foi usada apenas para construir os primeiros 43 metros e que, então, foi construída a rampa interna para transportar os blocos até o cume da construção, de 137 metros de altura.

A pirâmide foi construída para servir de tumba ao faraó Khufu, também conhecido como Quéops.

A grande galeria no interior da pirâmide, outra fonte de mistério para egiptólogos, teria sido usada para abrigar um enorme contrapeso que teria suspendido as 60 lajes de granito que ficam acima da Câmara Real.

“Essa teoria vai contra as duas principais teses aceitas até hoje”, disse o egiptólogo Bob Brier à agência de notícias Reuters.

‘Erradas’

“Faz 20 anos que as ensino, mas no fundo, sei que elas estão erradas”, admitiu o especialista.

De acordo com Houdin, uma rampa externa até o alto da pirâmide teria tapado a vista e deixado pouco espaço para trabalhar, enquanto uma longa rampa frontal necessitaria de pedras demais.

Além disso, há muito poucos indícios de que jamais tenham sido montadas rampas externas no entorno da pirâmide.

Houdin disse ainda que, usando a técnica postulada por ele, a pirâmide pode ter sido construída por apenas 4 mil pessoas, em vez das 100 mil calculadas por outras teorias.

O arquiteto espera reunir um grupo de especialistas para comprovar a teoria com o auxílio de radares e outros métodos não invasivos.

Fonte: BBC Brasil – 31 de março, 2007

How to Build a Pyramid

by Bob Brier

Hidden ramps may solve the mystery of the Great Pyramid’s construction.

Of the seven wonders of the ancient world, only the Great Pyramid of Giza remains. An estimated 2 million stone blocks weighing an average of 2.5 tons went into its construction. When completed, the 481-foot-tall pyramid was the world’s tallest structure, a record it held for more than 3,800 years, when England’s Lincoln Cathedral surpassed it by a mere 44 feet.

We know who built the Great Pyramid: the pharaoh Khufu, who ruled Egypt about 2547-2524 B.C. And we know who supervised its construction: Khufu’s brother, Hemienu. The pharaoh’s right-hand man, Hemienu was “overseer of all construction projects of the king” and his tomb is one of the largest in a cemetery adjacent to the pyramid.

What we don’t know is exactly how it was built, a question that has been debated for millennia. The earliest recorded theory was put forward by the Greek historian Herodotus, who visited Egypt around 450 B.C., when the pyramid was already 2,000 years old. He mentions “machines” used to raise the blocks and this is usually taken to mean cranes. Three hundred years later, Diodorus of Sicily wrote, “The construction was effected by mounds” (ramps). Today we have the “space alien” theory–those primitive Egyptians never could have built such a fabulous structure by themselves; extraterrestrials must have helped them.

Modern scholars have favored these two original theories, but deep in their hearts, they know that neither one is correct. A radical new one, however, may provide the solution. If correct, it would demonstrate a level of planning by Egyptian architects and engineers far greater than anything ever imagined before.

According to the new theory, an external ramp was used to build the lower third of the pyramid and was then cannibalized, its blocks taken through an internal ramp for the higher levels of the structure. (Dassault Systemes) [LARGER IMAGE]

The External Ramp and Crane Theories

The first theory is that a ramp was built on one side of the pyramid and as the pyramid grew, the ramp was raised so that throughout the construction, blocks could be moved right up to the top. If the ramp were too steep, the men hauling the blocks would not be able to drag them up. An 8-percent slope is about the maximum possible, and this is the problem with the single ramp theory. With such a gentle incline, the ramp would have to be approximately one mile long to reach the top of the pyramid. But there is neither room for such a long ramp on the Giza Plateau, nor evidence of such a massive construction. Also, a mile-long ramp would have had as great a volume as the pyramid itself, virtually doubling the man-hours needed to build the pyramid. Because the straight ramp theory just doesn’t work, several pyramid experts have opted for a modified ramp theory.

This approach suggests that the ramp corkscrewed up the outside of the pyramid, much the way a mountain road spirals upward. The corkscrew ramp does away with the need for a massive mile-long one and explains why no remains of such a ramp have been found, but there is a flaw with this version of the theory. With a ramp corkscrewing up the outside of the pyramid, the corners couldn’t be completed until the final stage of construction. But careful measurements of the angles at the corners would have been needed frequently to assure that the corners would meet to create a point at the top. Dieter Arnold, a renowned pyramid expert at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, comments in his definitive work, Building in Egypt: “During the whole construction period, the pyramid trunk would have been completely buried under the ramps. The surveyors could therefore not have used the four corners, edges, and foot line of the pyramid for their calculations.” Thus the modified ramp theory also has a serious problem.

The second theory centers on Herodotus’s machines. Until recently Egyptian farmers used a wooden, cranelike device called a shadouf to raise water from the Nile for irrigation. This device can be seen in ancient tomb paintings, so we know it was available to the pyramid builders. The idea is that hundreds of these cranes at various levels on the pyramid were used to lift the blocks. One problem with this theory is that it would involve a tremendous amount of timber and Egypt simply didn’t have forests to provide the wood. Importing so much lumber would have been impractical. Large timbers for shipbuilding were imported from Lebanon, but this was a very expensive enterprise.

Perhaps an even more fatal flaw to the crane theory is that there is nowhere to place all these cranes. The pyramid blocks tend to decrease in size higher up the Great Pyramid. I climbed it dozens of times in the 1970s and ’80s, when it was permitted, and toward the top, the blocks sometimes provide only 18 inches of standing room, certainly not enough space for cranes large enough to lift heavy blocks of stone. The crane theory can’t explain how the blocks of the Great Pyramid were raised. So how was it done?

The Internal Ramp Theory

A radical new idea has recently been presented by Jean-Pierre Houdin, a French architect who has devoted the last seven years of his life to making detailed computer models of the Great Pyramid. Using start-of-the-art 3-D software developed by Dassault Systemes, combined with an initial suggestion of Henri Houdin, his engineer father, the architect has concluded that a ramp was indeed used to raise the blocks to the top, and that the ramp still exists–inside the pyramid!

The theory suggests that for the bottom third of the pyramid, the blocks were hauled up a straight, external ramp. This ramp was far shorter than the one needed to reach the top, and was made of limestone blocks, slightly smaller than those used to build the bottom third of the pyramid. As the bottom of the pyramid was being built via the external ramp, a second ramp was being built, inside the pyramid, on which the blocks for the top two-thirds of the pyramid would be hauled. The internal ramp, according to Houdin, begins at the bottom, is about 6 feet wide, and has a grade of approximately 7 percent. This ramp was put into use after the lower third of the pyramid was completed and the external ramp had served its purpose.

The design of the internal ramp was partially determined by the design of the interior of the pyramid. Hemienu knew all about the problems encountered by Pharaoh Sneferu, his and Khufu’s father. Sneferu had considerable difficulty building a suitable pyramid for his burial, and ended up having to construct three at sites south of Giza! The first, at Meidum, may have had structural problems and was never used. His second, at Dashur–known as the Bent Pyramid because the slope of its sides changes midway up–developed cracks in the walls of its burial chamber. Huge cedar logs from Lebanon had to be wedged between the walls to keep the pyramid from collapsing inward, but it too was abandoned. There must have been a mad scramble to complete Sneferu’s third and successful pyramid, the distinctively colored Red Pyramid at Dashur, before the aging ruler died.

From the beginning, Hemienu planned three burial chambers to ensure that whenever Khufu died, a burial place would be ready. One was carved out of the bedrock beneath the pyramid at the beginning of its construction. In case the pharaoh had died early, this would have been his tomb. When, after about five years, Khufu was still alive and well, the unfinished underground burial chamber was abandoned and the second burial chamber, commonly called the Queen’s Chamber, was begun. Some time around the fifteenth year of construction Khufu was still healthy and this chamber was abandoned unfinished and the last burial chamber, the King’s Chamber, was built higher up–in the center of the pyramid. (To this day, Khufu’s sarcophagus remains inside the King’s Chamber, so early explorers of the pyramid incorrectly assumed that the second chamber had been for his queen.)

Huge granite and limestone blocks were needed for the roof beams and rafters of the Queen’s and King’s Chambers. Some of these beams weigh more than 60 tons and are far too large to have been brought up through the internal ramp. Thus the external ramp had to remain in use until the large blocks were hauled up. Once that was done, the external ramp was dismantled and its blocks were led up the pyramid via the internal ramp to build the top two-thirds of the pyramid. Perhaps most blocks in this portion of the pyramid are smaller than those at the bottom third because they had to move up the narrow internal ramp.

There were several considerations that went into designing the internal ramp. First, it had to be fashioned very precisely so that it didn’t hit the chambers or the internal passageways that connect them. Second, men hauling heavy blocks of stones up a narrow ramp can’t easily turn a 90-degree corner; they need a place ahead of the block to stand and pull. The internal ramp had to provide a means of turning its corners so, Houdin suggests, the ramp had openings there where a simple crane could be used to turn the blocks.

There are plenty of theories about how the Great Pyramid could have been built that lack evidence. Is the internal ramp theory any different? Is there any evidence to support it? Yes.

A bit of evidence appears to be one of the ramp’s corner notches used for turning blocks. It is two-thirds of the way up the northeast corner–precisely at a point where Houdin predicted there would be one. Furthermore, in 1986 a member of a French team that was surveying the pyramid reported seeing a desert fox enter it through a hole next to the notch, suggesting that there is an open area close to it, perhaps the ramp. It seems improbable that the fox climbed more than halfway up the pyramid. More likely there is some undetected crevice toward the bottom where the fox entered the ramp and then made its way up the ramp and exited near the notch. It would be interesting to attach a telemetric device to a fox and send him into the hole to monitor his movements! The notch is suggestive, but there is another bit of evidence supplied by the French mentioned earlier that is far more compelling.

When the French team surveyed the Great Pyramid, they used microgravimetry, a technique that enabled them to measure the density of different sections of the pyramid, thus detecting hidden chambers. The French team concluded that there were no large hidden chambers inside it. If there was a ramp inside the pyramid, shouldn’t the French have detected it? In 2000, Henri Houdin was presenting this theory at a scientific conference where one of the members of the 1986 French team was present. He mentioned to Houdin that their computer analysis of the pyramid did yield one curious image, something they couldn’t interpret and therefore ignored. That image showed exactly what Jean-Pierre Houdin’s theory had predicted–a ramp spiraling up through the pyramid.

Far from being just another theory, the internal ramp has considerable evidence behind it. A team headed by Jean-Pierre Houdin and Rainer Stadlemann, former director of the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo and one of the greatest authorities on pyramids, has submitted an application to survey the Great Pyramid in a nondestructive way to see if the theory can be confirmed. They are hopeful that the Supreme Council of Antiquities will grant permission for a survey. (Several methods could be used, including powerful microgravimetry, high-resolution infrared photography, or even sonar.) If so, sometime this year we may finally know how Khufu’s monumental tomb was built. One day, if it is indeed there, we might just be able to remove a few blocks from the exterior of the pyramid and walk up the mile-long ramp Hemienu left hidden within the Great Pyramid.

Bob Brier is a senior research fellow at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University and a contributing editor to ARCHAEOLOGY.

Fonte: Bob Brier – Archaeology: Volume 60 Number 3, May/June 2007

IPCC

| Por

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Painel Intergovernamental de Mudanças Climáticas.

Guarde esta sigla e este nome. Todos nós vamos precisar.

Ao clicar em um dos itens do menu, abre-se a possibilidade da escolha de outras línguas em “Languages” para o acesso dos dados do site do IPCC. Escolha a de sua preferência.

Lembre-se: “Pobreza crescente, falta de água potável, derretimento de geleiras e o desaparecimento de uma série de espécies até meados deste século são parte da descrição de uma paisagem negativa apresentada por um pré-relatório do Painel Intergovernamental… Os continentes mais afetados serão África e Ásia, mas nos países latino-americanos calcula-se que entre 100 e 400 milhões de pessoas podem ter problemas de acesso à água potável no ano 2080. Nas piores hipóteses, dezenas de milhões de pessoas podem sofrer de fome. O aquecimento já está derretendo as geleiras dos Andes e ameaça a floresta amazônica, cujo perímetro pode se transformar aos poucos em uma savana. O aumento do nível do mar provocará graves problemas nas regiões pantanosas e com deltas, especialmente no Brasil, Equador e Colômbia…” É o que se lê em ONU prepara novo relatório…

Aquecimento global pode provocar extinção de 30% das espécies, diz painel
De acordo com relatório do Painel Intergovernamental de Mudança Climática (IPCC, na siga em inglês – considerado a maior liderança mundial em mudança climática), até 30% das espécies do planeta enfrentam um risco crescente de desaparecerem se a temperatura global aumentar 2ºC acima da média dos anos 1980 e 1990. Para este século, a previsão do relatório é que as temperaturas aumentarão entre 1,8ºC e 4ºC. Áreas que atualmente sofrem com a falta de chuvas se tornarão ainda mais secas, aumentando o risco de fome e doenças no mundo, diz o relatório. O mundo enfrentará também ameaças crescentes de enchentes, tempestades e erosão. “É uma pequena visão de um futuro apocalíptico”, afirmou o grupo ambientalista Greenpeace sobre o relatório final (cont.) Fonte: Folha Online: 06/04/2007 – 09h43

 

Leia Mais:
Brasileiros são os mais preocupados com o aquecimento global
ONU prepara novo relatório sobre efeitos do aquecimento global

Carta de Dom Mauro Morelli ao Rabino Sobel

| Por

Carta de Dom Morelli ao Rabino Sobel
Querido Rabino Sobel, estou a teu lado, solidário em teu sofrimento. De ti não me envergonho! Sempre senti orgulho de ti. Ao lado de Dom Paulo, teu corajoso testemunho nos anos de trevas não deve ser esquecido e tua imagem resguardada. Seja qual for a explicação que se queira prestar ao triste episódio, tu que foste tão misericordioso em teu ministério receba misericórdia, não humilhação. Oxalá que todos descubram que o Deus de Abraão, de Isaac e de Jacob, de Moisés e dos Profetas tem entranhas de misericórdia. Meu caro amigo, Shalom! Paz e Bem. Estou contigo nesta hora de contradição (cont.). Fonte: CNBB: 02/04/2007.

Com alterações de comportamento, Sobel permanece internado em SP
O rabino Henry Sobel permanece internado no Hospital Albert Einstein, na zona sul de São Paulo, sem previsão de alta. Ele chegou ao hospital na madrugada da última sexta (30), apresentando “episódio de transtorno de humor, representado por descontrole emocional e alterações de comportamento”, de acordo com boletim médico. A internação ocorreu um dia depois de a prisão de Sobel nos Estados Unidos ser divulgada no Brasil. Ele foi detido no último dia 23 sob acusação de ter furtado quatro gravatas de lojas de grifes luxuosas em Palm Beach, na Flórida. No sábado (31), o rabino afirmou, ainda no hospital, que “o Henry Sobel que cometeu aquele ato não é o Henry Sobel que vocês conhecem”. “É muito difícil para mim explicar o inexplicável”, disse. Ele também disse que havia tomado medicamentos sem recomendação médica e pediu desculpas pelos “transtornos” que causou (cont.). Fonte: Folha Online: 01/04/2007 – 18h11

Leia Mais:
Henry Sobel é detido nos EUA, diz polícia (G1: 29/03/2007 – 17h17)
Rabino Henry Sobel é detido nos EUA suspeito de furtar gravatas (Folha Online: 29/03/2007 – 17h40)
Henry Sobel é convidado do papa Bento 16 para encontro ecumênico (Folha Online: 29/03/2007 – 20h11)
Sobel diz que não quis furtar e pede afastamento de congregação (Folha Online: 29/03/2007 – 20h25)
Rabino Henry Sobel pede afastamento (G1: 29/03/2007 – 20h11)

Estudos sobre Ossuários

| Por

Com esta história do sepulcro da família de Jesus falou-se muito de ossuários. Mas não das leituras fundamentais que podem ser feitas… É assunto especializado, porém vá lá, vou citar apenas três obras indispensáveis, publicadas, respectivamente, em 1994, 2002 e 2003.

 

RAHMANI, L. Y. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries: In the collections of the State of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994, ix + 307 p., with 135 plates. ISBN: 9-6540-6016-7

Mais do que um simples catálogo ilustrado, esta obra cobre cada aspecto do estudo dos ossuários usados nos sepultamentos judaicos a partir de 20 a.C.: terminologia, materiais, forma, trabalho artesanal, inscrições e sinais, motivos ornamentais, paralelos ornamentais e arquitetônicos, possíveis influências estrangeiras e a questão da relação entre os relicários cristãos e os ossuários judaicos. São quase 900 ossuários fotografados e catalogados, embora a obra não seja completa, pois há outros ossuários judaicos discutidos na literatura especializada que não aparecem neste catálogo. Contudo, esta é uma obra de consulta obrigatória para todos os especialistas que abordam este tema.

Far more than an illustrated catalogue, Rahmani’s volume covers every aspect of the study of the ossuaries used in Jewish burial from around 20 BCE through the mid-third century CE: terminology, materials, form, the artisans and their work, inscriptions and marks, ornamentation and ornamental motifs, architectural and ornamental parallels, possible foreign influences, and the question of the possible relationship between the Christian reliquary and the Jewish ossuary.

 

ILAN, T. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part 1: Palestine 300 B.C.E.-200 C.E. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, xxvi + 484 p. ISBN 3-1614-7646-8

Tal Ilan, Professora de Estudos Judaicos na Universidade Livre de Berlim, Alemanha, apresenta um léxico de nomes judaicos usados na Palestina entre 330 a.C., início do domínio grego, até 200 d.C., fim do período mishnaico. A autora traz em seu léxico nomes encontrados em fontes literárias, em inscrições e em papiros. Os nomes estão em hebraico, grego, latim, aramaico, copta, persa e várias outras línguas. Tal Ilan discute a origem dos nomes, explica sua etimologia, analisa a identidade das pessoas e a escolha do nome e ainda indica os nomes mais populares daquela época, entre outras coisas. A obra pode ser encontrada, além da Mohr Siebeck, na Amazon.com e na Eisenbrauns. Uma resenha da obra pode ser lida na Review of Biblical Literature. Foi escrita por Rivka B. Kern-Ulmer, da Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, e publicada em 8 de janeiro de 2005. A resenha termina com uma avaliação positiva da obra: “Above all, this book will replace the other available onomastica; it is an indispensable tool that enlightens the researcher in respect to Jewish names in the Land of Israel during the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. The Lexicon of Jewish Names belongs in every Judaic research library”.

In this lexicon Tal Ilan collects all the information on names of Jews in Palestine and the people who bore them between 330 BCE, a date which marks the Hellenistic conquest of Palestine, and 200 CE, the date usually assigned to the close of the mishnaic period, and the early Roman Empire. Thereby she includes names from literary sources as well as those found in epigraphic and papyrological documents. It is an onomasticon in as far as it is a collection of all the recorded names used by the Jews of Palestine in the above-mentioned period. Tal Ilan discusses the provenance of the names and explains them etymologically, given the many possible sources of influence for the names at that time. In addition she shows the division between the use of biblical names and the use of Greek and other foreign names. She analyzes the identity of the persons and the choice of name and points out the most popular names at the time.The lexicon is accompanied by a lengthy and comprehensive introduction that scrutinizes the main trends in name giving current at the time. It provides immediate information on all known persons of Jewish extraction from Palestine during the Hellenistic and Early Roman Period.

 

EVANS, C. A. Jesus and the Ossuaries: What Jewish Burial Practices Reveal About the Beginning of Christianity. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2003, 150 p. ISBN 0-9189-5488-6

Foi a partir da polêmica gerada pelo Ossuário de Tiago em 2002, que Craig A. Evans, Professor de Novo Testamento no Acadia Divinity College da Acadia University, em Wolfville, Nova Escócia, Canadá, escreveu este livro. Mas ele não vai tratar aqui da autenticidade ou não deste ossuário e de sua inscrição. Sua abordagem é sobre práticas judaicas de sepultamento e o que elas podem nos revelar sobre o mundo de Jesus, seu ensinamento e sobre sua própria morte, sepultamento e ressurreição. Por exemplo, o que Mt 8,21-22 quer dizer com: “Outro dos discípulos lhe disse: ‘Senhor, permite-me ir primeiro enterrar meu pai’. Mas Jesus lhe respondeu: ‘Segue-me e deixa que os mortos enterrem seus mortos'”. Ou Jo 11,17, que diz: “Ao chegar, Jesus encontrou Lázaro já sepultado havia quatro dias”. E mais: Jesus, ao morrer, terá sido retirado da cruz e enterrado, como dizem os evangelhos, ou teria seu corpo sido deixado para abutres e animais, como alguns especialistas sugerem? Estas e outras questões são o assunto deste livro.

A Introdução do livro está disponível online em formato pdf no site da Baylor University Press. Vale a pena a leitura, especialmente porque indica ao leitor, entre outras coisas, onde encontrar as fontes especializadas para o estudo de ossuários e práticas de sepultamento do judaísmo antigo. Mas tem mais: a terminologia usada nas práticas judaicas de sepultamento, em hebraico, aramaico, grego e latim, os formatos e funções das tumbas judaicas… Além disso, uma resenha da obra pode ser lida na Review of Biblical Literature. Escrita por Tobias Nicklas, da Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Alemanha, foi publicada em 16 de abril de 2005. O resenhista termina assim: “… as I mentioned above, the value of the examples given is differing, and not each of them really allows us insight into the world of the New Testament or the historical Jesus. Indeed, the book is a valuable source for scholars who want to have an initial insight into Jewish burial practices or an overview of important ancient, mainly Jewish but also pagan and Christian, burial inscriptions”. Quer dizer: o livro é bom, mas nem tanto!

The ossuary bearing the inscription “Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” has generated a great deal of controversy since its announcement in 2002. In Jesus and the Ossuaries, Professor Evans takes no position with respect to the authenticity of this interesting inscription. Rather, he investigates Jewish burial practices and what they tell us about the world of Jesus, his teaching, and his own death, burial, and resurrection. What did Jesus mean when he told a would-be follower to “Let the dead bury their own dead”? Or, what was the significance of telling Jesus that Lazarus, his friend, had been dead for four days? Even more important, was Jesus himself taken down from the cross and given proper burial, or was his body left exposed to birds and animals, as a few scholars have recently suggested? These and other interesting questions are addressed in this book.

Para terminar, cito um trecho da Introdução do livro de Craig A. Evans, onde são mencionadas as fontes especializadas para o estudo de ossuários e práticas de sepultamento do judaísmo antigo:

The present study has been made possible by several important catalogues and studies. Foremost among these is Levi Yizhaq Rahmani’s A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries (1994a), which catalogues some 895 ossuaries, providing descriptions, photographic plates (of most), and facsimiles of inscriptions (which appear on about one quarter of the ossuaries). This tool is indispensable. However, it is not complete. There are other Jewish ossuaries discussed in the literature that do not appear in this catalogue. The older work by Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, though dated, is still useful. The first three volumes of this thirteen-volume work are the most pertinent, with volume 1 (1953a) discussing archaeological evidence, including ossuaries and tombs, from Palestine, volume 2 (1953b) discussing archaeological evidence, including ossuaries, from the Diaspora (i.e., places where Jews lived outside the land of Israel), and volume 3 (1953c) exhibiting photographic plates of the artifacts discussed in volumes 1 and 2. Pau Figueras’s Decorated Jewish Ossuaries (1983) updates Goodenough’s classic at important points. For synthesis and interpretation Eric Meyers’s Jewish Ossuaries (1971) is the critical point of departure for the subject at hand. Other scholars in the field of Jewish ossuaries, tombs, and burial practices, who have made important and helpful contributions, include Nahman Avigad, Zvi Greenhut, Rachel Hachlili, Amos Kloner, and Ronny Reich. Frequent reference will be made to the excavation and study of the Beth She‘arim necropolis in Galilee. Volume 1, edited by Benjamin Mazar (1973), publishes the findings from catacombs 1–4, which includes some Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions. Volume 2, edited by Moshe Schwabe and Baruch Lifshitz (1974), publishes the Greek inscriptions, and volume 3, edited by Nahman Avigad (1976), completes and summarizes the findings of all of the catacombs and tombs excavated. The finds at Dominus Flevit, at the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, are also very important and are referred to many times (Bagatti and Milik 1958). The early collections of Jewish Palestinian inscriptions, collected and edited by Samuel Klein (1920) and Jean-Baptiste Frey (= CIJ), and Eleazar Lippa Sukenik’s pioneering works in archaeology, involving tombs, ossuaries, and ancient synagogues, are quite valuable. I might also mention that the finds and seminal studies by the great French archaeologist of the late nineteenth century, Charles Clermont-Ganneau, though dated, are still worth consulting (see Clermont-Ganneau 1873; 1878; 1899; as well as the pioneering studies of others, such as Hornstein 1900; Vincent 1902; Macalister 1908; Lidzbarski 1913; Gray 1914; Spoer 1914; Sukenik 1928; 1929; 1931a; 1932a; 1934b; Savignac 1929; and Maisler 1931). There are other important collections of primary texts that should be mentioned. The collection of Aramaic texts (literary and inscriptional) assembled by Joseph Fitzmyer and Daniel Harrington is invaluable (1978). The Jewish inscriptions of Greco-Roman Egypt catalogued by William Horbury and David Noy (1992), of Rome catalogued by Harry Leon (1995), and of the Diaspora in general catalogued by Pieter van der Horst (1991) were of great help. The published ostraca from Masada (= Mas), by Yigael Yadin and his many successors, were also of great help. And finally, Tal Ilan’s Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity (2002) was enormously helpful.

Biblioblogueiro de abril de 2007: James Tabor

| Por

Brandon Wason, em Biblioblogs.com, entrevista James Tabor, autor de The Jesus Dynasty Blog, escolhido como o biblioblogueiro do mês de abril de 2007.

James D. Tabor, Professor do Departamento de Estudos Religiosos da Universidade da Carolina do Norte em Charlotte, USA, é Doutor em Estudos Bíblicos pela TABOR, J. The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006Universidade de Chicago, com ênfase nas áreas de Origens Cristãs e Judaísmo Antigo.

Entre outras coisas, Tabor é o autor de um polêmico livro sobre o Jesus Histórico, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006, 384 p.

O livro foi traduzido para o português: A dinastia de Jesus: a história secreta das origens do cristianismo. Rio de Janeiro: Ediouro, 2006, 368 p. ISBN 850002030X

Confira seu blog, onde há vários posts sobre a tumba de Talpiot. Ele é, no documentário, o principal assessor bíblico de Simcha Jacobovici. Está sempre ao seu lado, explicando ao telespectador várias questões arqueológicas e bíblicas.

Cosmogonias Mesopotâmicas no Codex

| Por

Como noticiado aqui, Tyler Williams, em Codex, está apresentando e discutindo as cosmogonias mesopotâmicas.

Isto é particularmente importante para a compreensão de Gn 1-2.

São quatro partes: começou com o post Ideas of Origins and Creation in Ancient Mesopotamia, Part 1, que discutiu as questões metodológicas e os recursos disponíveis para o estudo dos textos mesopotâmicos; na parte 2, tratou dos textos babilônicos antigos e na parte 3 dos textos neobabilônicos.

Finalmente, na quarta parte, Tyler Williams fará uma síntese das ideias mais importantes que surgiram ao longo do estudo e sua relação com nossa compreensão dos textos bíblicos sobre a criação.

Ideas of Origins and Creation in Ancient Mesopotamia, Part 1

Posted on Monday 29 January 2007 by Tyler F. Williams

Next to a close reading of the biblical text, one of the most important steps in its interpretation is knowledge of the ancient cultural and literary context of the Bible. For proper interpretation, we need to know a text’s genre. Genre functions to mediate between speakers and hearers by establishing common guidelines that control both the production of a certain texts and their interpretation. We work with and recognize different genres all the time in day to day life. But when we come to the Bible “ an ancient document that is linguistically, culturally, and historically remote from us — our ability to identify certain genres is attenuated due to our unfamiliarity. Misreading a text’s genre leads to incorrect interpretation. Thus, when approaching the biblical creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, it is essential to have some knowledge of other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts. This isn’t necessarily easy to do, since many of the ancient texts are difficult to understand conceptually. In connection with ancient cosmologies, Richard Clifford notes “ancient oriental literature is alien and difficult to understand, though the many biblical phrases and ideas in our discourse may trick us into thinking otherwise… Particularly difficult are ancient cosmogonies. Major differences separate them from modern conceptions” (Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible, p. 198).

This is the first of four posts on ideas of creation in ancient Mesopotamia. This post will discuss some methodological issues surrounding the study of Mesopotamian texts and highlight some of the resources available for studying this literature. The second and third posts will survey Old Babylonian texts and Neo-Babylonian texts, respectively. The fourth post will synthesize some of the findings and relate them to our understanding of the biblical creation texts. I should note that I am by no means an expert in ancient Mesopotamian literature. A lot of this work originally derived from a graduate course I did with Dr. Ronald F. G. Sweet at the University of Toronto a number of years back.

Approaching the Diversity of Materials

There a number of methodological issues surrounding the interpretation of ancient Mesopotamian creation texts. First, in relation to the nature of the textual evidence, the problem is not that there is a paucity of material, but that the available material is of such a wide scope historically and culturally that it would be erroneous to speak of a uniform view of œcreation in Mesopotamia.? The ancient culture of Mesopotamia covers a period of more than five thousand years and at least two groups of entirely different peoples and languages. Therefore, it is necessary to recognise that the myths and stories relevant to this topic are by no means homogeneous, and should not be described as an absolute unity. The tendency to create uniform views where none exist needs to be guarded against, and the generalisations that result from this study must be recognised to be just that”generalisations. A related dilemma is the composite nature of many of the extant texts. Many later works borrow”or even copy directly”motifs and themes from earlier texts. The supreme example of this is the Akkadian Gilgamesh Epic. Tigay™s reconstruction of the evolution of the epic identities a number of separate Sumerian stories that underlie the final form of the Gilgamesh Epic (see his The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic).

Second, uncertainty of our ability to understand across the borders of conceptual conditioning (to echo Oppenheim) highlights the important hermeneutical issue of imposing modern questions on ancient texts. While questions about origins were certainly not avoided in ancient Mesopotamia, they were almost always subsidiary issues. The primary purpose of much of the ancient mythological and epic literature was to exalt one deity over another or to explain the organization of human society, rather than provide a systematic teaching concerning creation. For instance, Jacobsen notes, in relation to Enuma elish, that œworld origins . . . are essentially accidental: gods were born out of mingling of the primeval waters and they engendered other gods? (The Treasures of Darkness, p. 191). Similarly, only the first twenty lines of the first tablet of Enuma elish actually deal with the creation of the universe, while the bulk of tablets four through six covers its organisation. Furthermore, it is impossible to speak of the Mesopotamian view of the creation of the cosmos without speaking of the creation of the gods: in Mesopotamia theogony and cosmogony were inextricably intertwined.

(This perhaps is not so different from the biblical worldview considering that the two major biblical creation accounts are incorporated into the book of Genesis, the first book of the primary history.” Because of our modern preoccupation with creation (and especially as it relates to science) we tend to isolate discussions of ancient Israelite ideas of creation from their narrative context in the much larger biblical picture.)

Arrangement and Dating of the Sources

Another major difficulty in doing a study such as this is the question of how best to arrange and present the data. Should the compositions be grouped according to language, subject matter, cultural origin (i.e., are they Sumerian, Assyrian, or Babylonian), or date? Each of these options has its own pitfalls, but for the purposes of this study the texts will be presented according to their date.

This does not solve all problems though, as dating Mesopotamian literature also has its associated uncertainties. Dating can be based on two variables: (1) the date of the extant text; and (2) the date of its original composition. This study will use the first criteria. While this is not ideal, it is the most reliable, as in many cases there is no scholarly consensus concerning the original date of composition of many texts. This is due primarily to historical circumstances and the type of literature we have. Historically, the Babylonians, Assyrians, and the various other political groups that had their turn at ruling in ancient Mesopotamia almost without exception accepted and built upon the older religious traditions of the Sumerians. It is therefore almost impossible to draw a clear distinction between, for example, the specifically Sumerian and the Assyrian and Babylonian elements in the religious texts.

Most of the texts containing materials that are useful for this study tend to come from two periods of Mesopotamian history. First, most of the earlier Sumerian myths, epics and hymns date from the Old Babylonian period (ca. 2000“1600 BCE). Ringgren notes that œit is precisely in these last centuries [of the Sumerian ˜empire™] that most of the works of Sumerian literature seem to have been written down. It is probable that they existed earlier . . . but were transmitted in oral form? (Helmer Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East [London: S.P.C.K., 1973], 3). The tablets themselves principally come from archaeological excavations in places such as Nippur and Ur. Second, a lot of the materials representing the views of the Babylonians and Assyrians have been found at Ashurbanipal™s (668“626 BCE) library at Nineveh (Kouyunjik, in modern Iraq). The date of most of these texts fall into the Neo-Babylonian Period (ca. 1000“500 BCE).

It should be noted that there is some correlation between the date of the text and its language. For example, most of the compositions coming from the Old Babylonian period are written in Sumerian, while those from the Neo-Babylonian era are typically composed in Akkadian. This approach will also allow ” albeit in a limited fashion ” both a diachronic and a synchronic analysis of the information. Synchronically, all the texts can be probed for similarities and differences that might be significant. Diachronically, any change in thought between the two major historical periods can also be noted.
Annotated Bibliography of Texts and Discussions

The resources for the study of these ancient stories may be broken up into three categories: guides to the literature, primary texts in translation, and discussions of the ideas of origins and creation in the texts themselves as well as in connection with the biblical creation stories.

Guides to ANE Literature

Kenton L. Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible. A Guide to the Background Literature. (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 2005). This is one of the best and most recent guides to all of the background literature. It includes an introduction to comparative study of ANE texts and ANE archives and libraries, as well as a discussion of all of the relevant texts organized by genre. Original publication data and other useful bibliography is included for each ancient text.

John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context. A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990). Similar to Sparks, though a bit dated and written for a more conservative audience.

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006). While not a guide to the literature, this work is an excellent introduction to the worldviews and value systems of the ancient Near East and how the worldviews expressed in the Bible are similar, yet at times distinct, from them.

Primary Texts in Translation

Bill T. Arnold and Bryan Beyer, Readings from the Ancient Near East: Primary Sources for Old Testament Study (Encountering Biblical Studies; Baker, 2002). A college-level collection of excerpts (with introductions) of the most relevant ancient texts; written by a couple evangelical scholars.

Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). A highly readable, yet critical, translation of the major Mesopotamian mythological texts (e.g., she represents the various lacunae and reconstructions in her translation). Highly recommended.

A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts (2 vols.; Oxford: Ocford University Press, 2003). The definitive critical edition with translation, including apparatus, photographs, and line drawings for all of the tablets in existance.

William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds., The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions and Archival Documents from the Biblical World (3 volume set; Brill, 2004). A detailed reference work for the study of the OT/HB and the ancient Near East, this book provides reliable access to ancient Near Eastern texts that have some bearing on the interpretation of the Bible. Translation of recently discovered texts is included, alongside new translations of better-known texts. The recognized replacement of Pritchard’s ANET.

Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps that Once… Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987). A classic collection of Sumerian texts by the noted scholar.

Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C. (Rev. ed.; New York: Harper, 1961). A somewhat dated translation and discussion of Sumerian texts by the renowned Sumerian scholar; needs to be read in light of Jacobsen’s and other more up to date work.
W. G. Lambert, and Alan R. Millard, Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (New ed.; Winnona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999). The standard critical translation of this important Mesopotamian epic.

Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels (Fully Expanded and Revised; Paulist Press, 1997). An accessible college-level collection of brief excerpts from ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the OT.

James Bennett Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement (3rd edition; Princeton University Press, 1969). This is the classic collection of ancient texts that shed light on the OT/HB. Dated, though still highly recommended.

Discussions of ANE Texts and Biblical Ideas of Creation

Richard J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and the Bible (CBQMS 26; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994). An excellent introduction and discussion of the ANE creation accounts and their relevance to the Bible.

Richard J. Clifford and John J. Collins, eds., Creation in the Biblical Traditions (CBQMS 24; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1992). A good collection of essays dealing with different ideas of creation found in the Bible.

David Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant. Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature (Ithica, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987).

Ronald A. Simkins, Creator & Creation: Nature in the Worldview of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 1994). An intriguing examination of the cultural world of the Bible and the ancient Near East, especially as it related to conceptions of creation.

Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982).

The next instalment will survey Old Babylonian texts relating to creation.

Old Babylonian Creation Texts (Creation in Ancient Mesopotamia, Part 2)

Posted on Tuesday 20 February 2007 by Tyler F. Williams

This is the second post in the series “Ideas of Origins and Creation in Ancient Mesopotamia.” The first post in the series, which detailed some methodological issues highlighted some bibliographical resources, may be found here. The third post will survey Neo-Bablylonian creation texts, while the fourth post will synthesize the findings and relate them to our understanding of the biblical creation texts.

My first post was discussed by a couple other bloggers. Duane over at Abnormal Interests agreed with my plan to present the texts in roughly chronological order using the date of the tablets rather than the various proposed dates of composition. Charles Halton at Awilum, however, noted (correctly) that the fact that the current extant texts of Sumerian mythology date to the Old Babylonian period does not mean that they were not written until this time. I just took the easiest way to present the material.

Old Babylonian Texts (ca. 2000 – 1600 BCE)

There are a number of creation texts from the Old Babylonian period. Most of these are Sumerian texts. The compositions are presented in random order. It should be noted that this section is by no means exhaustive. For quotations, the most recent scholarly translation of the texts is customarily utilised.

1. Creation of the Hoe
[Translations: Context of Scripture, 1.157; Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, 40, 51-53; Jacobsen, Treasures, 103.]

This brief Sumerian text (109 lines) is a didactic poem about how the hoe (i.e., pickaxe), which was important in both making bricks and agriculture, came into being through a divine act. It includes a long introduction that œis of prime significance for the Sumerian conception of the creation and organisation of the universe? (Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, 51). Unfortunately, nothing of any consequence is known about its background or authorship, which somewhat obscures the meaning of the text at a few points. More recently this composition has been interpreted as a satirical school text.

The story goes as follows: After Enlil had separated the heaven and the earth, he œbound up? the slash in the earth™s crust which resulted from the separation. Then Enlil fashions the hoe and uses it to break the hard top crust of the earth. The hard topsoil had thus far prevented the first humans, made below, from œbreaking up through the ground? ” much in the same way that hard topsoil will prevent germinating plants from sprouting. The passage concludes with a glowing eulogy in honour of the newly created hoe.

Here is an excerpt that refers to the creation of the world:

Not only did the lord who never changes his promises for the future make the world appear in its correct form,
” Enlil who will make the seed of mankind rise from the earth ”
not only did he hasten to separate heaven from earth,
( …. ) and earth from heaven,
but, in order to make it possible for humans to grow œwhere the flesh sprouts,?
he first affixed the axis of the world in Duranki (Context of Scripture, 1.511).

2. Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld
[Translations: Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, 30-41; Dalley, Myths, 120-25]

A partial translation of this Sumerian tale, also known as œGilgamesh and the Halub-tree,? is found appended to the end of the Gilgamesh Epic (Tablet 12). The original Sumerian composition describes primordial times when a single halub-tree grew beside the Euphrates. Inanna uprooted the tree and planted it in her garden. Later, when she wants to remove the tree, she could not because a snake had taken up residence in its trunk. The Sumerian hero, Gilgamesh, came and cut it down and made a chair and bed for Inanna, and in return she made a pukku and mekku for him. The pukku and the mekku eventually end up in the Underworld, and the story follows Gilgamesh™s attempts to regain them.

As with the last text, for the purposes of this study the prologue is especially important. It reads:

After heaven had been moved away from earth,
After earth had been separated from heaven,
After the name of man had been fixed;
After An had carried off heaven,
After Enlil had carried off earth, . . .

Again, as with the passage above, heaven and earth are first separated, humankind is created, and then An is given heaven while Enlil is given earth.

3. Emesh and Enten / Dispute Between Summer and Winter
[Translations: Context of Scripture, 1.183; Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, 49-51; Jacobsen, Treasures, 103.]

This piece of literature, fully entitled œEmesh and Enten: Enlil Chooses the Farmer-god,? has been reconstructed from fourteen separate tablets (only seven of which have been published), and is about 308 lines long. The text itself deals more with the organisation of the heaven and the earth, rather than cosmology. Gordon actually classifies it as an œUnilingual Sumerian Wisdom Disputation? (E. I. Gordon, œA New Look at the Wisdom of Sumer and Akkad,? Bibliotheca Orientalis 42 [1960]: 145). The composition begins with Enlil cohabiting with the hursag, the mountain range, and subsequently engendering Emesh, the god of summer, and Enten, the god of winter. The two gods get into a dispute concerning their relative value and roles, after which Enlil puts the animal world under the authority of Enten and vegetation under the authority of Emesh.

4. Enki and Sumer / Enki and the World Order
[Translations: Kramer, Journal of the American Oriental Society 54 (1934): 413; Jacobsen, Treasures, 85.]

This myth, pieced together from various tablets and fragments, deals exclusively with the ordering of the world and the establishment of œlaw? (me) on it by Enki. After an introductory hymn in praise of Enki and various temple rites are described, the composition goes on to tell of how Enki orders all things in Sumer, after which he orders things in other lands and assigns each of them their natural resources and characteristics. He then fills the Tigris and Euphrates with fish and water, institutes œrules? or œdecrees? (mes) for the sea, appoints the winds to Ishkur™s command, and then causes the fields and animal life to flourish, as well as other acts of organisation. A god is made responsible for each phenomenon. Underlying this myth ” and others ” is the belief that each object of nature and feature of culture has its own me, œlaw,? intrinsic to it, as well as its own specific purpose in the working of the universe ” both of which is a result of divine assignments.

5. Cattle and Grain
[Translations: Chiera, Sumerian Epics, 26; Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, 53, 72-73.]

The beginning of this poem tells the purpose for which humanity was created: to provide food for the gods. The actual myth concerns Lahar, the cattle-god, and his sister Ashnan, the grain-goddess. This brother and sister pair were created by the gods to provide food for the œAnunnaki,? the followers of An. This arrangement did not work out though, as the followers of An were not sated. In order to remedy this situation and provide food for the gods humankind œwas given breath.?

Kramer also attempts to derive from the first line of this composition an idea of what the Sumerians pictured as the actual shape of heaven and earth. The first line reads: œAfter on the mountain of heaven and earth.? From this line Kramer concludes that œit is not unreasonable to assume . . . that heaven and earth united were conceived as a mountain whose base was the bottom of the earth and whose peak was the top of heaven.? Against this interpretation Jacobsen cogently argues that in the phrase œon the mountain of heaven and earth? (hur-sag an-ki-bi-da-ke4) the genitive cannot be taken as an appositive genitive (with mountain = heaven and earth). It should rather be taken as a possessive genitive, expressing the notion that from a phenomenological perspective the mountain appears to touch both heaven and the earth (Jacobsen, “Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article,? in Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture [Harvard Semitic Series 21; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970], 117-118).

6. Eridu Genesis
[Translations: Context of Scripture, 1.158; ANET 42-44; Jacobsen, œThe Eridu Genesis,? JBL 100 (1981): 513-29; The Harps that Once, 145-50.]

This myth of beginnings is pieced together from three sources: two Sumerian texts dated ca. 1600 BCE, and a bilingual document (Sumerian with Akkadian translation) from the Neo-Babylonian era. The story-line of the reconstructed text includes the creation of humankind and animals, the founding of kingship, the building of the first great cities, and the Deluge. Unfortunately, due to lacuna the earlier fragments do not contain the account of creation of humankind. Nevertheless, in the older texts the creation of humankind is assumed, and as the creators An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursaga are mentioned:

When An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninḫursaga
fashioned the dark“headed (people),
they had made the small animals (that come up) from (out of) the earth
come from the earth in abundance
and had let there be, as befits (it), gazelles,
(wild) donkeys, and four“footed beasts in the desert (Context of Scripture, 514).

From numerous parallels in other myths, though, it seems very likely that only Enki and Ninhursaga actually took part in the creative process (Jacobsen, œEridu Genesis,? 516).

7. Enki and Ninmah / The Creation of Humankind
[Translations: Context of Scripture, 1.159; Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, 69-72; Jacobsen, Treasures, 113-114; Harps, 151-66.]

This Sumerian tale is a prime anthropological text. It narrates the creation of humankind as well as including the motivation and the methods for doing so. It is not clear, however, whether the text as we have it was originally one or two separate and independent stories. Jacobsen thinks the latter because of what he considers major differences in setting and outlook between the two stories. The major differences that he mentions are: (1) Ninmah plays significantly different roles in the two sections. In the first she is a secondary figure, while in the second she has a much more prominent role; (2) in the first text humankind is engendered without the help of male semen, while in the second male semen is part of the process (Jacobsen, Harps, 151-153). Another way of looking at the text is offered by Kikawada. He construes the two parts of the myth as representing an archetypal ancient Near Eastern literary convention in which the creation of humankind is told in two parts. From his perspective any differences would be attributed to the typical movement from the general to the particular that is characteristic of the convention. The two explanations do not need to be considered mutually exclusive, in that even if the two parts of the myth were at one time totally distinct, an editor/redactor evidently put them together according to the convention (Isaac M. Kikawada, œThe Double Creation of Mankind in Enki and Ninmah, Atrahasis I 1“351, and Genesis 1“2,? Iraq 45 [1983]: 43).

The first part of the story begins with how at the beginning of time the lower gods had to toil for their livelihood. The work proved to be too much for them and they actively rebelled and blamed Enki for their toil. Enki™s mother, Namma, informed her son about the turmoil and suggested that he create a substitute for them. Enki then remembered œApsu™s [œthe deeps?] fathering clay? and had his mother get a couple of womb-goddesses pinch off this clay for her, and then Namma gave birth to humankind”œ[without] the sperm of a ma[le]? (Jacobsen, Harps, 156-157). The poem goes on to describe how Ninmah, œthe exalted lady? (= Ninhursaga), and Enki got into a contest during a celebration in honour of the newly created humanity. The contest entailed Ninmah trying to create deformed humans that Enki could not find a place for in society. Enki prevails and the composition ends with a hymn praising Enki.

8. Enki and Ninsikila/Ninhursaga
[Translations: ANET 37-41; Jacobsen, Harps, 181-83.]

This composition is a good example of a text that deals with theogony ” the engendering of the gods. Jacobsen contends, as with the above myth, that it is made up of two originally separate and independent stories. The first story consists primarily of an eulogy to the pristine land of Dilum. The second story basically narrates Enki™s sexual adventures. Enki™s first target is Nintur, whom he courts and eventually has to marry her to get his way with her and this produces Ninnisiga. Enki then proceeds to have intercourse with his daughter Ninnisiga, and then with his granddaughter, and then great-granddaughter, etc. Finally Enki™s real wife, Ninhursaga, has enough of his fooling around and warns Uttu ” the next in line ” about him. Enki eventually takes Uttu by force, but unbeknownst to Enki, Ninhursaga removes the semen from Uttu™s womb and plants it. Enki comes across the plants and eats then ” making him pregnant. As he cannot give birth, Ninhursaga places him in her vulva and gives birth to eight deities ” four gods and four goddesses.

Neo-Babylonian Creation Texts (Creation in Ancient Mesopotamia, Part 3)

Posted on Saturday 31 March 2007 by Tyler F. Williams

This is the third post in the series œIdeas of Origins and Creation in Ancient Mesopotamia.? The first post in the series detailed some methodological issues and highlighted some bibliographical resources, while the second post surveyed creation texts from the Old Babylonian period (ca. 2000 – 1600 BCE). This post will discuss a number of Neo-Bablylonian creation texts, while the fourth post in the series will synthesize the findings and relate them to our understanding of the biblical creation texts.

Neo-Babylonian Sources (ca. 1000“500 BCE)

Some of the more familiar “creation texts” from the ANE are found in the Neo-Babylonian period. The compositions are presented in random order and quotations are taken from the most recent scholarly translation of the text, usually The Context of Scripture. Once again, it should be noted that this section is by no means exhaustive.

1. Enuma elish / The Epic of Creation
[Texts come from three primary sources: (1) excavations at Nineveh by the British, published in CT XIII (1901); L. W. King, The Seven Tablets of Creation (2 vols.; London: 1902); (2) British-American excavations at Kish, found in S. Langdon, Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts VI (1923); and (3) German excavations at Ashur, printed in E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts (Leipzig, 1919, 1923). A composite cuneiform text was published by W. G. Lambert and Simon B. Parker, Enuma elish: The Babylonian Epic of Creation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966). Translations: Context of Scripture, 1.111; ANET 60-72, 501-503; Jacobsen, Treasures, 167-191; Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: the Story of Creation (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), 1-60; Dalley, Myths, 228-77. Online: Sacred Texts; GatewaysToBabylon.com]

This poem, often called after its opening words Enuma elish (œWhen above¦?), is usually dated around 1100 BCE. Its Akkadian seems to be a bit older than that date, suggesting that it could have been composed earlier. Jacobsen proposes that it could derive from the middle of the latter half of the second millennium BCE (Treasures, 167). Assuming that the Babylonian version is primary, it clearly could not have been written before the reign of Sumula-el (1936“1901 BCE), during whose reign Marduk came to supremacy. Hammurapi, Agum-Kakrime, Nebuchadnezzar I, among others, have all been suggested as possible reigns under which the epic could have been composed. Dalley favours an Amoritic setting for the composition of the tale (Myths, 229-230).

Referring to this work as œThe Epic of Creation? is somewhat of a misnomer. While some of its contents certainly deal with questions of origins, its primary concern is with exalting Marduk and the establishment of permanent kingship. As such, it would be more accurate to consider it a panegyric in honour of the god Marduk (cf. the last line of the epic: œThe song about Marduk, who vanquished Tiamat and assumed kingship.?). The epic also had a cultic function. A ritual text is extant that gives directions that the Epic of Creation was to be read (or enacted) on the fourth day of the New Year Festival in Babylon.

The epic itself consists of seven tablets which trace the advances towards and challenges against attaining the goal of Monarchy. The story can roughly be divided into two sections: a brief one dealing with the foundations of the universe (tablet one), and a much longer section narrating how the present world order was established (tablets two through seven). Only the portions of the epic which especially pertain to this series will be highlighted. The narrative poem begins:

When on high no name was given to heaven,
Nor below was the netherworld called by name,
Primeval Apsu was their progenitor,
And matrix“Tiamat was she who bore them all.

As noted above, the first tablet of the epic deals with the origins of the basic powers of the universe. The theogony of the gods begins with the older intransitive gods Apsu and Tiamat (representing sweet water and salt water respectively). Then the tablets go on to describe the discontent between the older gods ” Apsu and Tiamat ” and the younger, more boisterous and dynamic gods. Apsu and Tiamat are disturbed by the noise that the younger gods make to the extent that Apsu decides to respond destructively. The younger gods hear of the plot against them and through their appointed champion Marduk, the older gods are vanquished. After Marduk™s victory, he splits Tiamat™s body and fashions the heaven and the earth from it, and also creates the constellations, sun, and the moon.

The next creative act, which is told of on the sixth tablet, is the creation of humankind. After victory, Marduk spared the lives of the gods who had sided with Apsu and Tiamat, and they in turn pledged their allegiance to Marduk and vowed to build him a royal palace. The work proved to be too burdensome for them, and in order to relieve them from their toil Marduk decides to create humankind. The text reads:

œI shall compact blood, I shall cause bones to be,
I shall make stand a human being, let ˜Man™ be its name.
I shall create humankind,
They shall bear the gods™ burden that those may rest.
I shall artfully double the ways of the gods:
(10) Let them be honored as one but divided in twain.?

Marduk, on the advice of his father Ea, calls for an assembly of the gods during which Kingu (or Qingu), the god who incited Tiamat and started the war, was killed and from his blood Ea fashioned humankind. The tale continues to tell of the building of Babylon and ends with the Igigi gods praising Marduk by his fifty names.

2. Chaldean Cosmogony / Bilingual Creation Story
[Texts published in L. W. King, CT XIII (1901) 35-38. Translations: R. W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (NY and Cincinnati, 1926), 47-50; Heidel, Babylonian, 61-63; S. G. F. Brandon, Creation Legends of the Ancient Near East (London, 1963), 70.]

This bilingual text (Sumerian and Akkadian) comes from the sixth century, but most likely originates from earlier sources. Like the above myth, the central theme and objective of its creation story is to provide justification and support for Marduk™s position as supreme monarch among the Babylonian pantheon. It begins when œall the lands were sea,? and then tells how Eridu and its temple arose in Apsu, along with Babylon and Marduk. Marduk, with the help of the goddess Aruru, then created humankind, œin order to settle the gods in the dwelling of (their) heart™s delight? (Heidel, Babylonian, 63, line 19).

3. The Theogony of Dunnu / Babylonian Theogony
[Published by A. R. Millard, CT XLVI 43. Translations: W. G. Lambert and P. Walcot, œA New Babylonian Theogony and Hesiod,? Kadmos 4 (1965) 64-72; Thorkild Jacobsen, œThe Harab Myth,? Studies in the Ancient Near East 2/3 (Malibu; 1984); Context of Scripture, 1.112; ANET 517-518; Dalley, Myths, 278-281.]

This brief story in Akkadian about the begetting of the gods is a Late Babylonian copy of a theogony from the early second millennium when Dunnu was a town of distinction. Unfortunately, a large part of the text is missing, so a proper analysis cannot yet be made. The text depicts the Plough and the Earth as being the source of creation and genitors of the Sea, unlike the stories that have Apsu and Tiamat as the primeval forces in creation. The composition continues to narrate the begetting of other gods, with the motif of incest, patricide and matricide being especially prominent.

4. Atra-hasis
[Full publication data can be found in W. G. Lambert and Alan R. Millard, Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (New ed.; Winnona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com), 31-41. Translations: Context of Scripture, 1.130; ANET 104-106, {512-514}; Jacobsen, Treasures, 116-121; Dalley, Myths, 1-38; W. L. Moran, œThe Creation of Man in Atrahasis I 192-248,? Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 200 (1970): 48-56; ibid., œSome Considerations of Form and Interpretation in Atrahasis,? in Language, Literature and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner (ed. F. Rochberg-Halton; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), 245-256; ibid., œAtrahasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood,? Biblica 52 (1971): 51-61; A. Kilmer, œThe Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and Its Solution as Reflected in the Mythology,? Orientalia, n.s. 41 (1972): 160-177. Online: GatewaysToBabylon.com]

This Akkadian creation story provides the background for the early history of humankind that leads to the disastrous great flood. The myth is named after its main hero, Atra-hasis (which means œextra-wise?), who built and ark and saved humanity from the destruction of the great flood. The earliest surviving manuscripts come from the seventeenth century BCE, though the composite nature of the work makes any conclusive statements beyond this impossible.

The epic begins at a period in time, before the creation of humanity, when the lower deities had to provide the labour necessary to provide sustenance for the higher gods. The first two lines of the composition reads:

When the gods instead of man [or perhaps: “When the gods were man”] Did the work, bore the loads . . .

At that time the responsibility for the universe was divided between the great triad of ruling gods: Anu controlled heaven, Enlil ruled on earth, and Enki in the fresh waters below the earth and the sea. In due time the gods found their labour intolerable and began to grumble and ultimately they revolt and refuse to work anymore. The always diplomatic Enki proposes a solution to the quandary: create humankind to do the menial work. This recommendation is approved by the gods, who then enlist the help of the mother goddess Mami (Nintur). The actual description of the creation of humankind is told in two successive parallel accounts. In the first Mami, with the help of Enki, produces humankind from clay made from the flesh and blood of a god named Geshtu-e (We-e), who was obviously the leader of the rebellion (lines 5-245). The second, and more concrete, account notes how Enki and Mami come to the œroom of fate? and create seven pairs of people by snipping off clay from a mud brick (lines 249-351).

The epic goes on to tell how humanity proliferates and becomes too noisy; and how, at the insistence of Enlil, the population is reduced respectively by plague, then twice by famine and drought. Finally Enlil sends a great flood to wipe out humanity once and for all, but Enki conspires with Atra-hasis, who is saved from the flood.

5. Trilingual Creation Story
[Printed in E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts (Leipzig, 1919, 1923) no. 4. Translations: Ebeling, Zeitschrift der deutschen morganländischen Gesellschaft LXX (1916): 532-38; Heidel, Babylonian, 68-71. Cf. Jacobsen, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 5 (1946): 143, n. 24 ]

This composition discovered at German excavations at Ashur dates from ca. 800 BCE provides another rendition of the creation of humanity. In this text the blood of two craftsman deities is used to make humankind. It reads:

When heaven had been separated from the earth, . . .
(and) the mother goddess had been brought into being; . . .
[Then] the great gods, . . .
Seated themselves in the exalted sanctuary
And recounted among themselves what had been created. . . .
What (else) shall we do? . . .
œLet us slay (two) Lamga gods.
With their blood let us create mankind.
The service of the gods be their portion,
For all times. . . .?

As with many other texts, humankind was created in order that they might serve the gods. Significantly, for the first time in any Babylonian literature the first two humans are given names: Ulligara and Zalgarra, which probably mean œthe establisher of abundance? and œthe establisher of plenty,? respectively.

6. When Anu Had Created the Heavens
[Printed in The text is published and translated by F. H. Weissbach, Babylonische Miscellen (Leipzig, 1903), pl. 12, 32-34. Translations: Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, 44-46; Heidel, Babylonian, 65-66]

This text is a brief cosmological story found in Babylon. The creation account in it is employed as an incantation ” a magic ritual for the restoration of the temple. The text recites an ancestry of the gods, that begins with Anu, and then recounts the creation of humankind. In this composition Ea pinches off some clay in the Apsu and creates humankind œfor the do[ing of the service of the gods(?)].?

7. The Worm and the Toothache
[Published by Thompson, CT XVII (London, 1903) pl. 50. Translations: Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, 52-53.; Heidel, Babylonian, 72-73; ANET 100-101. Online: GatewaysToBabylon.com]

This manuscript is one of the best incantations that contains cosmological material. It dates from Neo-Babylon times, though a colophon indicates that it originates from an earlier date. The incantation is to relieve a toothache, which evidently was associated with the worm. The cosmological data starts with the creation of heaven by Anu and then goes on to record how Anu created the Earth (Ki), and the Earth created the rivers, and so on all the way down to the worm.

The final post in this series will synthesize the findings and relate them to our understanding of the biblical creation texts.