Tension between Enki and Enlil (B/W Theoretical)

[us4-he2-gal2]

Thread Orientation: This thread is intended to explore one facet of the Theoretical Model of Magic in History and its application to Mesopotamia presented Binsbergen and Wiggermann. For further context see the thread "Theoretical Understandings (Binsbergan/Wiggermann)" found on the Mesopotamian Magic board. In particular, this thread corresponds to the following study point (I have the uncharacteristic color pink in attempting to make these points stand out). I hope here to hit upon some surrounding context and parallels.


[2] The authors imply in this paper and later explicitly suggest, a tension between Enki and Enlil and they refer to Kramers work "Enki and his inferiority complex". This theme is worth investigating, and I hope shortly to have relevant material on a thread dedicated to Ninurta and the Turtle (also a follow to the Imdugud thread).

[us4-he2-gal2]

The Theology of Eridu and Nippur

Under the heading "Holism in the arcane arts of Mesopotamia" B/W make the following rather potent mytho-historical statement about underlying religious currents:

"Thus, although E n k i / Ea is a full member of the pantheon and as such fulfills his role as embedding agent, a certain tension is expected between him, the ancient guardian of the m e / par_u ordered universe, and the representatives of theistic hegemony. In fact, as we will see below, this tension, which from a different perspective S. N. Kramer59 has called ‘E n k i / Ea’s inferiority complex’, is attested in the demonisation of E n l i l ’s rule."





The Influence of Nippur


An echo of this statement especially regarding the rise of the "representatives of theistic hegemony" might be seen in the opening of Thorkild Jacobsen's "Treasures of Darkness." On p.20 Jacobsen gives an outline of three major religious metaphors in which the gods were seen and presented. In sum they are:

• 1. As spiritual cores in phenomina, indwelling wills and powers mostly corresponding to natural phenomina of primarily economic importance.
  
• 2. As rulers.
  
• 3. A parents, such as in the penitential psalms (most likely corresponding to personnal gods here.)

[/color]
[/li][/ul]

Relevant here is "2. As rulers." Because the terms used differ widely in verbiage, I believe its roughly correct that 'as rulers' = 'representatives of theistic hegemony'. Jacobsen's accompanying explanation reads about gods as rulers reads: "The second metaphor, that of the ruler, appears to be later. It is less common, and where it occurs it is intimately bound up with the social and political forms of relatively advanced character. Our earliest evidence for this metaphor dates from the outgoing Protoliterate, the so-called Jemdat Nasr period, and the following Early Dynastic period when divine names composed with e n "lord" begin to appear: E n - l í l, "Lord Wind" and En - k i ( . a k ), "Lord of the soil." The rather elaborate political mythology associated with this metaphor with its general assembly of gods meeting in Nippur would appear to reflect historical political conditions not earlier than Early Dynastic. Nippur itself seems to date as a major site from just before Early Dynastic I and so the political mythology connected with it is most likely to be placed in the period of transition from Early Dynastic I to II."

In "Toward the Image of Tammuz" , p.140, Jacobsen further details that the elaborate political mythology, such as the election of the king of all Sumer with in an assembly headed by An and Enlil at Nippur, may testify to the role of Nippur as gathering point to which "the citizens of Sumerian cities assembled to elect common leaders, "lords" or "kings" as the case might be." He suggests this may be the original political reality behind the myths and later political mythology, which would agree well with the observation "the only term we have for Sumer as a political unit, [is] the term kengir; for there is good evidence that this term was originally a term for Nippur itself, and its understandable that a political organization created in Nippur meetings should take its name from the meeting place." Jacobsen refers collectiviely to the cities brought under the influence of Nippur as the "kengir league."





Mythological and Theological Rivalery

• The Supremacy of Enlil
  

In an article "The West, the Bible and the Ancient East: Apperceptions and Categorisations" (1974), J. J. Finkelstein writes:

"The supremacy of Enlil - deriving from the theology of Nippur, which achieved dominance in Sumer early in the third millennium B.C. - did not entail the absorption of, or even any realy encroachment upon, the jurisdictional province of other major gods. Enlil's supremancy- as that of Marduk of Babylon and Ashur of Assyra, which were little more than adaptations of this theology for other times and places- lay rather in his relationship to humanity than to the other gods. For Enlil personified the vital forces inherent in that part of cosmic geography - from the surface of the earth up to the vault of the skies- which most immediately affected the well-being of mankind (and of all living things), namely the life-sustaining ones of fertility, vegetation, and all the phenomena associated with the maintenance of an abundant food-supply. But Enlil's overlordship as regards the other gods, as distinct from his perceived relationship to humanity, was more honorific than substantive. He was the overlord of such gods as An, Inanna, Utu, and Nanna; but he neither delegated to them their respective jurisdictions, nor could he usurp them. Even more to the point, the Nippurian theology could not eradicate- nor is there evidence of any deliberate effort in this direction- the older and 'rivalling' theology of Eridu, wherein Enki was the supreme deity. Enki (Ea in the later Semitic literature) remained throughout totally independent of Enlil. He was the fountainhead of all the arts and civilisation and of wisdom in general, the archetypical Promethean god, the patron of, and spokesman for, mankind. In this guise he retained the power even to thwart Enlil's decision to destroy mankind through the primeval Flood alerting Atrahasis (later identified by thr additional name Utanapishtim, the Mesopotamian prototype of Noah) of the impending catastrophe and giving him explicit and detailed instructions for securing the means to escape the fate awaiting him the rest of his fellow me."


For those who may take Kramer's classic explanation of Sumerian Cosmology in "Sumerian Mythology" as the end all say all of Sumerian theological matters - its safe to say that with a fair amount of trouble, one can glimpse the true complexity of this subject as it is discussed in scholarly circles. Finklestein makes an additional comment which is helpful in this regard "When, in the context of some particular cosmogony, a single god is elevated to supremacy and proceeds to parcel out the cosmic domains to the rest of the pantheon -as Marduk does in Enuma Elis, the so-called 'Babylonian Epic of Creation' - the secheme is best understood as a reflection chiefly of local, time-bound, political realities that have been transposed onto a cosmic plane. They do not offer us an authentic insight into the more profound constants of Mesopotamian cosmology, i.e., its apperceptions of the nature of 'deity', and the immutable interrelationships between the great gods."

• Differing Theologies?
  

Different Theologies are referred to by W.W. Hallo in his 1996 JAOS review of the book "Myths of Enki: The Crafty God" (Kramer/Maier 1986.) Hallo relays that three discrete ideologies may be identified in Sumer, "the theologies of Nippur, Lagash, and Eridu" of which he remarks Kramer and Maier's work is the first systematic survey of the latter. (although "it does not operate with the notion of a theology of Eridu" it does represent a systematic survey of the text which constitute such.) He continues "The first and oldest of these theologies centered upon Enlil, effectively the head of the Sumerian pantheon, and reflected conditions of the Early Dynastic times, a period when Nippur, Enlil's cult city, also served as the religious center of a league of all Sumer (Jacobsen's Kengir League") and later, under the Sargonic and Ur III Dynasties, of Sumer and Akkad. It served into Old Babylonian times when the First Dynasty of Isin tried to present itself as the heir to all Sumerian tradition since the Flood." [Here Hallo refers to the writing of the Sumerian King List - refer to the "Numerology' Enenuru thread, esp. P. Michalowski.] " It was enshrined at this time in the Neo-Sumerian canon as fixed in the scribal schools, particularly at Nippur. In addition to the hymns, lamentations, and other genres on Enlil and/or his consort Ninlil (or Sud or even Ashnan), the theology of Nippur is exemplified primarily in the Nippur recension of the Sumerian King List."
The author comments on the theology of Lagash, noting it revolved around Ningirsu, who was prominent in the later E.D. and Sargonic periods, and this theology was reflected in myths about Ninurta. About the theology of Eridu its explained that it centered on Enki -

"His cult center was at Eridu, and Eridu was the oldest city in fact as well as in tradition (Sumerian, Akkadian and even Hebrew). It was thus possible to claim a hoary antiquity for this theology, though, in fact, it was probably not systematized before the middle of the Old Babylonian Period and the rise to prominence of Babylon. Here Marduk, the local deity, was equated with Asarluhi, the son of Enki, and turned, like his Sumerian prototype, into a patron of incantation and magic. The Sumerian flood story, in which Enki bests Enlil to assure the survival of humankind, was modified to provide a new antediluvian prologue, beginning with Eridu, to the Sumerian King List. A whole host of myths focusing on Enki developed the theme of his solicitude for humanity as a conterwieght to the terror inspired by Enlil and his unalterable "word."

Thus it seems that what is termed the "Theology of Eridu" by scholars is perhaps implicitly evident in texts, and can be infered from 'tension' in the myths, however despite the greater antiquity of Eridu and its cult, and perhaps for lack of textural evidence from Abu Shahrain, the Theology of Eridu refers a religious outlook with explicit attestation no earlier then "The Eridu Genesis" (referred to as the modified Sumerian Flood story above). Jacobsen dates this to approx 1600 B.C. That the Theology of Eridu is not textually explicit before tihs date, does not mean the tension between Enki and Enlil begain here - or even that the Theology started at this time. Currently I am unable to explain the exact distinctions between the Theology of Eridu, and the 'Eridu circle' - that is a circle of gods connected with Enki.

• Mythological Tensions
  

Hallo (JAOS 1990) refers to the flood thusly "From the perspective of religious history, the Flood originates as a chapter in the struggle between the deities Enki and Enlil or, if one prefers, between the rival theologies and priesthoods of the first city, Eridu, and the later center of the amphictyony, Nippur."
Most notable in his conviction of a tension between Enlil and Enki is S.N. Kramer whose article "Enki and his Inferiority complex" Or 39 (1970) I do not have access to, however this theory is hinted at in numerous of his works, and its clear Kramer held a similiar assessment of the theological aspects of the flood as Hallo has demonstrated above. Another example is Kramer's comment on the "Spell of Enki" (aka "Spell of Nudimmud") from the Enmerker and the Lord of Arrata. He comments about these lines:

"To judge from the context, it seems safe to surmise that Enki, displeased with, or jealous of, the sway of Enlil, took some action to disrupt it, and thus put an end to man's Golden Age by bringing about conflicts and wars among peoples of the world. Perhaps (on the assumption that lines 10 and 11 are to be taken literally), Enki even brought about a confusion of languages."

However Vanstiphout in a new interpretation of this piece has posited that it should be read in the future tense, and that foreign nations are to be the subject of the effects of the spell, not Sumer proper. (reviewed at ***Enenuru*** :: General :: Mesopotamian Magic :: Literary Magic (Black Magic?/Spell of Nudimmud)

Still to come:
-What cant be said about the significance of the tablet of Destinies in Enki's hands in the myth "Ninurta and the Turtle"
-And Tension between Enki and Enlil in Incantation literature

[us4-he2-gal2]

Conflict in Epiphets and so on

Ive just noticed the following piece from Peeter Espak's master thesis on Enki/Ea (Available for free here)

PG. 25:

"S.N. Kramer argues that the complex en-ki was originally an epiphet "which may have been substituted by the Sumerian theologians for a Semitic deity - in this case, the god Ea." "Here in Eridu there was a local deity by the name of Ea, and the aspiring theologians of that city, eager to make him the supreme deity of the land, pressed forward his claim for lordship over the earth, and in an effort to insure his claim applied to him the epiphet en-ki, 'Lord of the Earth,' which then became his Sumerian name." Here, a power struggle between the Eridu orientated and Nippur tradition theologians is presupposed, so the assumed quest of Enki (Eridu theologians) is making the cult of Enki and Eridu leading power in Sumerian theology instead of Enlil. "The title 'Lord of the Earth' seems to point to an effort on the part of the Sumerian theologians to make him a rival of Enlil who 'had carried off the earth' after heaven had been seperated from it, and would therefore presumably be the real 'Lord of the Earth." ¹⁰¹


[Notice Espak's wording at first is "Eridu Orientated" as we do not actually have literary survival from Eridu. But to distinguiish two 'schools' or for brevity, the term 'Eridu Theologians' seems acceptable.]

[It's relayed here that the nature of Jacobsen's objection here, is that he interprets En as having the meaning 'productive manager' and thus the same tension is not the same as when the meaning of 'Lord' was understood.]

Note 101: S.N. Kramer, Geneva NS (1960), p. 276. Kramer thinks to have found evidence about the rivalry of Enlil and Enki in the so-called "Golden Age" passage, where Enki by the speculation of Kramer developed in JAOS 63 (1943) pp. 191-94, and further developed in JAOS 88 (1968), pp. 108-11, confuses the toungues of humankind to stop them giving praise to Enlil in one language. The real meaning of the nam-sub of Nummud contained in lines 136-155 of "Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta" epic still contains many uncertainties. For opposite views to Kramer, cf. Th. Jacobsen's interpretation in Fs. Talmon (1992), pp. 403-416. Enki's inferior position towards Enlil is represented in one of the epiphets of Enki, ^den-líl-bàn-da (Cf. Enmerker and the Lord of Aratta: 128: ^den-líl-bàn-da-ke-en-gi-ra-ke₄: Junior Enlil of Sumer). His status as "younger Enlil" does not reflect his smaller importance directly. However, it states that Enki is seen as an organiser of Earth instead of Enlil. The rivalry motive is however present in the later Flood stories. Cf. W. W. Hallo JAOS 110 (1990)....."


The Tablet of Destinies in Enki's Hands

See Ninurta and the Turtle, ETCSL T. 1.6.3


If Kramer might percieve a challenge from the Theologians of Eridu by their use of an epiphet "Lord of the Earth", might the instance of Enki's possessing the Tablet of Destinies not represent a simular Theological motion (through myth)?



Its is widely accepted by commenting scholars that the Tablet of Destinies in this fragmented Sumerian myth is stolen and returned to Enki, who paradoxiaclly, is therefore its posseror in this tradition. Concerning the above scene on Cylinder Seal ME 103317, Kramer (1986, 121) writes "If this is an episode from the story of Enki and the Anzu (chapter 6, below), it is significant that the culminating scene is not the theft of the divine me or the action scene of battle between divine forces. Rather it is [the] moment of restoring order. The divine me are back in their proper place."


So far as Ive been able to note the primary attestation of the Tablet of Destinies in Sumerian sources is in fact this myth, Ninurta and the Turtle (Enki and the Anzu), where the Tablet of Destinies is written in Sumerian dub nam-ta-ra. Other attestations of this object are the later Myth of the Anzu, and the Creation Epic. From these and surrounding sources, scholars have described the Tablet of Destinies as containing the deliberations and decisions of the Divine Assembly - the act of writing them 'thus recorded, reinforced and memorialized forever the "governmental" wishs of the gods' is how the general understanding goes. The Tablet of Destinies is fundimentally the heavenly counterpart of earthly administrative and legal documents (following Amar Annus 2001). With reference to the B/W model, and as much as it is elsewhere the progative of Enlil, the Tablet of Destinies could hardly more embody the Hegemonic rule of Enlil, whose governmental rule was enforced by Namtar - of course the Trablet of Destinies itself is the dub nam-ta-ra.
Its somewhat perplexing to question by what variant tradition, tension between Enki and Enlil, or rivalry between the Eridu and Nippur theologians, did Enki come to possess the Tablet of Destinies in the earliest attestation of this object?


Tension in the Magic Tradition

M. Geller in his 2003 work TMH 6 (Ur III Incantations from the Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection, Jena) touchs briefly on this in his introduction to the work. While the UrIII incantations are not directly relevent here, he explains Enlil had in the Early Dynastic incantations played an important role as benefactor, yet "he also plays a significant role in later Udug-hul incantations in which the demons are sent forth by Enlil. There is thus a subtle tension between Enki and Enlil one punishes, the other heals. The same tension appears, of course, in the Atra-hasis epic in which Enlil's destructive intention to eradicate mankind is ameliorated by Enki's interventions, and mankind is saved." The Udug hul incantations referred to are the of the late, Neo-Assyrian corpus.


-More consideration of these Deity roles in incantation literature to come..

[sheshki]

Nippur, Enlil and Royal Power

from:



The Nippur Lament by S.Tinney



Old Akkadian Rulers

With the defeat of Lugalzagesi, Sargon, founder of the dynasty of Akkad, entered Nippur no less intent on proving the deserving nature of his claims to power, for according to his inscriptions, Sargon made an early start putting the symbolic power of Enlil and Nippur to work for his own ends by parading the defeated Lugalzagesi up to the gate of Enlil in a neck stock. Indeed, Sargon and his successors Rimuš, Maništušu, Naram-Sin, Šar-kali-šarri, and Dudu dedicated an impressive catalogue of objects including statues, stelae, valuables and booty from military campaigns, to Enlil and Inanna in their temples at Nippur.
Sargon, Rimuš, Manishtushu and Naram-Sin, all explicitly augment their claims to kingship by reference to Enlil, and the participation of Šar-kali-šarri in a coronation ceremony in Nippur in the first year of his reign can probably be documented in archival texts. Naram-Sin´s rebuilding of the Ekur, the great Enlil temple complex, was completed by Šar-kali-šarri and was to go down in Mesopotamian historiography as Naram-sin´s fatal act of hubris. It has been suggested that Naram-Sin worked on the Inanna temple at Nippur, and a year name of Naram-Sin indicates that he worked to improve Nippur´s watersupply. He also installed one of his daugters, Tudanapšum, as high-priestess of Enlil in Nippur, and one of his sons, the crown-prince Šar-kali-šarri, as the citys govenour.



Ur III Rulers



Ur-Namma

The first Ur III king, Ur-Namma, rebuilt the Ekur and its Ziggurat, though little survives except substructures, pavements, foundation deposits and several inscriptions( Ur-Namma 3, bricks; Ur-Namma 16, door socket). Work carried out by this king on the E-šu-tum of Enlil is also attested. Bricks of Šulgi and Amar-Suen also attest to work carried out in the Ekur complex by these kings.
The major building operation carried out by Šulgi in Nippur was the razing and reconstruction of the Inanna temple, E-dur-an-ki. The preliminary reports on the excavation of this building and its seven undisturbed foundation deposits are augmented by Elli´s discussion and Zettler´s synthesis. The inscriptional remains may be found as Šulgi 20(door socket) and 75 (bricks).
Amar-Suen´s work in Nippur at the "Small Shrine of Enlil" is attested by Amar-Suen 1 and 2 and the two door-sockets found in situ and now known as Amar-Suen 9 and 10. Ibbi-Sin reports in YN 6 that he rebuilt the great wall of Nippur.
With the rise of the Ur III dynasty we are able to trace a new form of royal preoccupation with Nippur alongside of those known from earlier times, namely the hymnic texts that form the core of royal literatur for kings from the Ur III period to the end of the OB period. Unsurprisingly, in view of the fact that Nippur and its pantheon are, of course, almost ubiquitous in the Nippur-centric Sumerian literary corpus that has come down to us, the city and its gods feature prominently in texts dealing with Ur III kings. Thus, for example, Ur-Namma´s rebuilding of the Ekur is commemorated and celebrated in the hymn Ur-Namma B; the abundance enjoyed by the land as a result of Ur-Namma´s farming on Enlils fields is the subject of the balbale of Enlil, Ur-Namma G; Enlil and his power are praised in Šulgi G; an adab of Enlil which names Šulgi as the provider of Ekur; and Shulgi recounts the building of a boat for Ninlil in Šulgi R. As we shall discuss in due course, these texts suggest that certain specific sources of the early Isin obsession with Nippur and Enlil lie in the Ur III period, as argued in several places by Jacob Klein.

[enkur]

I'm really not able to see where in the incantation of Nudimmud in "Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta" Mr. Kramer saw an argument for his claim that Enki has "brought about a confusion of languages".

etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.2.3&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc&lineid=t1823.p1#t1823.p1

In the lines 134-155 we read:

"Chant to him the holy song, the incantation sung in its chambers -- the incantation of Nudimmud: "On that day when there is no snake, when there is no scorpion, when there is no hyena, when there is no lion, when there is neither dog nor wolf, when there is thus neither fear nor trembling, man has no rival! At such a time, may the lands of Šubur and Ḫamazi, the many-tongued, and Sumer, the great mountain of the me of magnificence, and Akkad, the land possessing all that is befitting, and the Martu land, resting in security -- the whole universe, the well-guarded people -- may they all address Enlil together in a single language! For at that time, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, Enki, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings -- Enki, the lord of abundance and of steadfast decisions, the wise and knowing lord of the Land, the expert of the gods, chosen for wisdom, the lord of Eridug, shall change the speech in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one.""

Unfortunately I don't know Sumerian to make a revision of my own to that ETCSL translation but it makes sense to my feeling:

On the contrary, I see therein an early globalization idea, that in the future Enki will change the speech in the peoples's mouths as many as he first had placed there, so that the speech of mankind become truly one. It comes to enhance the message of Enmerkar to the lord of Aratta, that he should give up his local nationalistic separatism on behalf of Uruk's more developed civilization.

Today we can see how this ancient spell comes true in the most pervert way: the human globalization takes places at the expense of the environment and the authentic cultures. The dominating English-speaking monotheist Abrahamic culture (having as the only opponent another monotheist Abrahamic culture) has spread its civilization all over the world using both economic and military compulsion. The snakes literaly face extinction.

As for Mr. Kramer, I think he repeats the syndrome of many Victorian (old-school) scholars who unconsciously (and sometimes quite consciously) project their early Biblical education unto the object of their study.

[muska]

Afanasieva in her comment to Spell of Nudimmud notices that, probably, word "ambitious", "jealous", "rival" (a-da) in lines 147-149 relates to Enki and can be understood as evidence of rivalry between Enki and Enlil, but, nevertheless, translation is conditional, also fragment interpretation remains not indisputable.

[enkur]

For me this translation simply says that for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, and for the ambitious kings like Enmerkar who are eager to expand the civilization, Enki will make the the speech of mankind truly one - to facilitate their rule as deputies of the Anunna gods upon the earth.

There is also an apparent contradiction in Enki's own statement in "Enki and the World Order", in lines 64 and 68 in the transliteration

etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=c.1.1.3&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc&lineid=c113.61#c113.61

where Enki relates to Enlil as "my elder brother" (pap-ĝu10) and in the same time he presents himself as "the first born of An" (dumu-saĝ an-na-me-en). Maybe this Nippurian text was a revised version of some older Eridu text and inadventently preserved Enki's original cultic status in Eridu's unknown cosmology?

While the compromise between the two brothers is apparent in most of the ancient texts, the tension between them has become a declared war in the modern Enki's cults, where Enki is identified with Lucifer/ Prometheus, and Enlil with Yahweh/Zeus. Some adherents of the Sitchin-like extraterrestial Anunnaki's conspiracy theories even see Enlil and Enki respectively as the "bad cop" and the "good cop", who harass the arested humanity ;D The analogy with that police trick often applied to the prisoner's psyche, is very close indeed

I can't neglect the human beliefs neither in the antiquity, nor nowadays, especially when the same archetypes are concerned. Seems that some archetypes may outlive their cultures and civilizations by evolving within the collective psyche of their successors, adopting new meanings but preserving their unique temperaments.

I could also speculate about Enki as being the creator himself, who as a true man of art stands apart from his creation, unwilling to take the pains with the toil of ruling it, so he has left it to Enlil, and interferres only when Enlil's rule threatens it, while he personally prefers to ponder over the cosmic mysteries and discoveries.

The gnostics who tried to synthesize the mythic lore of the Near East after Alexander the Great's hellenization had some similar, though tasteless ideas. In brief, God has nothing to do with the creation, the creator being Satan (also identified with Yahweh) himself, therefore the material life is a byproduct of his sin, and one should seek a redemption thereof.

Apart from my own subjective relations with the living archetypes, I could further speculate about their evolvings through the millenia. If Enlil is seen as Yahweh, then it comes out that he tries to "reconcile" himself with humanity, which he often punishes, via Jesus, who taught humility before his tyranny. According to this most mass religion today, it comes out that he has died as a human to make humans totally obey him and thus achieve an emotional peace within his arbitrary rule. If Enlil is seen as Zeus, however, a more reconciling deity could be seen in the face of his human avatar Dionysos, who taught ecstasy as a cure to his intolerable awesomeness... But as it often happens within the inert collective psyche of humanity, it's the more mediocre cults which survive, and if Enki don't interferre again and stimulate an evolutionary change, his mad brother will most probably destroy humanity

[muska]

Here is T. Jacobsen s article on Spell of Nudimmud
books.google.ru/books?id=GFc4FweG6QYC&lpg=PA403&ots=k_mHyeQymy&dq=spell%20of%20nudimmud&pg=PA403#v=onepage&q=spell%20of%20nudimmud&f=false
Jacobsen provided a theory about preventive measures taken by Enki that people have not multiply, and Enlil has not destroyed them.
On the other hand, V. Emelianov assumes that Enki has made it simply of his envy to Enlil.

[enkur]

Muska,

Thank you very much about this reference. I did read it, but there are pages missing, so I was not able to fully trace Jacobsen's thought. Yet I generally got his idea, which is interesting and makes sense, but until I don't know Sumerian, I prefer to invest my belief in the ETCSL translation. I'm able to bear responsibility about my opinions which are based on another kind of erudition Unfortunately the erudition of the scholarship is often at the expense of intuition. While I've admired Jacobsen when reading some insightful paragraphs in "The Treasures of Darkness", I’ve also come across some paragraphs which have showed to me his biases as well. It's inevitable despite of all the human attempts for objectivity. So I remain reserved to his translation of and theory about the Spell of Nudimmud – probably because of having my own biases.

I think it’s one of Enlil’s own MEs (offices) to periodically thin out the density of human population, and sometimes I could be very empathic with him, because I actually have some natural affinity to this deity, which often makes me feel not very happy. NOTHING LASTS, BUT NOTHING IS LOST. That’s why I do respect Enlil, and for the demonization of his archetype mostly Assur, Ahura-Mazda, Yahweh and in less degree Zeus and Jove are to be held responsible. Ea’s alleged son Marduk also didn’t change much the situation with the heavenly tyranny. Enlil as the Lord of the Winds is still an immanent deity as well as Assur, Zeus and Jove who still have their female counterparts – while Ahura Mazda and Yahweh have become transcendent and single male mega-totalitarian egregores, who present the most morbid aspects of Enlil’s archetype. The very idea that the transcendent is higher than the immanent indicates the beginning of the magical religion’s distortion into a spiritual plague and mere politics whose new priesthood starts its witch-hunt to hide its magical incompetence.

Scholars who conduct the same idea of the supremacy of the transcendent over the immanent in their studies, do not enjoy my trust. I suspect their earlier Biblical education is unconsciously (or consciously) projected unto the objects of their study and their brains work to find evidences within this projection/expectation only. For example, I’m more than sure that the Biblical lore about how “God” created the language barrier by the fall of Babylon’s tower was settled in Jacobsen’s brain much before he learnt Sumerian and translated the Spell of Nudimmud. Such a pre-conditioned brain could find any scientific evidences to prove the objectivity of its projection. If the subjectivity wasn’t able to objectify itself, magick would hardly work. And however brutal it may sound, the most primitive magick still underlies unconsciously every human motive, and the intent behind it could be reduced simply to “not you, but me!” That's the whole subtext of the "Holy" Bible which distorts the human psyche still in the early childhood.

The only thing I'm grateful to the education during the former regimen is that it has saved me from the early indoctrination with the Biblical plague! No Necronomicon could be compared with its murderous effect.

[muska]

I also heard about B. Alster, Vastinphout and J. Klein s papers on Spell of Nudimmud, but unfortunately can not find them. The scholarly explanations (familiar to me) why Enki confused languages seems very different. If he did it because of his rivalry to Enlil, it would be single reference to controversy between Enlil and Enki in Sumerian literature, while in Sumerian version of Flood story the topic of Enki s deceipt is absent.
Your reference to Enlil s Me is very insightful. This remains me about line 89 in Hendursanga hymn (ETCSL. 4.06.1). In this hymn demons of deceases "precisely implementing the divine powers of the gods" (literally Me). They simply does their work well. So the task for human being is not to claim these demons as World Evil or so on but to prevent the deceases by any means. This perception is characteristic for Sumerian worldview.

[enkur]

Muska,

Would you give me a link to this Hendursanga hymn (ETCSL. 4.06.1), please? Sometimes using the ETCSL search turns into a nightmare to me - either because of my ignorance , or due to some ETCSL conspiracy


Somehow I share that Sumerian perception as you call it. Enlil and Enki complement each other rather than being hostile to each other. However, historically the balance was broken by the dominating Nippurian theology, which somehow reflected the over-development of the left brain hemisphere at the expense of the right one, the achievement of certain MEs at the expense of other MEs. The development of the technical tools at the expense of the magical lore. Unfortunately even if one could restore the balance for oneself, one could hardly restore it for the world in general - I take care about the world only lest it destroy my individual evolution by some collective agenda, or lest the collective destiny devour my personal destiny I've managed to rule till now. Nothing lasts but I think the Sumerian civilization extinguished prematurely, prior to achieve its real climax as did Egypt. It prematurely created an excessive material wealth which attracted the predatory appetittes of its neighbour peoples prior to naturally grow strong and unified. The Ur III wasn't what it should be since the Sumerians were already a minority during that period.


In the far Norse mythos we can see a different situation with similar archetypes: there the Magician-god Odin has totally taken away the initiative of the originally ruling Sky/Storm-god Tyr/Thor, to the extent that Thor become Odin's strongest but not quite clever son. Though the Nordic world was ruled by the Magician-god it didn't save it from being defeated by the black magic of Christianity despite of its resistance. Some blind collective fate has doomed the pagan pantheons all over the world.


If it was all decreed by Enlil, it's not a mere desease, it's a mass deadly cancer. If it was decreed by Enlil, it means he is also doomed to starvation and extinction - therefore he is a blind mad idiotic god not unlike the Lovecraftian Azathoth, or the Crowlean Choronzon. If!


For me the crisis started with some break in the sacred marriage tradition, which provided the people with the constant presence of the Noble Seed. The mythic quarell between Gilgamesh and Inanna reflects this tradition's break: Gilgamesh being an ensi of Uruk refused Inanna the sacred marriage, and thus doomed his descendants - Inanna went to Agade, and the Akkadians conquerred Sumer in her name. Moreover, the mythic act of killing the Great Bull of Heaven was the very act of killing the Noble Seed, of denying its presence in the future human generations.

[muska]

Link to Hendursanga hymn
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.06.1#
I tend to think that the binom construct Enlil-Enki belong to modern perception of myths not to Mesopotamian thought. These deities sometimes worked together, sometimes came to conflict, but their interaction seems not to be the crucial point of Sumerian mythology (unlike Ahuramazda-Ahriman duality in Iran or even Chinese Yin-Yan).

[enkur]

Thank you very much for the link! Even when writing &hendursa&ga as they want in the ETCSL search, it doesn't work.
As I said I agree with you as regards the Sumerian perception, but being a modern sorcerer, I cannot neglect the contemporary development of the archetypes in the collective human psyche. On the other hand, when one is alone in the wilderness on the border with the netherworld, and gets possessed by the invoked deity, there is no more psychology, archetypes, philosophy, religions, past, present, future - there is only an ineffable mythic reality. Somebody said that the language of DNA could be mythic only. The analysis and synthesis of the experience come thereafter (if at all).

[eanudimmud]

To the Administrator and Enenurian, thanks for this great thread. For so much insights and info. I am surprised not many has responded especially since it is this exact rivalry that has shaped the entire world as we know it today.

The tension is always there. It's an extreme love hate relationship that can never be severed. It's all about duality and balancing of the poles in our own psyche and for what it's worth, the story between these two brother's is there for humanity to learn from now.

[us4-he2-gal2]

Hello Eanudimmud:




Welcome to enenuru Thanks for your comment. Well that was quite a number of years ago that I wrote these notes but I still enjoy the subject matter. Some scholars object to the notion of a tension between these gods to a degree, recognizing that the first translated texts to involve Enlil were the lamentations which tend to give the god a fearsome quality. Upon later translation of further texts it became apparent that Enlil also has more sympathetic traits and in one Sumerian tradition he is even the creator of man - see the 'song of the hoe'

etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.5.5.4#



What that means to me is that the character of the divine is not entirely consistent from text genre to text genre - neither is it entirely consistent from one Sumerian locality to another. Nor should we expect it to be, because each Sumerian city had its own local pantheon. In fact some scholars further divide Sumerian religion into the royal pantheon, the pantheon as defined by the scribes (in god lists etc), and the pantheon as it was worshipped by the public (there is no textual evidence for this last category however).


Despite these qualifications and complications, the basic notion of a tension between Enlil in Enki seems still evident in Sumerian literature, in the different text genres and from the different angles discussed by Kramer, Hallo and Wiggermann. It seems to be a basic tenant of Sumerian theology which is contradicted but not overturned by some evidence. The truth I think is that almost any assertion about Sumerian religion is both contradicted and supported by evidence, and so it best to discuss things in view of supporting and contradicting evidence.

[al3xand3r]

Remember the relation betwen Enlil and Enki:

The Myth of Enki and Ninhursag.
The seven evils spirits.