Supposed Babylonian Derivation of the Logos

7/28/2019 Supposed Babylonian Derivation of the Logos

1/10

The Supposed Babylonian Derivation of the LogosAuthor(s): W. F. AlbrightReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 39, No. 3/4 (1920), pp. 143-151Published by: The Society of Biblical LiteratureStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3260204 .

Accessed: 05/01/2012 04:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sblhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3260204?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3260204?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl


2/10

ALBRIGHT: BABYLONIAN DERIVATION OF THE LOGOS 143

THE SUPPOSED BABYLONIANDERIVATIONOF THE LOGOS

W. F. ALBRIGHTAMERICAN SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH, JERUSALEM

R ECENTLY a serious effort has been made by the distin-guishedAssyriologistof Oxford,StephenLangdon, o tranethe Hellenisticconceptionof hypostatized eason o a Babylonianorigin.' So far as I know, the first attempt of this characterwas made by Hehn,2whosework is not quotedby Langdon,butwho anticipatedsome of the ideas presentedby the latter. Thewell-knownDutch Old Testamentscholar, F. Bahl, also holdssimilarviews.3 If these theories are correct, we mustradicallyrevise our estimates of Greek philosophicaloriginality, and atthe same time assume a muchprofounderdevelopmentof Meso-potamian thought than the available cuneiform sources haveseemed to warrant. With Langdon'sdesire to penetratedeeperinto the understanding fBabylonianphilosophywe mustheartilysympathize. Mistakes can hardlybe avoidedin so treacherousa field-it is well so, since error may cause the explorer tostumble on discoveriesto which initial correctnesswould haveblinded him. However, it is essential that theories of such anature be criticised by differentminds, and that argumentsadducedbe carefullyanalyzed; we will, therefore,examinetheevidence for Langdon'scontentionsine ira et studio.

I See especially JRAS., 1918, 433-449-Note the following abbrevia-tions: BA=Beitrige zur Assyriologie; JRAS.,=Journal of the RoyalAsiatic Society;RA.,-Revue d'Assyriologie;SGl.,=Delitzsch, SumerischesGlossar.2 BA., V, 299ff. 3 OLZ., 1916, 265-268.


3/10

144 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATUREAccording to Langdon there are two principalsourcesfromwhich the conception of the Logos may ultimatelybe derived:mummu,whichhe renders'creative orm,'and enemEnlil, 'wordof Enlil,' personified n Sumerianhymnsandpenitentialpsalms.Let us first consider the latter. Enlil, or Ellil, is the god ofstorms,whose name means 'Lord of the wind,' and who is con-

tinually represented n Sumerian iteratureas sendingin wrathhis devastatingthunder-stormand cloud-burstupon the land.As lord of the destroyingstorm, Ellil is representedas over-whelmingthe low-land with his ud, or storm, heraldedby hisenem (=~gu in classical Sumerian), that is, his 'voice,' not his'word.' The Sumerian enemEllil is exactly equivalentto Heb.K51 Yahweh,'voice of Yahweh,'used in the Old Testamentfor'thunder.' The BabylonianrenderingamOtEllil, 'wordof Ellil,'is as slavishlyliteral and inaccurate as other Babylonianren-deringsof Sumerian diomaticexpressions. For example, Sum.izkim-tila, 'life-index,'is translatedin Babylonianby tukultu,'help, support,' and kiptu, 'guarantee.' The assumedparallelquoted by Langdonfrom the Wisdomof Solomon,1815, s false;here we have the commandof God hypostatized, and there isno referenceto the ominousvoice of the thunderstorm.The question of the meaning of mummu is more complex,since there are two entirely distincthomonyms,both Sumerianloan-wordsnBabylonian.Hitherto,most scholarshaveassumedthat the occurrencesof mummu n cuneiform iteratureoutsidethe vocabulariesbelonged to one word, and the effortto bringorder from apparentchaos has resulted in giving the wordthemysticsense 'prototype,creativeform,'etc., translationsnspiredby Damascius' interpretation of MwuVlur Mummu as vo;-rroKcTALor.The old explanation of mummuas 'noise,'q generallyrejected in favor of Jensen's 'form, mould,'5is adopted again

4 The word mummu was supposed to be Semitic, derived from thestem hwm or hmm, 'roar' (Jensen, Kosmologie,p. 321 f.). BShl, loc. cit.,derives it from hinmy,ssumed to be the root of amdtu, 'word.' All theseetymologies are phonetically out of the question, since the Old Babylonianform is awatu, derived, as seen by Ungnad, from the stem .hwy,'an-

nounce,' occurring in Assyrian, Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Egyptian.5 See his Kosmologie,p. 323 f., and MythenundEpen, p. 302 f. The rea-sons given by Jensen in support of his rendering are now all antiquated,


4/10

ALBRIGHT: BABYLONIANDERIVATION OF THE LOGOS 145by Langdon, who tries to harmonize he divergenttheoriesbyspeaking of 'creative reason,' or of the creativeWord, whichshaped itself into form. If the Babyloniansreally held suchmetaphysical otions, heywere he first horoughgoing antheists,not to say monists, in history. It may be shown,however, hatthe hypothesis s basedupona seriesof misunderstandings hichmighthave been avertedby a soundphilologicalexegesis. It isvery unfortunatethat exact philology is unpopularin manycircles at present,thoughas a reactionagainsta philologywhichclaimedwide territories over whichit had no right, this lack ofsympathy s intelligible. Without devotingmore space here toprevious conjectures, let us considerthe cuneiformevidence.The vocabulariesgive two words mummu, one meaning 'mill,mill-stone,' he other 'lady,'Bab. beltum(V R 28 gh, 63). Thefirst word, like its synonymsummatu and erfi (from ara, SG152) is a Sumerianoan-word,romumun, 'mill,'while the second,though unrecognizedhitherto, is just as certainly from Sum.umun, 'lord, lady;' the Sumerianwordsfor 'lord'do not havea sex distinction.6Mummu as a divine appellativeis clearlythe latter. Mummu Ti' mat is 'LadyTi'amat' (mummumayhave had a caritativeconnotation).Ea mummubMnkalais not'Ea the creativereason, maker of all things,'but 'Ea, the lord,creator of all.' Marduk and Nabi are called mummu, 'lord,'and m r mummi, 'son of the lord (Ea),' expressionswhicharestrictly parallel to rubl, 'prince,' and mndrubi, 'son of theprince,'titles of Ea and Marduk.' There is nothingesoteric inthe phrasesmdrrubiandmarmummi,whichcorrespondo marawili, son of a nobleman,' . e. one who is a noblemanby birth,and hence truly noble. By a naturaldevelopmenthesephrasesso it is remarkable that Langdon should have accepted the meaningwithout an examination. Mummuhas nothing to do with ummainu,work-man,' the oldest form of which is ummidnu, a loan-word from Sum.ummea, with a Semitic ending affixed, nor can either be derived fromthe stem 'mm.

6 Cf. JAOS., XXXVIII, 198f.7 It was upon these appellations that Hommel built his theory of theEgypto-Sumerian heavenly ocean calledNun some thirty years ago. Sum.nun, however, means 'prince,' read in Semitic rubaf,and Eg. nun means'subterranean fresh-water ocean,' Babylonian apsi, Heb. teh6m.


5/10

146 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATUREcome to meansimply 'prince,' noble,' freeman,'ust as Aramaicbarn6ld, 'son of man,' comes to mean 'man.'8 The Mummu(- Mwv~A of Damascius) who together with Apsfi is slain byEa in the first uprisingof the powersof Chaos,as described nin the first tablet of the Babylonian Creation Epic, recentlycompletedby the Assur fragmentspublished by Ebeling,is ori-ginally a doublet of Mummu Ti'amat. In SumerianApsi, asthe MotherEngur(Amorokof Berossus9) s feminine,as reflect-ed by the statement in the epic that Apsfi took his 'vizier,'Mummu, on his lap and kissed him. In Sumeriancosmogonythe subterranean resh waters are the motherof all; the Semitesregarded the fresh water ocean, Heb. Teh6m, as the father ofall life, who pours his fertilizingseed into the lap of the earth,while the orthodoxSumerianconception s that the fresh watersea is a woman,from whose subterraneanwomb the waters areborn. It would seem that Damascius's deathatMummu- vorOgKO-aoS9 is based upon a combinationof Babylonian and Stoicideas, like most of the writingsof Stoic and Neo-Platonistcom-parative mythologists, following in the footsteps of Hecataeusand Plutarch. While it is possible that the late meaningof bitmummu (see below) influencedthe explanation, it is sufficientto recall that the Sumeriansand theirBabylonianheirs sawtheseat of a mysteriouswisdomin the subterraneanocean, the ab-zu, 'abode of wisdom,'an idea whichpassed on to the Gnostics(AJSL., XXXVI, 292 f.), and to the Stoics; Cornutussays(4, 13) of Poseidon, Xo'yoAKaO' vY1Le7 ~,oi'l, and (8, 13) ofOceanus, O i'Ke'v eOevo0 XO'/yo. This, however, is only a lateandverysecondary nterpretationbased on theBabylonian deaswhich began filtering in to Stoic thought throughPoseidonius.It is, however, true that the Babylonians later confusedmummu, 'lord,'with mummu, mill,'in their scholasticlearningoften adoptingthe most fancifulinterpretations,based on folk-loristic conceptions."xCT., 13, 32, rev. 10, we read: mummu

8 It is true that there is an apocalyptic connotationto the expression'Son of Man' in the apocalyptic literature. This question I will discussin an article to appear in the Revue de l'histoire des religions.9 See AJSL., XXXV, 162, n. 3.to Cf. JAOS, XXXIX, 69.


6/10

ALBRIGHT:ABYLONIANERIVATIONF THELOGOS 147irpetum li, (Langdonut!) taq?iba-ma-mummu rigmu= 'Letmummu grind"1the clouds-mummu = thunder.'1 Anothercommentary, published by King, Seven Tablets of Creation,Vol. II, plate LIV, 82-3-23, 151, gives the followingwords,taken with slightmodifications roma connectedtext: mummu.irpetu. mali. kdgibu.niii. ti'fitu.naddnu,the originalof whichmay be rendered, 'Mummugrindsthe clouds, full of rain, andgives food to the people.' This explanationof mummuobviouslyreflects the wide-spreadpopularbelief that thunder s causedbythe grindingof a celestial mill, or by the bruisingof the cloudsin a mortarwith a stone pestle, a still moreprimitivedea. Theclouds are bruisedby the thunderstone,andthe food-producingrain oozes out. Thus the BrazilianMundurucushink that themother of the rain causes thunderby rollingher pestle in themortar."L he thunder-god ndra possessesa great mill-stone,'"primarily,of course,to producethunder. Here also belongstheFinnish celestial mill Sampo,and perhapsthe GermanGrotti."

Bit mummu is undoubtedlyused of a technical school forcraftsmen ndarchitects,butthere s noproof hat it correspondedto our 'university,'and the etymologygivenby Jensen is impos-sible.16 Thureau-Dangin's eading of UMUN-ma? ummuku,savant, as mum-ma(RA., 16, 170) is erroneous;the correctreading is um-ma=--ummea,avant. The passageIV R 23, 1,Col.4, 25, enuma alpa ana bitmummu uferibu= 'If you bringan ox into the house of the mummu,'shows that bit mummumeansprimarilymill-shed,'whence'work-shop,echnicalschool.'After the archaicterm mummu, lord,'had fallen into disuseexcept as an appellativeof Marduk anda few othergods,it wasvery natural to interpret t as 'mill,'andto supposethat it refer-

11Assyr. kadbu, 'break, cut,' is Heb. kagadv, r. k.gcaba,'break,cut.'12 For rigmu, 'thunder,' cf., e. g., Amarna (Knudtzon Ed.) No. 147,13. Ramman as thunderer is called Ragimu.13Pennsylvania Museum Journal, Vol. 8, p. 138.14Atharva Veda, 2, 31.

15 Cf. Kuhn, Herabkunft des Feuers, p. 102f., where the subject isnot, however, treated with the breadth to be expected now, after twogenerations of progress beyond the methods employedin that remarkablework.16 Cf. note 5, above. 10


7/10

148 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATUREred to Mardukn his qualityof grindingheclouds.It appearsthen that noBabylonianphilosophicalheoryof creativeevolutioncan be deduced fromthe use of the term mummu.

Langdongoes on to establisha Babylonianprincipleof cos-mic reason (p.444) fromthe expressionsmarkasuandtarkullu,whichmean, according o him, 'band,rope, guide, leader,' andfinally 'form, pattern.' Incidentally,he takes occassionto ridi-cule Jensen's translation of the words as 'mooring-post.'17tmayvery easilybe shown hatJensen wasrightin thisrendering;both in Egypt and in Babylonia the mooring-postwas a mostpopular metaphor, used to indicate stability and permanence.On account of the similargeographicalenvironmentof the twocountries,navigationdevelopedin a similarway, and its termi-nology received essentiallythe sametropicaltreatment. In bothcountries death was the final mooringon the bank of the riverof life (Eg. mny, Bab. emidu). Markasu, like its synonymmahragu, is a nomenloci, fromrakasu, 'fasten,'meaningthus'the place of fastening (ships);' Sum. (gig) dim-ma, literally'fastener of the ship,' is translatedby markaselippi anddimmu?a elippi, and dimmuis also employedfor 'fuller'sbat, obelisk.'Tarkullu, from Sum. dur-gul, synonymof dim-gul (ideogramGI-MA-MUK, wooden ship-fastener)= dim-gal, lit. 'greatfastener,' has the same meaning, as is certainfromthe FloodPoem, where (line 97) the storm-godtears out the tarkull. inorderthat the hurricanemay destroythe shipsthat are mooredto them. Anyone who has read a descriptionof a typhoonona Chineseriverwill sympathizewiththe unlucky ishermanwhoseboat is sweptfrom its moorings. Templesandpalacesare calledthe markasmati, or the tarkul mati, because they tower abovethe plain, and seem to be in its center,drawingall mento themand ensuringthe securityof the state by theirownstability. Ar.markaz, center, metropolis,is ultimatelyderived rommarkasu.The Babylonian expressionis closely related psychologically othe conceptionof a temple or city as the navel of the world,orthe hubof the universe. The transferenceof the epithettarkullufrom temple to god (Langdonsuggeststhe reverse) is perfectlynatural;in addition o Langdon's llustrationsmaybe mentioned

17 Cf. Jensen, Mythen und Epen, p. 495.


8/10

ALBRIGHT: BABYLONIAN DERIVATIONOF THE LOGOS 149II R 57 + ed, 55 f., whereNinurta is called dimgul-annaanddimgul-kalamma,mooring-post f heaven,'and'mooring-post fthe land.'

We have someexcellentparallels n Egyptianand Greek. Inthe EloquentPaasant, B. 1, 90-91,"8 a noble is called hyper-bolically 'rudder(hmw)of heaven,brace(s'w)of earth.' Cf.alsothe illustrationsgiven by Devaud,Sphinx,13, 97 f.: 'pillar(wh')of heaven,brace of earth;''mooring-postnmr)of heaven,braceof earth.'19 Similarly, in the Iliad, 16, 449, Sarpedon s calledthe Vpga wrdXiwg,'pillar of the city;' the epua was a post placedunder a ship to hold it uprightafterbeing drawnon shore. Allthese expressionsare metaphorsreferringto the stabilizingofsomethingessentiallyunstable, and do not allude to a creativereasonbindingthe universetogether, as Langdonthinks. It isdifficultto see whyanyoneshouldpreferan esotericexplanationto such a natural and simpleone.The view of Hehn, mentionedabove, is more sober, but isbased partlyon the samemisunderstandingf mummuas 'divinereason.' Hehn does not allude to the 'wordof Enlil,' but laysthe emphasis on the sonship of Mardukand his characterassaviorof man in the famousincantation epresentinga colloquybetweenMardukand his fatherEa. ThusMarduk, he mummu,wouldbe the prototypeof the Logosof Philo andJohn. Hehn'stheoryis, however, quite distinct from the views of Radau, aspresentedin hisBel, theChristof AncientTimes,andZimmern,who in his brochuresZum Streit um die ChristusmytheandZum babylonischenNeujahrsfest, Zweiter Beitrag2odevelopsvery similar ideas, adopted by Frazer and others. The sameunderlyingsimilaritiesmay be found in the cult and mythology

s8Cf. Vogelsang, Kommentarzu den Klagen des Bauern, p. 85.19 For additional illustrations of a similar character see now Grapow,Vergleicheund anderebildlicheAusdriicke m Agyptischen Der alte Orient,Vol. 21, Part 1-2) p. 12 (metaphors applied to gods).20 Zimmern'smasterly treatment of the philology should not blind oneto the fact that he has misunderstoodsome vital passages in the first textstudied, and that the latter is thus not nearly so striking a parallel tothe Passion of Christ as he thinks. The important new parallelswith theAttis and Osiris cycles, however, are of the greatest possible interest.10*


9/10

150 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATUREof any Oriental savior god, and have nothing to do with thephilosophicaldoctrineof the Logos.Between the Hellenic Reason (Xo'yor ratio, not sermoorverbum)21f the Stoics and theMesopotamian oddessof wisdoma gulf is fixed, a gulf as wide as that between the Hellenic joyin life and nature and the Orientaldualismof the Gnostics. Inmy paper, 'The Goddess of Life and Wisdom,'22 have tracedthe developmentof theMesopotamian oddessofwisdom hroughher mythologicaland theologicalhistoryuntil she is finallyab-sorbedwith Philo into the Godhead,becomingby the MostHighmother of the Logos. Without acceptingRendel Harris's viewof the sequenceof SophiaandLogos stagesin early Christianity,we maynote that the two hypostases,similaras they mayappearsuperficially,are yet at bottom as far apart as the antipodes.The Logos representsthe belief in the reignof the humanmind,and its triumphover environment,while the Sophia reflects thebelief in a mysteriouswisdom,handeddownfromgrayantiquity,when the gods revealed it to man. The Sophia doctrine is thesign of stagnation, the Logos of progress. Hence the efforttofind an Oriental source for the Stoic doctrine of the Logos isboundfrom the outset to prove a failure.The Babyloniansundoubtedlydid possess an incipientmeta-physics based upon the animisticconceptionthat the form oroutline of a thing is a separablesoul, an idea whichoriginatedin the beliefs concerning he shadow, and also in the practicesof sympatheticmagic,wherethe soul of a manmightbe capturedby being enclosed in a magic circle or outlinerepresenting heman's body. Once admittingthat the outline of an object hada separate existence from the object, it wouldnaturallyhavetobe consideredolder,just as the outline or plan of a buildingorship, cast by the hand of an architect,is older than the buildingitself. Hence the term gig-zar was employedby the Sumerians

21 Cf. Haupt, The Beginning of the Fourth Gospel, Am. Jour. ofPhilology,Vol. 41, pp. 177 f.22 See AJSL., XXXVI, 258-294, especially 285 ff. I am heartily inaccord with Zimmern's remarks in Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgen-liindischen Ges. Vol. 74, p. 432, n. 3, that Gnosticism is almost purely ofOriental origin, going back mainlyto late Aramaeansyncretism; cf. AJSLXXXVI, 290 f.


10/10

ALBRIGHT: BABYLONIANDERIVATIONOF THE LOGOS 151in the sense both of a specificplan or outline,andof prototype.Before the creationof any person or of any object,that personor object exists as a mysticprototype n heaven,or in the mindof the gods. Since these plansarethoughtof as beingin heaven,they were identified ater withthe constellations,whilethe move-ment of events was believed to be typified n the movementofthe heavenlybodies. This explainsthe originof the greatastro-logical system,which,with all its absurdities,wasmotherof ourastronomy, and thus one of the greatest contributionsof theBabyloniangeniusto civilization.The kernelof thisdevelopmentof Sumerianmetaphysics s foundin a passagefromthe remar-kable Sumerianpoem, publishedrecently by Ebeling,"2whichdescribesthe creationof the world,andthe givingof life to manthroughthe blood of Lamga (nameof Tammuzas the architect):'Aruru(the creatress)a goddessworthyof lordship,Shall designthe plans knownto her alone.O artists and architects!24Like grain whichgrowsof itself fromthe earth(areherplans),26Changelessas the eternal stars,Which celebratethe festivals of the gods day and night-Herself she shall designthe great plans.'

23Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiosen Inhalts, No. 4. Thetext has been studied by Ebeling, ZDMG., LXX, 532 ff.; Langdon,PoemesumBriendu paradis, pp. 42 if.; Landersdorfer,Biblische und babylonischeUrgeschichte, pp. 66 ff. The passage translated here is taken from therev., 17-25. My rendering is absolutely independent of the others, andI have not seen reason to change it since comparing it with them.

2' This line is in the vocative, like the phrase qiqqii qiqqi? gar igar'reed-huts, brick-walls!' in the Flood-tablet. Aruru, however, is not di-rectly addressed, as Ebeling supposes.25Ebeling's idea that the 'Weise und Helden' are to spring spontane-ously from the ground is impossible. The similes of grain and the starsrefer clearly to the plans of Aruru, from which the universe springsspontaneously, like grain, yet which are immutable as the constellations.Comparedwith her immortal designs the plans and skill of the craftsmenare as nought.

Documents

Supposed Babylonian Derivation of the Logos