Alternately, the above images of naked men and women might be recalling Mesopotamian creation myths concerning how and why man came to be created by the gods. In one myth he is initially made and LEFT NAKED to wander edin the plain with wild animals for companions (the so-called Eridu Creation Myth), then a goddess called Nintur takes pity on man and brings him in from his wanderings, causing him to dwell in the cities of the gods. Other myths, like Atrahasis, have man created by Enki at the behest of Enlil at Nippur, to work in the garden of a god (Enlil's irrigated garden) relieving the junior gods, the Igigi, of agricultural toil. In other words the intent of the gods in creating man is that he will be their slave or servant and forevermore work in their gardens, dredging canals as well as planting, harvesting and feeding the gods in the cities' temples. The gods according to these myths introduced the arts of civilization (shepherding, agriculture, metalurgy, clothing, building cities, irrigation, gardening) to barbarous naked man. They taught him it was wrong to be naked, he must wear clothes like the gods do. He learns from the gods how to domesticate animals like sheep and cattle and to plant crops like emmer wheat, and barley as well as flax for cloth.
I understand that Genesis' motif of Adam (the name Adam possibly derived from Hebrew ha-adam, "the man") being A NAKED SERVANT OF A GOD (Yahweh) in Eden is a later Hebrew reformatting of Sumerian Mesopotamian creation myths regarding THE GODS MAKING NAKED MAN TO BE THEIR SERVANT, and the above scenes recall NAKED MAN as a servant of the gods. That is to say, the NAKED PRIESTS are recalling the myth of man being a NAKED SAVAGE or beast, wandering EDIN the plain with animals for companions, and THEN the gods taking him to be their servant to work in their gardens, and live in their cites. In other words naked man BECOMES LIKE A GOD, LEARNING or acquiring wisdom regarding the arts of civilization being bequeated on him by the gods. Thus I understand that the above images of naked men are for the purpose of calling to the spectator's or viewer's mind his "purpose in life" and the "blessings" ("knowledge/wisdom of the civilizing arts") bestowed on him by the gods, allowing him to dwell in their presence instead of wandering edin with animals for companions.
From an Anthropological point of view and contra Genesis' account, it is most likely that primeval man came to clothe himself NOT because he was "embarrassed" about being "naked," but because he needed to protect himself from the elements, a sun that could give him severe sunburn, brambles and thorns that could tear his flesh as he accidently brushed against them in pursuit of food; and to ward off the cold of the night in the desert, when hot daytime temperatures could plummet leaving him freezing.
As earlier stated, it is my conviction that Sumer's priests WRONGLY ascribed man's acquistion of civilization to the gods' bestowing this knowledge on him, denying him the glory of self-discovery and self-improvement and SELF-EVOLUTION from naked beast to a civilized clothes-wearing city dweller. It would be some 6,000 years later that the Sciences of Anthropology, Archaeology and History would realize that man began life as a wild animal not knowing it was wrong to be naked, later clothing himself to protect himself against the elements (rain, sun-burn, heat and cold) of Nature, and _not_ don clothing because he was "embarassed" to discover he was naked (Genesis 2:25; 3:7).
Clifford noted that Sumerian myths understood "civilization" was not of man's doing, it was of the gods' doing:
"...the human race was originally created animal-like, with no cities and culture, and only subsequently was it given the arts making life humane and bearable."
(p. 44. "Rulers of Lagash." Richard J. Clifford. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. Washington D.C. The Catholic Biblical Association of America. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 26. 1994)
"The text begins with An on the hill of heaven and earth generating the gods, who are divided into the great divinities and the lesser gods. The gods are without the sustenance provided by grain and flocks. There were human beings at that time but they were like animals, living without clothing and without the sustenance provided by grain and flocks. The gods discover the advantages of agriculture and animal hubandry for themselves but their human servants, without those means, could not satisfy them. Enki, wishing to increase human efficiency for the ultimate benefit of the gods, persuades Enlil to communicate to the human race the secrets of farming and animal husbandry."
(p. 46. "Ewe and Wheat." Richard J. Clifford. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. Washington D.C. The Catholic Biblical Association of America. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 26. 1994)
"Upon the Hill of Heaven and Earth
When An had spawned the divine Godlings,
...wheat...and Ewe...
Were unknown...
there was NO CLOTH to wear...
THE PEOPLE OF THOSE DISTANT DAYS,
They knew not BREAD to eat;
THEY KNEW NOT CLOTH TO WEAR;
THEY WENT ABOUT WITH NAKED LIMBS in the Land,
And like sheep they ate grass with their mouth,
Drinking water from the ditches."
(p. 45. "Ewe and Wheat." Richard J. Clifford. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. Washington D.C. The Catholic Biblical Association of America. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 26. 1994)
I do acknowledge differences between the Sumerian creation myths and Genesis, and see these as proof of "artistic license" in reformattings. I _reject_ the commonly heard conservative Christian apologetic that the "differences" are "Proof" that there is NO borrowing of Mesopotamian creation of man themes in Genesis.
Adam toils for his bread by the sweat of his brow in Genesis as a curse from God. In the Mesopotamian myths man's lot was to toil forevermore _IN_ the gardens of the gods as their agricultural slave and one of his major crops is emmer-wheat for flour or bread to be presented as a food to the gods in temples. Genesis has apparently "inverted" the Mesopotamian myths. Man is expelled from Yahweh-Elohim's garden vs. his forevermore working in a god's garden (Enlil's or Enki's garden).
Campbell noted that the Mesopotamian myths understood man was created to till the fields of the gods which he equates with Adam being created to care for God's garden:
"...one of the chief characteristics of Levantine mythology here represented is that of man created to be God's slave or servant. In a late Sumerian myth retold in Oriental Mythology it is declared that men were created to relieve the gods of the onerous task of tilling their fields. Men were to do that work for them and provide them with food through sacrifice. Marduk, too, created man to serve the gods. And here we have man created to keep a garden." (p. 103. "Gods and Heroes of the Levant. Joseph Campbell. The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology. New York. Arkana. Viking Penguin. 1964, reprinted 1991)
Professor Tigay on echoes of man being created to provide food for the gods and Adam's work in the garden of Eden:
"Placing man in the garden "to till and tend it" faintly echoes the Mesopotamian creation stories according to which man was created to free the gods from laboring to produce their own food (Pritchard, Texts, 68; cf. W. G. Lambert, Atrahasis (1969), 42–67; A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (1942) 69–71; S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians (1963), 149–50). In the Bible this is not seen as the purpose of man's creation—in fact, the creation of man and the placing of him in the garden are separated by several verses; and there is no suggestion at all that God or the other heavenly beings benefit from man's labor." (Jeffrey Howard Tigay. "Paradise." http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/paradise.doc.)
The Adapa and the Southwind myth informs us that the "bread of life" and "water of life" which would have bestowed immortality on Adapa of Eridu if consumed, was located at Anu's heavenly abode. However, another myth informs us that a "FOOD OF LIFE" and "WATER OF LIFE" is to be found ON THE EARTH AT ERIDU, the very location which Adapa served his god Ea (Sumerian Enki) at! This important info is found in a myth recounting how Inanna "the queen of heaven" descends into the underworld and is slain by her sisiter who rules that realm. Before her descent she advises her servant to ask the great gods to intervene and rescue her from the underworld if she doesn't return after three days and nights (assuming she is dead). The messenger first appeals to Enlil of Nippur, then Nanna of Ur (a moon-god), and finally Enki (Akkadian Ea) of Eridu. When the "food of life" and "water of life are sprinkled on Inanna's dead corpse which hangs from a stake, she is revived, brought back to life and ascends to the earth's surface. In tablets found at Nippur Inanna is called Nin-edin-na "the lady of edin" and Inanna-edin-na "Inanna of edin" she being the wife of the shepherd-god Dumuzi (biblical Tammuz). What is important here, is that Adapa who lostout in a chance to obtain immortality by consuming the "bread and water of life" at Anu's heavenly abode, was also a resident of Eridu where the god Ea (Enki) possessed "the food of life and water of life" which could restore the dead to life. Leick has argued that for the Mesopotamians Creation began with the city of Eridu and that Eridu is the Mesopotamian equivalent of the Hebrews' Garden of Eden. What Leick did not note was that it is at Eridu that the "food of life and water of life reposes" in the care of Ea/Enki who, in other myths is considered to be the creator of man from clay over his apsu dwelling to replace the rebelling Igigi gods who object to their hard toil in his city-garden (making and clearing the canals and irrigation ditches which provide water for the garden). Below, an excerpt from the Descent of Inanna into the Underworld (emphasis mine):
"If Enlil stands not by thee in this matter, go to Ur [Ur of the Chaldees where dwelt Abraham and Terah].
"In Ur upon thy entering the house of the . . . of the land,
The Ekishshirgal, the house of Nanna,
Weep before Nanna:
'O Father Nanna, let not thy daughter be put to death in the nether world,
Let not thy good metal be ground up into the dust of the nether world,
Let not thy good lapis lazuli be broken up into the stone of the stone-worker,
Let not thy boxwood be cut up into the wood of the wood-worker,
Let not the maid Inanna be put to death in the nether world.'
"If Nanna stands not by thee in this matter, go to Eridu.
"In Eridu upon thy entering the house of Enki,
Weep before Enki:
'O father Enki, let not thy daughter be put to death in the nether world,
Let not thy good metal be ground up into the dust of the nether world,
Let not thy good lapis lazuli be broken up into the stone of the stone-worker,
Let not thy boxwood be cut up into the wood of the wood-worker,
Let not the maid Inanna be put to death in the nether world.'
"Father Enki, the lord of wisdom,
Who knows THE FOOD OF LIFE, who knows THE WATER OF LIFE,
He will surely bring me to life...
Inanna walked toward the nether world,
To her messenger Ninshubur she says:
"Go, Ninshubur,
The word which I have commanded thee . . ."
Upon her entering the first gate,
The shugurra, the "crown of the plain" of her head, was removed.
"What, pray, is this?"
"Extraordinarily, O Inanna, have the decrees of the nether world been perfected,
O Inanna, do not question the rites of the nether world...
Father Nanna stood not by him in this matter, HE WENT TO _ERIDU_.
IN _ERIDU_ upon his entering the house of Enki,
Before Enki he weeps:
"O father Enki, let not thy daughter be put to death in the nether world,
Let not thy good metal be ground up into the dust of the nether world,
Let not thy good lapis lazuli be broken up into the stone of the stone-worker,
Let not thy boxwood be cut up into the wood of the wood-worker,
Let not the maid Inanna be put to death in the nether world."
Father Enki answers Ninshubur:
"What now has my daughter done! I am troubled,
What now has Inanna done! I am troubled,
What now has the queen of all the lands done! I am troubled,
What now has the hierodule of heaven done! I am troubled."
. . . he brought forth dirt (and) fashioned the kurgarru,
. . . he brought forth dirt (and) fashioned the kalaturru,
To the kurgarru he gave THE FOOD OF LIFE,
To the kalaturru he gave THE WATER OF LIFE,
Father Enki says to the kalaturru and kurgarru:
. . .
"Upon the corpse hung from a stake direct the fear of the rays of fire,
Sixty times THE FOOD OF LIFE, sixty times THE WATER OF LIFE, sprinkle upon it,
Verily Inanna will arise."
Note: We are not told _what_ the "FOOD OF LIFE" is, only that it is "SPRINKLED" upon Inanna's corpse. The Adapa and the Southwind myth identifies the "WATER OF LIFE" with "BREAD OF LIFE," so, most probably either wheat flour or bread crumbs were sprinked on Inanna bringing her back to life. We are informed that Adapa in his role as a priest of Ea (Enki), he "feeding" this god, served as a BAKER OF BREAD and and he procured clear pure WATER for the offering table as well as fish (he being a fisherman). Excavations at Eridu have unearthed the shrine and near it a bread oven, within the shrine were found fish bone offerings, and nearby a canal and irrigation ditches for the fields of barley and wheat have been identified. All this is to say that Eridu is one of several prototypes underlying Genesis' Garden in Eden. Leick IS CORRECT, Eridu is the Mesopotamian equivalent of the Garden of Eden WHERE CREATION BEGAN _AND_ it is where, on the earth, the FOOD OF LIFE and WATER OF LIFE was to be found in Enki's possession AND it was WHERE Adapa set the offering table daily to feed his god the FOOD OF LIFE and WATER OF LIFE (man's purpose in Mesopotamian myths being to provide food for the gods and toil in the their city-gardens to grow, harvest the food the gods needed to eat to stay alive). Finally, to answer the question posed by this article's title "Why a Naked Adam in Eden?"
The Mesopotamian art forms of the 4th-3rd millennia B.C. (as shown above) at times show man in a NAKED STATE "_serving the gods_." These scenes may explain why God (Yahweh-Elohim) in Genesis "_KEEPS_" Adam and Eve as his servants _IN A STATE OF NAKEDNESS_. I thus understand that _the Hebrews are preserving Mesopotamian notions_ from the 4th/3rd millennia of CLOTHED Sumerian gods "_KEEPING"_" man as their "servant" IN A STATE OF NAKEDNESS for a time _DENYING_ him the knowledge it is wrong to be naked; only later did he come to clothe himself as portrayed in Mesopotamian art forms of the 2d milllennium B.C. and later periods, Man being portrayed _still serving_ the gods but now in a "clothed" state.
The question then arises as to WHY the gods were content _to keep_ man in a state of NAKEDNESS as their servant. The answer lies with "the priests lively imagination." Man was created to be a lowly servant/slave of the gods. By portraying man in a naked state while serving clothed gods, the message was loud and clear that man was "as NOTHING" in the eyes of the gods, just the dirt under their feet. In other words man _was despised_ by the gods. So the above scenes of NAKED man serving the gods was to PUT MAN IN HIS PLACE, to humiliate him, to enforce upon him that he was "as NOTHING" in the gods' eyes. He was to SERVE and FEAR them and subordinate his will to THEIR WILL. There is another possible explanation for man the servant of the gods being presented in the above art forms in a state of nakedness as he carries out his duties before the fully clothed gods and goddesses: They are "having a private joke" at man's expense. Here he is, NAKED, serving fully clothed deities and all the while, it never enters his mind it is "wrong" to be naked. He never wonders "Why shouldn't I be clothed too?" This latter expanation however still portrays the gods "as contemptuous" of savage man who has the "naive innocence" of a small naked toddler playing amongst fully clothed adults, blissfully unaware it is wrong to be naked.
I understand Genesis is a polemic, deliberately challenging Mesopotamian views of the relationship between man and the gods. The challenge involves sometimes "inversions" and transformations of earlier concepts. (1) Gods become _a_god; (2) Failure to eat of the "bread of life" to obtain _immortality_ becomes failure to eat of a "tree fruit" to obtain immortality; (3) An event occuring in heaven -Adapa failing to eat the "bread of life" at Anu's heavenly abode- is placed on the earth in a fruit-tree garden; (4) The Sumerian portrayal of NAKED men and women as the gods' servants -they denying man the knowledge it is wrong to be naked- becomes Yahweh keeping Adam and Eve in a state of NAKEDNESS as his servants in Eden denying them the knowledge it is wrong to be naked; (5) The gods' intent to keep man _FOREVERMORE_ their agricultural servants working in their earthly city gardens in edin-the-floodplain becomes inverted into a wrathful god EXPELLING man from his garden; (6) The notion that Igigi gods rebelled over the onerous work conditions in the Anunnaki gods earthly gardens reveals _life was NOT idyllic_ in the gods' gardens vs. the Hebrew notion _life was idyllic_ then Adam sinned and was expelled from this idyllic world. So I see the Hebrew account of Adam and Eve and their expulsion as reformattings of Mesopotamian concepts of the relationships between the gods and man.
The Tree of Knowledge or Good and Evil does _not_ exist as a motif to my knowledge in _any_ Ancient Near Eastern myths other than the Hebrews. _Nor_ does the Tree of Life appear in any ANE myths, its "bread of life" that bestows immortality in Mesopotamian belief, which interestingly resurrects itself later with Christ tearing apart _bread_ and telling his apostles to eat his bread/body to obtain immortality. These two trees are for me the Hebrews "unique" contribution to religious belief as they transform and challenge the earlier Mesopotamian myths regarding man's creation, to serve as a slave in the gods' gardens in edin-the floodplain of Sumer.
The Hebrew author may possibly have had some dim foggy tradition of a naked man and woman in a gods' garden serving the god in a state of nakedness and dreamed up a fruit-tree conferring knowledge to have the couple realize they are naked after eating of it. As my other articles point out, the Mesopotamian myths do mention eating of a tree to acquire knowledge. In one case the knowledge is sought by Enki inorder to decree the fruit's usefulness to man and the gods, in another case, the fruit of the trees gives Inanna sexual knowledge. My research is directed at attempting to determine the _original_ Mesopotamian themes and motifs and how the Hebrews later transformed them as a challenge to Mesopotamian belief about the relationship between god and man.
Genesis sees man in a somewhat different light, he is _beloved_ of God and "the pinnacle" of his creation. I call this an "inversion or reversal" (a 180 degree reversal) of the Mesopotamian concept of man's relationship with the gods. I understand that many of Genesis' notions about God and man are _DELIBERATE reversal/inversions_ of Mesopotamian concepts of the relationships between the gods and man. The Hebrews were doing nothing new here in giving NEW TWISTS TO OLD IDEAS, they were following along in the footsteps of their Mesopotamian predecessors, as noted by Professor Lambert.
Lambert, has made a very important observation regarding the manner in which Mesopotamian mythographers worked:
"The authors of ancient cosmologies were essentially compilers. Their originality was expressed in new combinations of old themes, and in new twists to old ideas."
(p.107, W.G. Lambert, "A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis," [1965], in Richard S. Hess & David T. Tsumra, Editors. I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood. Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 1994)
I believe Lambert's observation can be applied to the Hebrews who were combining old themes and putting "new twists" to old ideas. My research indicates that, at times,"reversals" or "inversions"are occurring in the Hebrew transformation and reinterpetation of the Mesopotamian Creation Myths which sought to explain the origins of the Earth and of Mankind and why the gods sought man's demise in a Flood. These "reversals," as I call them, can take the form of different characters, different locations for the settings of the stories, and different morals being drawn about the nature of God and Man's relationship.
Professor Batto (1992) on the Hebrews recasting of earlier Mesopotamian myths and motifs in the Hebrew Bible:
"...I want to emphasize that this new mythmaking process is a conscious, reflected application of older myths and myhic elements to new situations...In so far as one admits the presence of myth in ancient Babylonian and Canaanite culture, then one must also admit the presence of myth in the Bible...This book, then, is a series of case studies of mythmaking in ancient Israel, or to be more exact, in the biblical tradition."
(pp. 13-14. "Introduction." Bernard F. Batto. Slaying the Dragon, Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, Kentucky. Westminster/John Knox Press. 1992)
"Now the Yahwist's primeval narrative is itself a marvelous example of mythmaking based upon prior Mesopotamian myths, notably Atrahasis and Gilgamesh. Interestingly, the reappropriation of mythic traditions and intertextual borrowing posited for biblical writers was already present within ancient Babylonia, and illustrates that biblical writers must be understood within the larger ancient Near Eastern literary and theological tradition."
(p. 14. "Introduction." Bernard F. Batto. Slaying the Dragon, Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, Kentucky. Westminster/John Knox Press. 1992)
"The theme of this volume...is, of myth and mythmaking speculation within the Hebrew Bible...biblical writers employed much the same techniques and even the same mythic motifs as their ancient Near Eastern neighbors...Israel...drew heavily upon the Babylonian myth of Atrahasis, supplementing with motifs from Gilgamesh and other traditional myths, to create a specifically Israelite primeval myth...Like their ancient Near Eastern counterparts, Israel's theologians were concerned with the place of humankind -and particularly of their own people- within the realm of being."
(pp. 168-169. "Conclusion." Bernard F. Batto. Slaying the Dragon, Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, Kentucky. Westminster/John Knox Press. 1992)
"The focus of this volume has been the various ways in which biblical writers throughout the history of the composition of the Hebrew Bible have used and reused myth...to undergird their religious and/or sociopolitical agenda. My purpose...has been only to show through representative examples how biblical authors actually went about using mythic motifs in their writing and how they consciously manipulated these to serve their specific purposes."
(pp. 171-172. "Conclusion." Bernard F. Batto. Slaying the Dragon, Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, Kentucky. Westminster/John Knox Press. 1992)
The late Professors Graves and Patai on Genesis' Adam being Enkidu and Eve being the priestess Shamhat:
"Some elements of the Fall of Man myth in Genesis are of great antiquity; but the composition is late...The Gilgamesh Epic, the earliest version of which can be dated about 2000 BC, descibes how the Sumerian Love-goddess Aruru created from clay a noble savage named Enkidu, who grazed among gazelles, slaked his thirst beside wild cattle...until a priestess sent to him by Gilgamesh initiated him into the mysteries of love. Though wise as a god, he was now shunned by the wild creatures; and the priestess therefore covered his nakedness, using part of her own garment, and brought him to the city of Uruk...Another source of the Genesis Fall of Man myth is the Akkadian myth of Adapa, found on a tablet at Tell Amarna, Pharaoh Akhenaten's capital...This myth supplies the theme of the Serpent's warning to Eve: that God had deceived her about the properties of the forbidden fruit."
(pp. 78-79. "The Fall of Man." Robert Graves and Raphael Patai. Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. New York. Greenwich House. Distributed by Crown Publishers, Inc. 1963, 194. Reprint 1983)
"Eden as a peaceful rural retreat, where man lives at his ease among wild animals, occurs...in the story of Enkidu...The fervent love between Enkidu and the priestess, though omitted from the Genesis story, has been preserved by a Talmudic scholiast who makes Adam wish for death rather than be parted from Eve. Yet the myth of the Fall licences man to blame woman for all his ills, make her labour for him, exclude her from religious office and refuse her advice on moral problems."
(pp. 80- 81. "The Fall of Man." Robert Graves and Raphael Patai. Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. New York. Greenwich House. Distributed by Crown Publishers, Inc. 1963, 194. Reprint 1983)
It is my understanding that the three great monotheistic faiths of the Western World, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are each employing similar techniques. THEY EACH IN TURN ARE CHALLENGING EARLIER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND VIEWS REGARDING MAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. The observations by Professors Wenham and Kramer are important here:
Professor Wenham, (Senior Lecturer in Religious Studies at the College of St. Paul and St. Mary in Cheltenham, England) has done a brilliant presentation, in my opinion, on explaining what Genesis is _really all about_, in its transformation and reinterpretation of the Ancient Mesopotamian concepts regarding the relationship between man and god. IT IS A POLEMIC, A CHALLENGE OF THE VIEWS held by the Mesopotamians of God's relationship with man, A CHALLENGE OF THE MESOPOTAMIAN VIEWS ON HOW MAN CAME TO BE MADE AND WHY HIS DEMISE WAS SOUGHT IN A FLOOD. THIS 'CHALLENGE' IS IN FACT _A DENIAL OR REFUTAL_ OF MESOPOTAMIAN BELIEFS.
Wenham (Emphasis mine in capitals and italics):
"Though Genesis shares many of the theological presuppositions of the ancient world, most of the stories found in these chapters are BEST READ AS PRESENTING AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW TO THOSE GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST. Genesis 1-11 is a tract for the times challenging ancient assumptions about the nature of God, the world and mankind. (p. xlv) An understanding of ancient oriental mythology is essential if we are to appreciate the points Genesis 1-11 was making then (p. xlvi)...It is my conviction that many of our problems are caused by misunderstanding the original intentions of Genesis...many of the individual episodes in Genesis 1-11 may be seen to have a distinctly polemical thrust in their own right, particularly against the religious ideas associated most closely with Mesopotamia (p. xlviii)...Viewed with respect to its negatives, Genesis 1:1-2-3 is a polemic against the mythico-religious concepts of the ancient orient...the seventh day is not a day of ill omen as in Mesopotamia, but a day of blessing and sanctity on which normal work is laid aside. In contradocting the usual ideas of its times, Genesis 1 is also setting out a positive alternative (p. 37)...We have noted that the overall structure of the material in Genesis 1-11 finds its closest parallels in the Sumerian flood story and the Sumerian king list and in the Atrahasis Epic, all dated to 1600 BC or earlier (p. xliv)...This is not to say that the writer of Genesis had ever heard or read the Gilgamesh Epic: these traditions were part of the intellectual furniture of that time in the Near East, just as most people today have some idea of Darwin's Origin of the Species, though they have never read it."
(p. xlviii. Gordon J. Wenham. Word Biblical Commentary. Genesis 1-15. Waco, Texas. Word Incorporated. 1987)
"The ancient oriental background to Genesis 1-11 shows it to be concerned with rather different issues from those that tend to preoccupy modern readers. It is affirming the unity of God in the face of polytheism, his justice rather than his caprice, his power as opposed to his impotence, his concern for mankind rather than his exploitation. And whereas Mesopotamia clung to the wisdom of the primeval man, Genesis records his sinful disobedience. Because as Christians we tend to assume these points in our theology, we often fail to recognize the striking originality of the message of Genesis 1-11..." (p. 1. Wenham)
"In all these cases there is no evidence of simple borrowing by the Hebrew writer. It would be better to suppose that he has BORROWED various familiar mythological motifs, TRANSFORMED them, and integrated them into a fresh and original story of his own. Whereas Adapa heeded the word of the god Ea and did not eat the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve rejected the Lord's command and followed the serpent." (p. 53. Wenham)
"If it is correct to view Genesis 1-11 as _AN INSPIRED RETELLING_ of ancient oriental traditions about the origins of the world with a view to presenting the nature of God as one, omnipotent, omniscient, and good, as opposed to the fallible, capricious, weak deities who populate the rest of the ancient world; if further it is concerned to show that humanity is central in the divine plan, not an afterthought; if finally it wants to show that man's plight is the product of his disobedience and indeed is bound to worsen without divine intervention, Genesis 1-11 is setting out a picture of the world that is at odds both with the polytheistic optimism of ancient Mesopotamia and the humanistic secularism and the modern world.
Genesis is thus a fundamental CHALLENGE to the ideologies of civilized men and women, past and present, who like to suppose their own efforts will ultimately suffice to save them. Genesis 1-11 declares that mankind is without hope if individuals are without God." (p. liii. Wenham)
Wenham's _penetrating analysis_ of Genesis being a CHALLENGE of Mesopotamian religious belief is echoed by Professor Kramer:
The Late Professor Kramer (Curator Emeritus of the Cuneiform Tablet Collection at the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania and Clark Research Professor Emeritus) using "politically correct" uncontentious and neutral scholarly language, alludes to the Sumerian god En-ki's "survival" in today's gods, Yahweh, Christ and Allah :
"Ideas do not necessarily die when the civilization that nurtured them expires. Eridu declined, and Sumerian, like Latin in the West many centuries later, was maintained only by an educated, literate elite. The great empires of Akkad, Assyria, and even Babylon were brought down- Assyria in the late seventh century BC, Babylon less than a century later. Persians, Macedonians, Seleucids, Arsacids, Sassanians, Ummayyad and Abbasid caliphs and later dynasties excercised lordship in Mesopotamia, JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM were deeply rooted in the Near East, and as often as not CHALLENGED THEIR PREDECCESSORS . Enki survived, if at all, in new guises, under different names...If Enki and his city-state had all but disappeared, literary traditions and religious syncretism kept something of them alive. The two traditions that formed the basis of Western civilization, Greek and Biblical, appear to know stories of Enki, in much disguised form. For various reasons, orthodox and official streams of those traditions ignored or denounced outside influences. Because- with rare exception- Sumerian names do not appear, much of the tracing that follows here is necessarily speculative. In one sense we are very much the inheritors of civilization in its early, Sumerian, forms; but in another sense we will always have a difficult time recognizing such early debts."
(p.154. "Traces of the Fugitive God." Samuel Noah Kramer and John Maier. Myths of Enki, the Crafty God. New York and Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1989)
I understand the "challenges of earlier faith systems" posed by Judaism, Christianity and later Islam, at times involves _the deliberate nullification_ of certain beliefs held by their predeccessors. In no case is this a 100% nullification of _all_ previously held beliefs by the earlier religion being challenged. In some cases the earlier beliefs are re-worked and transformed and given new meanings or interpretations. At times some earlier beliefs remain intact and are accepted into the "new" faith which challenges its predeccessors. I understand that at times deliberate "reversals" or "inversions" are employed to nullify or modify earlier concepts, beliefs, events, motifs, reinterpreting them and transforming them for the new religion.
The above "exposition" on WHY A NAKED ADAM? is but just one of many aspects of the CHALLENGE Judaism raised in defining itself against its predecessor, the Mesopotamian gods at first worshipped by Terah and Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees. A Jewish savant writing at the time of the Hasmoneans (2d century B.C.) notes these two FLED Ur of the Chaldees, when their CHALLENGE was "rejected" by the populace. Note that this author understands his ancestors were ORIGINALLY CHALDEANS _NOT_ ARAMEANS, and that ORIGINALLY THEY LIVED IN CHALDEA _NOT_ ARAM (Syria and Haran, here rendered "Mesopotamia")). He also understands that as CHALDEANS THEY WORSHIPPED MANY GODS, but while in CHALDEA they came to be aware that there was only ONE GOD, and they were driven from Chaldea (Babylonia) by their kinsmen for refusing to worship any longer the gods:
Judith 5:5-9
"Then Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites, said to him, "Let my lord now hear a word from the mouth of your servant, and I will tell you the truth about this people that dwells in the nearby mountain district. No falsehood shall come from your servant's mouth. THIS PEOPLE IS DESCENDED FROM THE CHALDEANS. At one time they lived in Mesopotamia, because THEY WOULD NOT FOLLOW THE GODS OF THEIR FATHERS WHO WERE IN CHALDEA. FOR THEY HAD LEFT THE WAYS OF THEIR ANCESTORS, and they worshipped THE GOD of Heaven, THE GOD they had come to know; hence THEY DROVE THEM OUT FROM THE PRESENCE OF THEIR GODS; and THEY FLED TO MESOPOTAMIA, and lived there a long time. Then their God commanded them to leave the place were they were living and go to the land of Canaan. There they settled, and prospered..."
(Herbert G. May & Bruce M. Metzger. Editors. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. [Revised Standard Version]. New York. Oxford University Press. 1977)
I understand that Genesis is _denying_ the Mesopotamian myths' explanation of how and why man came to made, what his purpose on earth is, and why his demise was sought in a flood. This "_denial_" is for me accomplished by taking the Mesopotamian motifs from a varety of myths and giving them "new twists" by changing the names of the characters, the locations, and sequences of events.
Why in Mesopotamian myths is that man is denied immortality? In the Adapa and the Southwind myth Ea (Enki) of Eridu in Sumer is portrayed conning his human servant Adapa into not consuming the "bread of life and water of life" that will be offered him by Anu in heaven which will make him and consequently all mankind immortal, telling him it is the "bread and water of death" and he will surely die if any is consumed.
Why did Ea (Enki) do this (deny man immortality)? Ea was portrayed in myths as the god of wisdom. He appears to have been thought of as wiser and craftier than the other gods, Anu (his father) and Enlil (his brother). Ea is portrayed making man of clay to work in the city gardens at Eridu and Nippur. Ea lives at Eridu, Enlil lives at Nippur. At both locations the lesser gods, the Igigi, are in a state of rebellion seeking an end to their back-breaking toil in the city gardens. Perhaps Ea was of the mind that if man was allowed to be immortal and become like a god they would be "back to square one again"? That is to say, Ea foresaw man eventually rebelling against the toil in the city gardens like the Igigi. Who would replace man if he was granted an escape from toil in the city gardens? That is to say, the Mesopotamian notion was that the GODS DO NOT TOIL IN THEIR CITY GARDENS, MAN DOES. If man is allowed to become immortal like the gods, then he is in effect A GOD. Then the whole Mesopotamian belief system comes crashing down: THAT IMMORTAL GODS DO NOT TOIL IN THEIR CITY GARDENS, NON-IMMORTALS MADE IN THEIR IMAGE DO. I am proposing here that man CANNOT be made into a god and given immortality because this would be "against the grain" of Mesopotamian belief regarding the ordering of the universe in the great cosmic scheme of things: "That Immortals do not toil upon the earth, only mortals do." Also, this cosmic plan of the gods answers the question of why man does not have immortality. Foolishly Anu was willing to bestow immortality on Adapa and mankind, Ea intervenes and wisely foils Anu's offer, man is tricked into not eating of the bread of life and water of life. Man does not possess immortality because _a_ god (Ea/Enki) did not will it to be so. Genesis refutes this explanation of why man is not immortal, a God did NOT trick man out of a chance to obtain immortality, man's decision to disobey God was why he does not have immortality (God is absolved, the blame is shifted to man). Adapa is portrayed as blameless and faithful to his God (Ea/Enki), OBEYING HIM, and thus losing out on a chance to obtain immortality. The Mesopotamian version of why man (Adapa) lost out on a chance to obtain immortality is NOT because he was a sinner and rebel (like Adam), but because his LYING, DECEITFUL god did not want him to possess immortality. That is to say the Hebrews have REVERSED the Mesopotamian account by 180 degrees, blaming a man (Adam) instead of his Creator (Yahweh).
The Mesopotamian myths do NOT have any knowledge of man being expelled from their city-gardens for an act of rebellion like Genesis' Garden of Eden account. The gods made man to replace themselves as agricultural laborers, it would be foolish to expell man from their city-gardens for the gods would have to care for their gardens themselves.
Where then are the Hebrews getting the notion that a rebellion has occured in a god's garden and the gardener has been removed?
I suspect this is a recasting of the Igigi gods rebellion in the Atrahasis myth. They were "removed" from Enlil's garden at Nippur (and Enki's garden at Eridu), and man was created to replace them. So, yes, there was indeed in the Mesopotamian myths a story about a rebellion of "man" working in a god's garden and being removed from said garden! In fact when the hardwork of the Igigi gods is described it is said: "WHEN THE GODS WERE _"MAN"_ THEY DID GRIEVOUS LABOR." So "MAN" IN THE FORM OF THE IGIGI GODS WAS REMOVED FROM A GOD'S GARDEN FOR AN ACT OF REBELLION.
However, the Hebrews have INVERTED the storyline. "MAN" (the Igigi) WELCOMED THIS REMOVAL for now they enjoy an eternal rest from toil as already enjoyed by the Anunnaki gods (Anu, Enlil and Enki).
The Hebrews portray the removal of "man" from a god's garden AS PUNISHMENT FOR MAN whereas it was an ACT OF MERCY AND A BLESSING FOR THE IGIGI, ending their grievous labor.
Christianity hopes that one day God will allow man _back into_ his garden of Eden, whereas the Igigi would never want to return to the Anunnaki's city-gardens and the grievous toil there!
Christianity teaches that when man returns to the Garden of Eden he will once more enjoy God's fellowship and companionship as did Adam and Eve. But the Igigi working in the gods' gardens DID NOT ENJOY FELLOWSHIP with the Anunnaki gods!
The Anunnaki ruthlessly exploited the Igigi and ignored night and day for 40 years their pleas for an end of their toil! With the "removal from the gods' gardens" the Igigi NOW ENJOY FELLOWSHIPPING WITH THE ANUNNAKI, for both now are free of toil upon the earth, both can recline on their couches in indolent leisure as both ruthlessly exploit man the agricultural slave having him care for their gardens, and present them the produce to eat in the city temples.
An inversion has occured! Man's (the Igigi being called "man") fellowship with a god (Enlil of Nippur and Enki at Eridu) is obtained via removal from the god's garden instead of by remaining as a complacent non-rebelling laborer in a god's garden!
Genesis associates Adam and Eve's nakedness with innocence, they were not ashamed of their nakedness, then came the fall from innocence, they ate of the forbidden fruit and became aware that it was wrong to be naked and covered themselves in shame and embarrassment. They did not want God to behold their nakedness.
The Mesopotamian myths have no knowledge of "a fall from innocence of a primal man and woman" as in Genesis account. Man was created in the image of the gods and goddesses. These deities are portrayed as possessing all the good and bad hallmarks of humankind: they lie, they engage in extramarital sex, they commit incest having sex with their own children, they rape maidens, seduce mortal men, they even have sex with beasts. They slay each other in wars and even slay their own mothers and fathers and mothers and fathers attempt to slay the gods their own children. The gods also exploit and abuse each other making slaves of some of their kind. Man can be no better than his creators in whose image he was made. In the Mesopotamian myths the gods are portrayed as immoral sinners and so too is man. So there can be _no fall from innocence for man_ as in the Genesis account.
There are, however, motifs of a "form of innocence" on man's part leading to "a fall" of sorts in the Mesopotamian myths.
An innocent, trusting, naive Adapa at Eridu obeys his god's command not to eat or drink the food to be offered him by Anu for it is the "food and water of death" and he will surely die. Adapa obeys and refuses to consume the food and drink which would have given him and mankind immortality. His god, Ea (Sumerian Enki) did not want man to become a god and aquire immortality and be freed of being his slave (servant) for who would care for his garden and feed him its produce? Ea/Enki would have to work his garden himself and feed himself. So a lying god took advantage of the trusting childlike innocence of the man he had created, accomplishing in a sense "a fall" of sorts: man's failure to attain immortality.
In another myth Enkidu of the Epic of Gilagmesh curses Shamhat the Harlot-priestess from Uruk who has taken advantage of "his innocence" and "wronged him." He blames her for his impending death and curses her. His god Shamash hears the curse and berates Enkidu saying the Harlot is not deserving of this, she introduced him to food fit for a god, caused him to acquire a fine robe to cover his nakedness, gave him Gilgamesh for a companion, and introduced him to the amenities of city life which was superior to life he lead as a naked animal wandering the desolate edin with gazelles for companions. So again we encounter the motif of _innocence associated with man_, and how the gods took advantage of this innocence to accomplish man's "fall": In Adapa's case his "fall" was that he lost at a chance to obtain immortality because of the god Ea's (Enki's) actions, in Enkidu's case his "fall" was for a naked harlot who embarqs him on a quest to meet Gilgamesh and eventually a death sentence for slaying Humbaba of the Lebanese Cedar forest (the god Shamash approving of the Harlot's actions, Shamash also acts as the patron protector-god of Gilgamesh and Enkidu).
Professor Foster of Yale University (Professor of Near Eastern Languages) on Enkidu portraying himself as a wonged INNOCENT in his cursing of Shamhat, which I understand was recast in Genesis as God cursing Eve (emphasis mine):
"May your purple finery be expropiated,
May filthy underwear be what you are given,
Because you diminished me, AN INNOCENT,
Yes me, AN INNOCENT, you wronged me (?) in my steppe."
(p. 56. "Tablet VII." Benjamin R. Foster. The Epic of Gilgamesh. New York & London. W. W. Norton & Company. 2001.[A Norton Critical Edition])
Bibliography:
Bernard F. Batto. Slaying the Dragon, Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, Kentucky. Westminster/John Knox Press. 1992.
Briggs Buchanan, William W. Hallo & Ulla Kasten. Early Near Eastern Seals In the Yale Babylonian Collection. New Haven & London. Yale University Press. 1981.
Joseph Campbell. The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology. Arkana. A Division of Penguin Books. 1964. 1991.
Courtland Canby. Editor. The Epic of Man. New York. Time/Life. 1961.
Richard J. Clifford. "D. Kar 4: A Unique Text." pp. 49-51. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the BibleWashington D.C. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 26. 1994.
Harriet Crawford. Sumer and the Sumerians. Cambridge, England. University of Cambridge Press. 1991, 2004.
Thomas H. Flaherty. Editor. Sumer: Cities of Eden. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books. 1993.
Benjamin Read Foster. From Distant Days, Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia. Bethesda, Maryland. CDL Press. 1995.
Benjamin R. Foster. The Epic of Gilgamesh. New York & London. W. W. Norton & Company. 2001[A Norton Critical Edition].
Henri Frankfort. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. New Haven & London. Yale University Press. [1954] reprint 1996.
Andrew George. The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. London. Penguin Books. 1999.
Robert Graves and Raphael Patai. Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. New York. Greenwich House. Distributed by Crown Publishers, Inc. 1963, 194. Reprint 1983.
Herbert G. May & Bruce M. Metzger. Editors. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. [Revised Standard Version]. New York. Oxford University Press. 1977.
Barthel Hrouda. Editor. Der Alte Orient, Geschichte und Kultur des alten Vorderasien. Munchen. C. Bertelsmann. Verlag GmbH. 1991.
Samuel Noah Kramer and John Maier. Myths of Enki, the Crafty God. New York and Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1989.
W. G. Lambert, "A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis," p.107, [1965], in Richard S. Hess & David T. Tsumra, Editors. I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood. Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Stephen Herbert Langdon. The Mythology of All the Races, Semitic [Vol. 5]. Boston. Archaeological Institute of America. 1931.
Gwendolyn Leick. A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology. London. Routledge. 1991, reprinted 1996, 1997, 1998.
Susan Pollock. Ancient Mesopotamia, The Eden That Never Was. Cambridge, United Kingdom & New York. Cambridge University Press. 1999.
D. T. Potts. Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations. Ithaca, New York. Cornell University Press. 1997.
James B. Pritchard. Editor. The Ancient Near East, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton, New Jersey. University of Princeton. 1958.
Hugo Radau. Sumerian Hymns and Prayers to the god Dumu-zi or Babylonian Lenten Songs from the Temple Library of Nippur. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania. 1913.
Michael Roaf. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York. Facts on File. 1990.
Heinrich Schaeffer & Walter Andrae. Die Kunst Des Alten Orients, Dritte, Neubearbeitete Auflage, 11 und 12 Tausend. Berlin. Im Propylaen-Verlag. 1925.
John H. Walton. Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context. A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing House. 1989. revised edition of 1990.
Gordon J. Wenham. Word Biblical Commentary, Genesis 1-15. Waco, Texas. Word Incorporated. 1987.
Lama al-Gailani Werr. Studies in the Chronology and Regional Style of Old Babylonian Cylinder Seals. Malibu, California. Udena Publications. Bibliotheca Mesoptamica Vol. 23. 1988.
D. J. Wiseman. Cylinder Seals of Western Asia. London. Batchworth Press. 1962.
Diane Wolkenstein & Samuel Noah Kramer. Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth, Her Stories and Hymns From Sumer. New York. Harper & Row. 1983.
