reply to post by Kantzveldt
First off, Sumerian and Babylonian mythology differ in many respects. The Simon Necronomicon is based upon Babylonian, not Sumerian, mythology.
Kantz: What's your opinion of the crazy arab's traditional role in all this, and the mythos this is where the original nemonicron came from?
Well it does contain the Sumerian text 'Inanna's descent into the Underworld' and Babylonian mythology was based upon the Sumerian, so....
For one thing, the chapter you're referring to is called "The Sleep of Ishtar", and Ishtar is the Semitic name of Inanna; the Babylonian Inanna, not the Sumerian Inanna
The complete absence of Ninšubur throughout the myth
Inanna threatens to raise the dead, which is actually only in Ereškigal's power to do
Further, the tale recounted by Simon in the Necronomicon is neither the Babylonian, nor the Sumerian, but one of his own invention that draws a little bit from the Babylonian one, but is otherwise re-shaped to fit his cosmic duality of Ancient Ones versus Elder Gods. Which, if you're familiar with Babylonian myth, you'll recognize as a concept that originates in the Enuma Elish, and not among the Sumerians. The conflict of Apsu, Tiamat, and Kingu, against Marduk, which serves as the foundation for Simon's mythology, has no Sumerian parallel
The opposition of m e / partsu and n a m t a r / shimtu is not just conceptually implied, but turns out to be made explicit in third millennium cosmogony. 40 Herein a cosmic ocean, N a m m a , produces a proto-universe, Heaven and Earth undivided. In a series of stages, all represented by gods, Heaven and Earth produce the Holy Mound (d u k u g ), which in its turn produces E n l i l , ‘Lord Ether’, who by his very existence separates Heaven and Earth. E n l i l , representing the space between Heaven and Earth, the sphere of human and animal life, organises what he finds by his decisions (n a m t a r / shimtu), and thus puts everything into place: the universe becomes a cosmos. Before being permanently subjected, however, the primordial universe (Heaven and Earth) rebels; its representative, a member of the older generation of gods, E n m e sh a r r a , ‘Lord All M e ’, tries to usurp E n l i l ’s prerogative to n a m t a r / shimtu (i.e. prerogative to make decisions). He is defeated by E n l i l and incarcerated in the netherworld for good. The myth can be read as a theistically-slanted argument on two modes of defining order: an immutable cosmological order (m e / partsu) whose unmistakable champion is E n m e sh a r r a , against a protean, individual-centred, volitional, anthropomorphic order, whose champion is E n l i l .
i can't see why you went to such trouble to lay on the Kramer when a modern version could have been linked to thus;
A time came when the Lady of the Gods, even Ishtar, thought upon the spouse of her youth, upon Tammuz; her heart inclined her to go down into the realm of Irkalla, into the Place of Darkness where Tammuz had gone.
"If thou openest not the gate, I will smite upon it; I will shatter the bolt, and beat down the doors! Yea, I will bring away the Dead that are under the rule of thy mistress! I will raise up the Dead so that they will devour the Living, so that the Dead shall outnumber those that live!"
And hearing of the coming of the Lady of the Gods, Irkalla was angered terribly.
shtar saw the Dead that were there. They were without light; they ate the dust and they fed upon mud; they were clad in feathers and they had wings like birds; they lived in the darkness of night. And seeing their state, Ishtar became horribly afraid. She begged of Irkalla to give her permission to return from the House of Dust
Then Irkalla cursed Ishtar; she called upon Namtar, the demon of the plague, to smite the Lady of the Gods. And Namtar went to her and smote her, so that the plague afflicted every member of her body. Ishtar saw the light no more; feathers came upon her; she ate dust and fed upon the mud; she was as one of those whom she had sent down into Irkalla's realm.
In the Simon version Ninshubur is mentioned whereas in the Babylonian version she isn't, thus it's a composite of the two traditions, you seem unaware how different the Babylonian version was, it's not simply a case of the name change, there was no Babylonian Inanna.
That tradition is found in hymns to Istar and in the Babylonian version of descent Ishtar threatens to raise the dead.
There is no direct parallel, but there is conflict between Ancient Ones versus Elder Gods of sorts.
Brightness, torch of heaven and earth, brilliance of the entire inhabited
Furious one in irresistible onslaught, powerful one in combat!
Firebrand that is ignited against the enemies, contriving disaster for the furious!
Glimmering Ishtar, assembling the assembly!
Goddess of men, goddess / Ishtar of women, whose resolution no one comes
Wherever you look, the dead lives, the sick arises.
The one who is not right becomes all right (when) seeing your face
Enlil and Enmesarra is a conflict of ideals: a changing, malleable universe, versus a structured and unchanging one. It is not so much a war or battle, as it is the advancement of ideas and philosophies: the concept of a static universe being replaced by a dynamic one. Hardly the same conflict Simon presents.
N a m t a r / shimtu here is the power to operate the universe of inanimate things and make them change their normal ways, their m e / partsu, or, in other words, to perform magic. The loss of the tablet of destinies did not affect the gods’ ability to act, only their mastery over nature, and another text explains that the possession of the Tablet of Fates involved the ‘secret of Heaven and Earth’
It is not so much a war or battle, as it is the advancement of ideas and philosophies: the concept of a static universe being replaced by a dynamic one.