The gods and the MEs (longish—but important)

We start the new year with a very important ANE concept: The role of the MEs with respect to the gods:

Still, there remains a vexing problem in connection with the powers of a god. Is there a limit to these powers? There is, of course, the organisational scheme, in which each god’s competence, and therefore power, is confined or restricted by the competencies of his colleagues. But within their own competencies, are they really omnipotent, and, what is more, completely free in their actions? A basic concept in Sumerian thought, hitherto not discussed, is the concept of ME—which is also, and more simply, the Sumerian verb ‘to be.’ Everything that exists in the world, from the material to the organisational to the social to the performative, etc., has its ME. The concept is hard to circumscribe, let alone define. It is, perhaps, somewhat akin to the Platonic “idea,” but it has also been understood as ‘divine essence,’ although there are some problems with this terminology. It is never made clear whether the divine character of the ME belongs to the ME in its own right, or to the god who at any given moment is in possession of the ME, or simply to the fact that the ME belongs to the divine sphere. Very broadly speaking one might understand ME as the abstract but no less real quintessence of all things, procedures, action, interrelations . . . . Without its ME, nothing can exist. And the point of any kind of existing “thing” is to conform as closely as possible to its ideal, if unreachable, form, which is its ME. Now the relationship between the gods and the MEs is still problematic, and was manifestly equally so to the Babylonian thinkers as well. First there is the troublesome fact that nam—dinir ‘divinity’ is itself one of the MEs. Since a god is, then, a god only by virtue of this ME one can hardly say that the god is independent of the ME, or that he rules the ME. Secondly it is held that the MEs are essentially unchangeable; yet some passages in the City Laments accuse the gods of changing the ME, or at least, of trying to. Finally, there are gods that are more or less in charge of the MEs. The best instance of this is the “myth” Inana and Enki, wherein Inana by a not very subtle trick steals the MEs from Enki, into whose trust they had been given, and takes them home to her own city. The text gives a catalogue of 110 MEs, which is repeated four times. Glassner has suggested that this shortened list (for the MEs may be thought to be infinite in number) stands for those MEs that are Inana’s typical powers and features. This is attractive, but I doubt that it can be upheld, on the whole. Probably related to this motif is the epithet sometimes used for Inana: me u5-a. This is usually translated as “who rides the MEs.” I suggest that it means “who guides/steers the MEs,” in the sense that she, as a goddess is responsible for the correct application of the MEs. It would seem, therefore, that the gods are not completely free agents with respect to the MEs. The MEs are the eternal and unchangeable first principles, or quintessences, of everything that exists. They are also the blueprints for everything that exists, in that they prescribe how it should exist. They do limit the divine powers.—Herman Vanstiphout in What Is a God?, 33–35

<idle musing>
This is an extremely important concept to understand the ANE. It's also common in Greek and Roman religion and culture as well, although by different names (probably other religions/cultures as well, but I can't speak for them). But as he says, it's difficult to explain or understand.
</idle musing>