Legends of Babylon and Egypt in relation to Hebrew tradition Part 4

After he had called the names of these cities, and they had been allotted to divine rulers(?),

(1) In Semitic-Babylonian the first component of this city- name would read "Dr".

The completion of the sentence, in the last two lines of the column, cannot be rendered with any certainty, but the pa.s.sage appears to have related the creation of small rivers and pools. It will be noted that the lines which contain the names of the five cities and their patron G.o.ds(1) form a long explanatory parenthesis, the preceding line being repeated after their enumeration.

(1) The precise meaning of the sign-group here provisionally rendered "divine ruler" is not yet ascertained.

As the first of the series of five cities of Eridu, the seat of Nudimmud or Enki, who was the third of the creating deities, it has been urged that the upper part of the Second Column must have included an account of the founding of Erech, the city of Anu, and of Nippur, Enlil's city.(1) But the numbered sequence of the cities would be difficult to reconcile with the earlier creation of other cities in the text, and the mention of Eridu as the first city to be created would be quite in accord with its great age and peculiarly sacred character as a cult-centre. Moreover the evidence of the Sumerian Dynastic List is definitely against any claim of Erech to Antediluvian existence. For when the hegemony pa.s.sed from the first Post-diluvian "kingdom" to the second, it went not to Erech but to the shrine Eanna, which gave its name to the second "kingdom"; and the city itself was apparently not founded before the reign of Enmerkar, the second occupant of the throne, who is the first to be given the t.i.tle "King of Erech". This conclusion with regard to Erech incidentally disposes of the arguments for Nippur's Antediluvian rank in primitive Sumerian tradition, which have been founded on the order of the cities mentioned at the beginning of the later Sumerian myth of Creation.(2) The evidence we thus obtain that the early Sumerians themselves regarded Eridu as the first city in the world to be created, increases the hope that future excavation at Abu Shahrain may reveal Sumerian remains of periods which, from an archaeological standpoint, must still be regarded as prehistoric.

(1) Cf. Poebel, op. cit., p. 41.

(2) The city of Nippur does not occur among the first four "kingdoms" of the Sumerian Dynastic List; but we may probably a.s.sume that it was the seat of at least one early "kingdom", in consequence of which Enlil, its city-G.o.d, attained his later pre-eminent rank in the Sumerian pantheon.

It is noteworthy that no human rulers are mentioned in connexion with Eridu and the other four Antediluvian cities; and Ziusudu, the hero of the story, is apparently the only mortal whose name occurred in our text. But its author's princ.i.p.al subject is the Deluge, and the preceding history of the world is clearly not given in detail, but is merely summarized. In view of the obviously abbreviated form of the narrative, of which we have already noted striking evidence in its account of the Creation, we may conclude that in the fuller form of the tradition the cities were also a.s.signed human rulers, each one the representative of his city-G.o.d. These would correspond to the Antediluvian dynasty of Berossus, the last member of which was Xisuthros, the later counterpart of Ziusudu.

In support of the exclusion of Nippur and Erech from the myth, it will be noted that the second city in the list is not Adab,(1) which was probably the princ.i.p.al seat of the G.o.ddess Ninkharsagga, the fourth of the creating deities. The names of both deity and city in that line are strange to us. Larak, the third city in the series, is of greater interest, for it is clearly Larankha, which according to Berossus was the seat of the eighth and ninth of his Antediluvian kings. In commercial doc.u.ments of the Persian period, which have been found during the excavations at Nippur, Larak is described as lying "on the bank of the old Tigris", a phrase which must be taken as referring to the Shatt el-Hai, in view of the situation of Lagash and other early cities upon it or in its immediate neighbourhood. The site of the city should perhaps be sought on the upper course of the stream, where it tends to approach Nippur. It would thus have lain in the neighbourhood of Bismaya, the site of Adab. Like Adab, Lagash, Shuruppak, and other early Sumerian cities, it was probably destroyed and deserted at a very early period, though it was reoccupied under its old name in Neo-Babylonian or Persian times. Its early disappearance from Babylonian history perhaps in part accounts for our own unfamiliarity with Pabilkharsag, its city-G.o.d, unless we may regard the name as a variant from of Pabilsag; but it is hardly likely that the two should be identified.

(1) The site of Adab, now marked by the mounds of Bismaya, was partially excavated by an expedition sent out in 1903 by the University of Chicago, and has provided valuable material for the study of the earliest Sumerian period; see Reports of the Expedition of the Oriental Exploration Fund (Babylonian Section of the University of Chicago), and Banks, Bismya (1912). On grounds of antiquity alone we might perhaps have expected its inclusion in the myth.

In Sibbar, the fourth of the Antediluvian cities in our series, we again have a parallel to Berossus. It has long been recognized that Pantibiblon, or Pantibiblia, from which the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh of his Antediluvian kings all came, was the city of Sippar in Northern Babylonia. For the seventh of these rulers, {Euedorakhos}, is clearly Enmeduranki, the mythical king of Sippar, who in Babylonian tradition was regarded as the founder of divination. In a fragmentary composition that has come down to us he is described, not only as king of Sippar, but as "beloved of Anu, Enlil, and Enki", the three creating G.o.ds of our text; and it is there recounted how the patron deities of divination, Shamash and Adad, themselves taught him to practise their art.(1) Moreover, Berossus directly implies the existence of Sippar before the Deluge, for in the summary of his version that has been preserved Xisuthros, under divine instruction, buries the sacred writings concerning the origin of the world in "Sispara", the city of the Sun-G.o.d, so that after the Deluge they might be dug up and transmitted to mankind. Ebabbar, the great Sun-temple, was at Sippar, and it is to the Sun-G.o.d that the city is naturally allotted in the new Sumerian Version.

(1) Cf. Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Bab. Relig., pp. 116 ff.

The last of the five Antediluvian cities in our list is Shuruppak, in which dwelt Ut-napishtim, the hero of the Babylonian version of the Deluge. Its site has been identified with the mounds of Fara, in the neighbourhood of the Shatt el-Kar, the former bed of the Euphrates; and the excavations that were conducted there in 1902 have been most productive of remains dating from the prehistoric period of Sumerian culture.(1) Since our text is concerned mainly with the Deluge, it is natural to a.s.sume that the foundation of the city from which the Deluge-hero came would be recorded last, in order to lead up to the central episode of the text. The city of Ziusudu, the hero of the Sumerian story, is unfortunately not given in the Third Column, but, in view of Shuruppak's place in the list of Antediluvian cities, it is not improbable that on this point the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions agreed. In the Gilgamesh Epic Shuruppak is the only Antediluvian city referred to, while in the Hebrew accounts no city at all is mentioned in connexion with Noah. The city of Xisuthros, too, is not recorded, but as his father came from Larankha or Larak, we may regard that city as his in the Greek Version. Besides Larankha, the only Antediluvian cities according to Berossus were Babylon and Sippar, and the influence of Babylonian theology, of which we here have evidence, would be sufficient to account for a disturbance of the original traditions. At the same time it is not excluded that Larak was also the scene of the Deluge in our text, though, as we have noted, the position of Shuruppak at the close of the Sumerian list points to it as the more probable of the two. It may be added that we cannot yet read the name of the deity to whom Shuruppak was allotted, but as it is expressed by the city's name preceded by the divine determinative, the rendering "the G.o.d of Shuruppak" will meanwhile serve.

(1) See Hist. of Sum. and Akk., pp. 24 ff.

The creation of small rivers and pools, which seems to have followed the foundation of the five sacred cities, is best explained on the a.s.sumption that they were intended for the supply of water to the cities and to the temples of their five patron G.o.ds. The creation of the Euphrates and the Tigris, if recorded in our text at all, or in its logical order, must have occurred in the upper portion of the column. The fact that in the later Sumerian account their creation is related between that of mankind and the building of Nippur and Erech cannot be cited in support of this suggestion, in view of the absence of those cities from our text and of the process of editing to which the later version has been subjected, with a consequent disarrangement of its episodes.

III. THE COUNCIL OF THE G.o.dS, AND ZIUSUDU'S PIETY

From the lower part of the Third Column, where its text is first preserved, it is clear that the G.o.ds had already decided to send a Deluge, for the G.o.ddess Nintu or Ninkharsagga, here referred to also as "the holy Innanna", wails aloud for the intended destruction of "her people". That this decision has been decreed by the G.o.ds in council is clear from a pa.s.sage in the Fourth Column, where it is stated that the sending of a flood to destroy mankind was "the word of the a.s.sembly (of the G.o.ds)". The first lines preserved in the present column describe the effect of the decision on the various G.o.ds concerned and their action at the close of the council.

In the lines which described the Council of the G.o.ds, broken references to "the people" and "a flood" are preserved, after which the text continues: At that time Nintu (...) like a (...), The holy Innanna lament(ed) on account of her people.

Enki in his own heart (held) counsel; Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga (...).

The G.o.ds of heaven and earth in(voked) the name of Anu and Enlil.

It is unfortunate that the ends of all the lines in this column are wanting, but enough remains to show a close correspondence of the first two lines quoted with a pa.s.sage in the Gilgamesh Epic where Ishtar is described as lamenting the destruction of mankind.(1) This will be seen more clearly by printing the two couplets in parallel columns: SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION

At that time Nintu (...) Ishtar cried aloud like a woman like a (...), in travail, The holy Innanna lament(ed) Belit-ili lamented with a loud on account of her people. voice.

(1) Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 117 f.

The expression Belit-ili, "the Lady of the G.o.ds", is attested as a t.i.tle borne both by the Semitic G.o.ddess Ishtar and by the Sumerian G.o.ddess Nintu or Ninkharsagga. In the pa.s.sage in the Babylonian Version, "the Lady of the G.o.ds" has always been treated as a synonym of Ishtar, the second half of the couplet being regarded as a restatement of the first, according to a recognized law of Babylonian poetry. We may probably a.s.sume that this interpretation is correct, and we may conclude by a.n.a.logy that "the holy Innanna" in the second half of the Sumerian couplet is there merely employed as a synonym of Nintu.(1) When the Sumerian myth was recast in accordance with Semitic ideas, the role of creatress of mankind, which had been played by the old Sumerian G.o.ddess Ninkharsagga or Nintu, was naturally transferred to the Semitic Ishtar. And as Innanna was one of Ishtar's designations, it was possible to make the change by a simple transcription of the lines, the name Nintu being replaced by the synonymous t.i.tle Belit-ili, which was also shared by Ishtar. Difficulties are at once introduced if we a.s.sume with Dr. Poebel that in each version two separate G.o.ddesses are represented as lamenting, Nintu or Belit-ili and Innanna or Ishtar. For Innanna as a separate G.o.ddess had no share in the Sumerian Creation, and the reference to "her people" is there only applicable to Nintu. Dr. Poebel has to a.s.sume that the Sumerian names should be reversed in order to restore them to their original order, which he suggests the Babylonian Version has preserved. But no such textual emendation is necessary. In the Semitic Version Ishtar definitely displaces Nintu as the mother of men, as is proved by a later pa.s.sage in her speech where she refers to her own bearing of mankind.(2) The necessity for the subst.i.tution of her name in the later version is thus obvious, and we have already noted how simply this was effected.

(1) Cf. also Jastrow, Hebr. and Bab. Trad., p. 336.

(2) Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 123.

Another feature in which the two versions differ is that in the Sumerian text the lamentation of the G.o.ddess precedes the sending of the Deluge, while in the Gilgamesh Epic it is occasioned by the actual advent of the storm. Since our text is not completely preserved, it is just possible that the couplet was repeated at the end of the Fourth Column after mankind's destruction had taken place. But a further apparent difference has been noted. While in the Sumerian Version the G.o.ddess at once deplores the divine decision, it is clear from Ishtar's words in the Gilgamesh Epic that in the a.s.sembly of the G.o.ds she had at any rate concurred in it.(1) On the other hand, in Belit-ili's later speech in the Epic, after Ut-napishtim's sacrifice upon the mountain, she appears to subscribe the decision to Enlil alone.(2) The pa.s.sages in the Gilgamesh Epic are not really contradictory, for they can be interpreted as implying that, while Enlil forced his will upon the other G.o.ds against Belit-ili's protest, the G.o.ddess at first reproached herself with her concurrence, and later stigmatized Enlil as the real author of the catastrophe. The Semitic narrative thus does not appear, as has been suggested, to betray traces of two variant traditions which have been skilfully combined, though it may perhaps exhibit an expansion of the Sumerian story. On the other hand, most of the apparent discrepancies between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions disappear, on the recognition that our text gives in many pa.s.sages only an epitome of the original Sumerian Version.

(1) Cf. l. 121 f., "Since I commanded evil in the a.s.sembly of the G.o.ds, (and) commanded battle for the destruction of my people".

(2) Cf. ll. 165 ff., "Ye G.o.ds that are here! So long as I forget not the (jewels of) lapis lazuli upon my neck, I will keep these days in my memory, never will I forget them! Let the G.o.ds come to the offering, but let not Enlil come to the offering, since he took not counsel but sent the deluge and surrendered my people to destruction."

The lament of the G.o.ddess is followed by a brief account of the action taken by the other chief figures in the drama. Enki holds counsel with his own heart, evidently devising the project, which he afterwards carried into effect, of preserving the seed of mankind from destruction. Since the verb in the following line is wanting, we do not know what action is there recorded of the four creating deities; but the fact that the G.o.ds of heaven and earth invoked the name of Anu and Enlil suggests that it was their will which had been forced upon the other G.o.ds. We shall see that throughout the text Anu and Enlil are the ultimate rulers of both G.o.ds and men.

The narrative then introduces the human hero of the Deluge story: At that time Ziusudu, the king, ... priest of the G.o.d (...),

Made a very great ..., (...).

In humility he prostrates himself, in reverence (...),

Daily he stands in attendance (...).

A dream,(1) such as had not been before, comes forth(2) ...

By the Name of Heaven and Earth he conjures (...).

(1) The word may also be rendered "dreams".

(2) For this rendering of the verb e-de, for which Dr.

Poebel does not hazard a translation, see Rawlinson, W.A.I., IV, pl. 26, l. 24 f.(a), nu-e-de = Sem. la us- su-u (Pres.); and cf. Brunnow, Cla.s.sified List, p. 327.

An alternative rendering "is created" is also possible, and would give equally good sense; cf. nu-e-de = Sem. la su- pu-u, W.A.I., IV, pl. 2, l. 5 (a), and Brunnow, op. cit., p. 328.

The name of the hero, Ziusudu, is the fuller Sumerian equivalent of Ut-napishtim (or Uta-napishtim), the abbreviated Semitic form which we find in the Gilgamesh Epic. For not only are the first two elements of the Sumerian name identical with those of the Semitic Ut-napishtim, but the names themselves are equated in a later Babylonian syllabary or explanatory list of words.(1) We there find "Ut-napishte" given as the equivalent of the Sumerian "Zisuda", evidently an abbreviated form of the name Ziusudu;(2) and it is significant that the names occur in the syllabary between those of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, evidently in consequence of the a.s.sociation of the Deluge story by the Babylonians with their national epic of Gilgamesh. The name Ziusudu may be rendered "He who lengthened the day of life" or "He who made life long of days",(3) which in the Semitic form is abbreviated by the omission of the verb. The reference is probably to the immortality bestowed upon Ziusudu at the close of the story, and not to the prolongation of mankind's existence in which he was instrumental. It is scarcely necessary to add that the name has no linguistic connexion with the Hebrew name Noah, to which it also presents no parallel in meaning.

(1) Cf. Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus., Pt. XVIII, pl. 30, l. 9 (a).

(2) The name in the Sumerian Version is read by Dr. Poebel as Ziugiddu, but there is much in favour of Prof. Zimmern's suggestion, based on the form Zisuda, that the third syllable of the name should be read as su. On a fragment of another Nippur text, No. 4611, Dr. Langdon reads the name as Zi-u-sud-du (cf. Univ. of Penns. Mus. Publ., Bab. Sec., Vol. X, No. 1, p. 90, pl. iv a); the presence of the phonetic complement du may be cited in favour of this reading, but it does not appear to be supported by the photographic reproductions of the name in the Sumerian Deluge Version given by Dr. Poebel (Hist. and Gramm.

Texts, pl. lx.x.xviii f.). It may be added that, on either alternative, the meaning of the name is the same.

(3) The meaning of the Sumerian element u in the name, rendered as utu in the Semitic form, is rather obscure, and Dr. Poebel left it unexplained. It is very probable, as suggested by Dr. Langdon (cf. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., x.x.xVI, 1914, p. 190), that we should connect it with the Semitic uddu; in that case, in place of "breath", the rending he suggests, I should be inclined to render it here as "day", for uddu as the meaning "dawn" and the sign UD is employed both for urru, "day-light", and mu, "day".

It is an interesting fact that Ziusudu should be described simply as "the king", without any indication of the city or area he ruled; and in three of the five other pa.s.sages in the text in which his name is mentioned it is followed by the same t.i.tle without qualification. In most cases Berossus tells us the cities from which his Antediluvian rulers came; and if the end of the line had been preserved it might have been possible to determine definitely Ziusudu's city, and incidentally the scene of the Deluge in the Sumerian Version, by the name of the deity in whose service he acted as priest. We have already noted some grounds for believing that his city may have been Shuruppak, as in the Babylonian Version; and if that were so, the divine name reads as "the G.o.d of Shurrupak" should probably be restored at the end of the line.(1) (1) The remains that are preserved of the determinative, which is not combined with the sign EN, proves that Enki's name is not to be restored. Hence Ziusudu was not priest of Enki, and his city was probably not Eridu, the seat of his divine friend and counsellor, and the first of the Antediluvian cities. Sufficient reason for Enki's intervention on Ziusudu's behalf is furnished by the fact that, as G.o.d of the Deep, he was concerned in the proposed method of man's destruction. His rivalry of Enlil, the G.o.d of the Earth, is implied in the Babylonian Version (cf.

Gilg. Epic. XI, ll. 39-42), and in the Sumerian Version this would naturally extend to Anu, the G.o.d of Heaven.

The employment of the royal t.i.tle by itself accords with the tradition from Berossus that before the Deluge, as in later periods, the land was governed by a succession of supreme rulers, and that the hero of the Deluge was the last of them. In the Gilgamesh Epic, on the other hand, Ut-napishtim is given no royal nor any other t.i.tle. He is merely referred to as a "man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu", and he appears in the guise of an ancient hero or patriarch not invested with royal power. On this point Berossus evidently preserves the original Sumerian traditions, while the Hebrew Versions resemble the Semitic-Babylonian narrative. The Sumerian conception of a series of supreme Antediluvian rulers is of course merely a reflection from the historical period, when the hegemony in Babylonia was contested among the city-states. The growth of the tradition may have been encouraged by the early use of lugal, "king", which, though always a term of secular character, was not very sharply distinguished from that of patesi and other religious t.i.tles, until, in accordance with political development, it was required to connote a wider dominion. In Sumer, at the time of the composition of our text, Ziusudu was still only one in a long line of Babylonian rulers, mainly historical but gradually receding into the realms of legend and myth. At the time of the later Semites there had been more than one complete break in the tradition and the historical setting of the old story had become dim. The fact that Hebrew tradition should range itself in this matter with Babylon rather than with Sumer is important as a clue in tracing the literary history of our texts.

The rest of the column may be taken as descriptive of Ziusudu's activities. One line records his making of some very great object or the erection of a huge building;(1) and since the following lines are concerned solely with religious activities, the reference is possibly to a temple or some other structure of a sacred character. Its foundation may have been recorded as striking evidence of his devotion to his G.o.d; or, since the verb in this sentence depends on the words "at that time" in the preceding line, we may perhaps regard his action as directly connected with the revelation to be made to him. His personal piety is then described: daily he occupied himself in his G.o.d's service, prostrating himself in humility and constant in his attendance at the shrine. A dream (or possibly dreams), "such as had not been before", appears to him and he seems to be further described as conjuring "by the Name of Heaven and Earth"; but as the ends of all these lines are broken, the exact connexion of the phrases is not quite certain.

(1) The element gur-gur, "very large" or "huge", which occurs in the name of this great object or building, an- sag-gur-gur, is employed later in the term for the "huge boat", (gish)ma-gur-gur, in which Ziusudu rode out the storm. There was, of course, even at this early period a natural tendency to picture on a superhuman scale the lives and deeds of remote predecessors, a tendency which increased in later times and led, as we shall see, to the elaboration of extravagant detail.

It is difficult not to a.s.sociate the reference to a dream, or possibly to dream-divination, with the warning in which Enki reveals the purpose of the G.o.ds. For the later versions prepare us for a reference to a dream. If we take the line as describing Ziusudu's practice of dream-divination in general, "such as had not been before", he may have been represented as the first diviner of dreams, as Enmeduranki was held to be the first pract.i.tioner of divination in general. But it seems to me more probable that the reference is to a particular dream, by means of which he obtained knowledge of the G.o.ds' intentions. On the rendering of this pa.s.sage depends our interpretation of the whole of the Fourth Column, where the point will be further discussed. Meanwhile it may be noted that the conjuring "by the Name of Heaven and Earth", which we may a.s.sume is ascribed to Ziusudu, gains in significance if we may regard the setting of the myth as a magical incantation, an inference in support of which we shall note further evidence. For we are furnished at once with the grounds for its magical employment. If Ziusudu, through conjuring by the Name of Heaven and earth, could profit by the warning sent him and so escape the impending fate of mankind, the application of such a myth to the special needs of a Sumerian in peril or distress will be obvious. For should he, too, conjure by the Name of Heaven and Earth, he might look for a similar deliverance; and his recital of the myth itself would tend to clinch the magical effect of his own incantation.

The description of Ziusudu has also great interest in furnis.h.i.+ng us with a close parallel to the piety of Noah in the Hebrew Versions. For in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus this feature of the story is completely absent. We are there given no reason why Ut-napishtim was selected by Ea, nor Xisuthros by Kronos. For all that those versions tell us, the favour of each deity might have been conferred arbitrarily, and not in recognition of, or in response to, any particular quality or action on the part of its recipient. The Sumerian Version now restores the original setting of the story and incidentally proves that, in this particular, the Hebrew Versions have not embroidered a simpler narrative for the purpose of edification, but have faithfully reproduced an original strand of the tradition.

IV. THE DREAM-WARNING

The top of the Fourth Column of the text follows immediately on the close of the Third Column, so that at this one point we have no great gap between the columns. But unfortunately the ends of all the lines in both columns are wanting, and the exact content of some phrases preserved and their relation to each other are consequently doubtful. This materially affects the interpretation of the pa.s.sage as a whole, but the main thread of the narrative may be readily followed. Ziusudu is here warned that a flood is to be sent "to destroy the seed of mankind"; the doubt that exists concerns the manner in which the warning is conveyed. In the first line of the column, after a reference to "the G.o.ds", a building seems to be mentioned, and Ziusudu, standing beside it, apparently hears a voice, which bids him take his stand beside a wall and then conveys to him the warning of the coming flood. The destruction of mankind had been decreed in "the a.s.sembly (of the G.o.ds)" and would be carried out by the commands of Anu and Enlil. Before the text breaks off we again have a reference to the "kingdom" and "its rule", a further trace of the close a.s.sociation of the Deluge with the dynastic succession in the early traditions of Sumer.

In the opening words of the warning to Ziusudu, with its prominent repet.i.tion of the word "wall", we must evidently trace some connexion with the puzzling words of Ea in the Gilgamesh Epic, when he begins his warning to Ut-napishtim. The warnings, as given in the two versions, are printed below in parallel columns for comparison.(1) The Gilgamesh Epic, after relating how the great G.o.ds in Shuruppak had decided to send a deluge, continues as follows in the right-hand column: SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION

For (...) ... the G.o.ds a Nin-igi-azag,(2) the G.o.d Ea, ... (...); sat with them, Ziusudu standing at its side And he repeated their word to heard (...): the house of reeds: "At the wall on my left side take "Reed-hut, reed-hut! Wall, thy stand and (...), wall!

At the wall I will speak a word O reed-hut, hear! O wall, to thee (...). understand!

O my devout one ... (...), Thou man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu, By our hand(?) a flood(3) ... Pull down thy house, build a (...) will be (sent). s.h.i.+p, To destroy the seed of mankind Leave thy possessions, take (...) heed for thy life, Is the decision, the word of the Abandon thy property, and save a.s.sembly(4) (of the G.o.ds) thy life.

The commands of Anu (and) And bring living seed of every En(lil ...) kind into the s.h.i.+p.

Its kingdom, its rule (...) As for the s.h.i.+p, which thou shalt build, To his (...)" Of which the measurements shall be carefully measured, (...) Its breadth and length shall correspond.

(...) In the deep shalt thou immerse it."

(1) Col. IV, ll. 1 ff. are there compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 19-31.

(2) Nin-igi-azag, "The Lord of Clear Vision", a t.i.tle borne by Enki, or Ea, as G.o.d of Wisdom.

(3) The Sumerian term amaru, here used for the flood and rendered as "rain-storm" by Dr. Poebel, is explained in a later syllabary as the equivalent of the Semitic-Babylonian word abbu (cf. Meissner, S.A.I., No. 8909), the term employed for the flood both in the early Semitic version of the Atrakhasis story dated in Ammizaduga's reign and in the Gilgamesh Epic. The word abbu is often conventionally rendered "deluge", but should be more accurately translated "flood". It is true that the tempests of the Sumerian Version probably imply rain; and in the Gilgamesh Epic heavy rain in the evening begins the flood and is followed at dawn by a thunderstorm and hurricane. But in itself the term abbu implies flood, which could take place through a rise of the rivers unaccompanied by heavy local rain. The annual rainfall in Babylonia to-day is on an average only about 8 in., and there have been years in succession when the total rainfall has not exceeded 4 in.; and yet the abbu is not a thing of the past.

(4) The word here rendered "a.s.sembly" is the Semitic loan- word buhrum, in Babylonian puhrum, the term employed for the "a.s.sembly" of the G.o.ds both in the Babylonian Creation Series and in the Gilgamesh Epic. Its employment in the Sumerian Version, in place of its Sumerian equivalent ukkin, is an interesting example of Semitic influence. Its occurrence does not necessarily imply the existence of a recognized Semitic Version at the period our text was inscribed. The subst.i.tution of buhrum for ukkin in the text may well date from the period of Hammurabi, when we may a.s.sume that the increased importance of the city-council was reflected in the general adoption of the Semitic term (cf.

Poebel, Hist. Texts, p. 53).

In the Semitic Version Ut-napishtim, who tells the story in the first person, then says that he "understood", and that, after a.s.suring Ea that he would carry out his commands, he asked how he was to explain his action to "the city, the people, and the elders"; and the G.o.d told him what to say. Then follows an account of the building of the s.h.i.+p, introduced by the words "As soon as the dawn began to break". In the Sumerian Version the close of the warning, in which the s.h.i.+p was probably referred to, and the lines prescribing how Ziusudu carried out the divine instructions are not preserved.

It will be seen that in the pa.s.sage quoted from the Semitic Version there is no direct mention of a dream; the G.o.d is represented at first as addressing his words to a "house of reeds" and a "wall", and then as speaking to Ut-napishtim himself. But in a later pa.s.sage in the Epic, when Ea seeks to excuse his action to Enlil, he says that the G.o.ds' decision was revealed to Atrakhasis through a dream.(1) Dr. Poebel rightly compares the direct warning of Ut-napishtim by Ea in the pa.s.sage quoted above with the equally direct warning Ziusudu receives in the Sumerian Version. But he would have us divorce the direct warning from the dream-warning, and he concludes that no less than three different versions of the story have been worked together in the Gilgamesh Epic. In the first, corresponding to that in our text, Ea communicates the G.o.ds' decision directly to Ut-napishtim; in the second he sends a dream from which Atrakhasis, "the Very Wise one", guesses the impending peril; while in the third he relates the plan to a wall, taking care that Ut-napishtim overhears him.(2) The version of Berossus, that Kronos himself appears to Xisuthros in a dream and warns him, is rejected by Dr. Poebel, who remarks that here the "original significance of the dream has already been obliterated". Consequently there seems to him to be "no logical connexion" between the dreams or dream mentioned at the close of the Third Column and the communication of the plan of the G.o.ds at the beginning of the Fourth Column of our text.(3) (1) Cf. l. 195 f.; "I did not divulge the decision of the great G.o.ds. I caused Atrakhasis to behold a dream and thus he heard the decision of the G.o.ds."