Legends of Babylon and Egypt in relation to Hebrew tradition Part 5

(2) Cf. Poebel, Hist. Texts, p. 51 f. With the G.o.d's apparent subterfuge in the third of these supposed versions Sir James Frazer (Ancient Stories of a Great Flood, p. 15) not inaptly compares the well-known story of King Midas's servant, who, unable to keep the secret of the king's deformity to himself, whispered it into a hole in the ground, with the result that the reeds which grew up there by their rustling in the wind proclaimed it to the world (Ovid, Metamorphoses, xi, 174 ff.).

(3) Op. cit., p. 51; cf. also Jastrow, Heb. and Bab.

Trad., p. 346.

So far from Berossus having missed the original significance of the narrative he relates, I think it can be shown that he reproduces very accurately the sense of our Sumerian text; and that the apparent discrepancies in the Semitic Version, and the puzzling references to a wall in both it and the Sumerian Version, are capable of a simple explanation. There appears to me no justification for splitting the Semitic narrative into the several versions suggested, since the a.s.sumption that the direct warning and the dream-warning must be distinguished is really based on a misunderstanding of the character of Sumerian dreams by which important decisions of the G.o.ds in council were communicated to mankind. We fortunately possess an instructive Sumerian parallel to our pa.s.sage. In it the will of the G.o.ds is revealed in a dream, which is not only described in full but is furnished with a detailed interpretation; and as it seems to clear up our difficulties, it may be well to summarize its main features.

The occasion of the dream in this case was not a coming deluge but a great dearth of water in the rivers, in consequence of which the crops had suffered and the country was threatened with famine. This occurred in the reign of Gudea, patesi of Lagash, who lived some centuries before our Sumerian doc.u.ment was inscribed. In his own inscription(1) he tells us that he was at a loss to know by what means he might restore prosperity to his country, when one night he had a dream; and it was in consequence of the dream that he eventually erected one of the most sumptuously appointed of Sumerian temples and thereby restored his land to prosperity. Before recounting his dream he describes how the G.o.ds themselves took counsel. On the day in which destinies were fixed in heaven and earth, Enlil, the chief of the G.o.ds, and Ningirsu, the city-G.o.d of Lagash, held converse; and Enlil, turning to Ningirsu, described the sad condition of Southern Babylonia, and remarked that "the decrees of the temple Eninn should be made glorious in heaven and upon earth", or, in other words, that Ningirsu's city-temple must be rebuilt. Thereupon Ningirsu did not communicate his orders directly to Gudea, but conveyed the will of the G.o.ds to him by means of a dream.

(1) See Thureau-Dangin, Les inscriptions de Sumer et d'Akkad, Cyl. A, pp. 134 ff., Germ. ed., pp. 88 ff.; and cf. King and Hall, Eg. and West. Asia, pp. 196 ff.

It will be noticed that we here have a very similar situation to that in the Deluge story. A conference of the G.o.ds has been held; a decision has been taken by the greatest G.o.d, Enlil; and, in consequence, another deity is anxious to inform a Sumerian ruler of that decision. The only difference is that here Enlil desires the communication to be made, while in the Deluge story it is made without his knowledge, and obviously against his wishes. So the fact that Ningirsu does not communicate directly with the patesi, but conveys his message by means of a dream, is particularly instructive. For here there can be no question of any subterfuge in the method employed, since Enlil was a consenting party.

The story goes on to relate that, while the patesi slept, a vision of the night came to him, and he beheld a man whose stature was so great that it equalled the heavens and the earth. By the diadem he wore upon his head Gudea knew that the figure must be a G.o.d. Beside the G.o.d was the divine eagle, the emblem of Lagash; his feet rested upon the whirlwind, and a lion crouched upon his right hand and upon his left. The figure spoke to the patesi, but he did not understand the meaning of the words. Then it seemed to Gudea that the Sun rose from the earth; and he beheld a woman holding in her hand a pure reed, and she carried also a tablet on which was a star of the heavens, and she seemed to take counsel with herself. While Gudea was gazing, he seemed to see a second man, who was like a warrior; and he carried a slab of lapis lazuli, on which he drew out the plan of a temple. Before the patesi himself it seemed that a fair cus.h.i.+on was placed, and upon the cus.h.i.+on was set a mould, and within the mould was a brick. And on the right hand the patesi beheld an a.s.s that lay upon the ground. Such was the dream of Gudea, and he was troubled because he could not interpret it.(1) (1) The resemblance its imagery bears to that of apocalyptic visions of a later period is interesting, as evidence of the latter's remote ancestry, and of the development in the use of primitive material to suit a completely changed political outlook. But those are points which do not concern our problem.

To cut the long story short, Gudea decided to seek the help of Nina, "the child of Eridu", who, as daughter of Enki, the G.o.d of Wisdom, could divine all the mysteries of the G.o.ds. But first of all by sacrifices and libations he secured the mediation of his own city-G.o.d and G.o.ddess, Ningirsu and Gatumdug; and then, repairing to Nina's temple, he recounted to her the details of his vision. When the patesi had finished, the G.o.ddess addressed him and said she would explain to him the meaning of his dream. Here, no doubt, we are to understand that she spoke through the mouth of her chief priest. And this was the interpretation of the dream. The man whose stature was so great, and whose head was that of a G.o.d, was the G.o.d Ningirsu, and the words which he uttered were an order to the patesi to rebuild the temple Eninn. The Sun which rose from the earth was the G.o.d Ningishzida, for like the Sun he goes forth from the earth. The maiden who held the pure reed and carried the tablet with the star was the G.o.ddess Nisaba; the star was the pure star of the temple's construction, which she proclaimed. The second man, who was like a warrior, was the G.o.d Nibub; and the plan of the temple which he drew was the plan of Eninn; and the a.s.s that lay upon the ground was the patesi himself.(1) (1) The symbolism of the a.s.s, as a beast of burden, was applicable to the patesi in his task of carrying out the building of the temple.

The essential feature of the vision is that the G.o.d himself appeared to the sleeper and delivered his message in words. That is precisely the manner in which Kronos warned Xisuthros of the coming Deluge in the version of Berossus; while in the Gilgamesh Epic the apparent contradiction between the direct warning and the dream-warning at once disappears. It is true that Gudea states that he did not understand the meaning of the G.o.d's message, and so required an interpretation; but he was equally at a loss as to the ident.i.ty of the G.o.d who gave it, although Ningirsu was his own city-G.o.d and was accompanied by his own familiar city-emblem. We may thus a.s.sume that the G.o.d's words, as words, were equally intelligible to Gudea. But as they were uttered in a dream, it was necessary that the patesi, in view of his country's peril, should have divine a.s.surance that they implied no other meaning. And in his case such a.s.surance was the more essential, in view of the symbolism attaching to the other features of his vision. That this is sound reasoning is proved by a second vision vouchsafed to Gudea by Ningirsu. For the patesi, though he began to prepare for the building of the temple, was not content even with Nina's a.s.surance. He offered a prayer to Ningirsu himself, saying that he wished to build the temple, but had received no sign that this was the will of the G.o.d; and he prayed for a sign. Then, as the patesi lay stretched upon the ground, the G.o.d again appeared to him and gave him detailed instructions, adding that he would grant the sign for which he asked. The sign was that he should feel his side touched as by a flame,(1) and thereby he should know that he was the man chosen by Ningirsu to carry out his commands. Here it is the sign which confirms the apparent meaning of the G.o.d's words. And Gudea was at last content and built the temple.(2) (1) Cyl. A., col. xii, l. 10 f.; cf. Thureau-Dangin, op.

cit., p. 150 f., Germ. ed., p. 102 f. The word translated "side" may also be rendered as "hand"; but "side" is the more probable rendering of the two. The touching of Gudea's side (or hand) presents an interesting resemblance to the touching of Jacob's thigh by the divine wrestler at Peniel in Gen. x.x.xii. 24 ff. (J or JE). Given a belief in the constant presence of the unseen and its frequent manifestation, such a story as that of Peniel might well arise from an unexplained injury to the sciatic muscle, while more than one ailment of the heart or liver might perhaps suggest the touch of a beckoning G.o.d. There is of course no connexion between the Sumerian and Hebrew stories beyond their common background. It may be added that those critics who would reverse the roles of Jacob and the wrestler miss the point of the Hebrew story.

(2) Even so, before starting on the work, he took the further precautions of ascertaining that the omens were favourable and of purifying his city from all malign influence.

We may conclude, then, that in the new Sumerian Version of the Deluge we have traced a logical connexion between the direct warning to Ziusudu in the Fourth Column of the text and the reference to a dream in the broken lines at the close of the Third Column. As in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus, here too the G.o.d's warning is conveyed in a dream; and the accompanying reference to conjuring by the Name of Heaven and Earth probably represents the means by which Ziusudu was enabled to verify its apparent meaning. The a.s.surance which Gudea obtained through the priest of Nina and the sign, the priest-king Ziusudu secured by his own act, in virtue of his piety and practice of divination. And his employment of the particular cla.s.s of incantation referred to, that which conjures by the Name of Heaven and Earth, is singularly appropriate to the context. For by its use he was enabled to test the meaning of Enki's words, which related to the intentions of Anu and Enlil, the G.o.ds respectively of Heaven and of Earth. The symbolical setting of Gudea's vision also finds a parallel in the reed-house and wall of the Deluge story, though in the latter case we have not the benefit of interpretation by a G.o.ddess. In the Sumerian Version the wall is merely part of the vision and does not receive a direct address from the G.o.d. That appears as a later development in the Semitic Version, and it may perhaps have suggested the excuse, put in that version into the mouth of Ea, that he had not directly revealed the decision of the G.o.ds.(1) (1) In that case the parallel suggested by Sir James Frazer between the reed-house and wall of the Gilgamesh Epic, now regarded as a medium of communication, and the whispering reeds of the Midas story would still hold good.

The omission of any reference to a dream before the warning in the Gilgamesh Epic may be accounted for on the a.s.sumption that readers of the poem would naturally suppose that the usual method of divine warning was implied; and the text does indicate that the warning took place at night, for Gilgamesh proceeds to carry out the divine instructions at the break of day. The direct warning of the Hebrew Versions, on the other hand, does not carry this implication, since according to Hebrew ideas direct speech, as well as vision, was included among the methods by which the divine will could be conveyed to man.

V. THE FLOOD, THE ESCAPE OF THE GREAT BOAT, AND THE SACRIFICE TO THE SUN-G.o.d

The missing portion of the Fourth Column must have described Ziusudu's building of his great boat in order to escape the Deluge, for at the beginning of the Fifth Column we are in the middle of the Deluge itself. The column begins: All the mighty wind-storms together blew, The flood ... raged.

When for seven days, for seven nights, The flood had overwhelmed the land When the wind-storm had driven the great boat over the mighty waters, The Sun-G.o.d came forth, shedding light over heaven and earth.

Ziusudu opened the opening of the great boat; The light of the hero, the Sun-G.o.d, (he) causes to enter into the interior(?) of the great boat.

Ziusudu, the king, Bows himself down before the Sun-G.o.d; The king sacrifices an ox, a sheep he slaughters(?).

The connected text of the column then breaks off, only a sign or two remaining of the following half-dozen lines. It will be seen that in the eleven lines that are preserved we have several close parallels to the Babylonian Version and some equally striking differences. While attempting to define the latter, it will be well to point out how close the resemblances are, and at the same time to draw a comparison between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions of this part of the story and the corresponding Hebrew accounts.

Here, as in the Babylonian Version, the Flood is accompanied by hurricanes of wind, though in the latter the description is worked up in considerable detail. We there read(1) that at the appointed time the ruler of the darkness at eventide sent a heavy rain. Ut-napishtim saw its beginning, but fearing to watch the storm, he entered the interior of the s.h.i.+p by Ea's instructions, closed the door, and handed over the direction of the vessel to the pilot Puzur-Amurri. Later a thunder-storm and hurricane added their terrors to the deluge. For at early dawn a black cloud came up from the horizon, Adad the Storm-G.o.d thundering in its midst, and his heralds, Nab and Sharru, flying over mountain and plain. Nergal tore away the s.h.i.+p's anchor, while Ninib directed the storm; the Anunnaki carried their lightning-torches and lit up the land with their brightness; the whirlwind of the Storm-G.o.d reached the heavens, and all light was turned into darkness. The storm raged the whole day, covering mountain and people with water.(2) No man beheld his fellow; the G.o.ds themselves were afraid, so that they retreated into the highest heaven, where they crouched down, cowering like dogs. Then follows the lamentation of Ishtar, to which reference has already been made, the G.o.ddess reproaching herself for the part she had taken in the destruction of her people. This section of the Semitic narrative closes with the picture of the G.o.ds weeping with her, sitting bowed down with their lips pressed together.

(1) Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 90 ff.

(2) In the Atrakhasis version, dated in the reign of Ammizaduga, Col. I, l. 5, contains a reference to the "cry"

of men when Adad the Storm-G.o.d, slays them with his flood.

It is probable that the Sumerian Version, in the missing portion of its Fourth Column, contained some account of Ziusudu's entry into his boat; and this may have been preceded, as in the Gilgamesh Epic, by a reference to "the living seed of every kind", or at any rate to "the four-legged creatures of the field", and to his personal possessions, with which we may a.s.sume he had previously loaded it. But in the Fifth Column we have no mention of the pilot or of any other companions who may have accompanied the king; and we shall see that the Sixth Column contains no reference to Ziusudu's wife. The description of the storm may have begun with the closing lines of the Fourth Column, though it is also quite possible that the first line of the Fifth Column actually begins the account. However that may be, and in spite of the poetic imagery of the Semitic Babylonian narrative, the general character of the catastrophe is the same in both versions.

We find an equally close parallel, between the Sumerian and Babylonian accounts, in the duration of the storm which accompanied the Flood, as will be seen by printing the two versions together:(3) SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION

When for seven days, for seven For six days and nights nights, The flood had overwhelmed the The wind blew, the flood, the land, tempest overwhelmed the land.

When the wind-storm had driven When the seventh day drew near, the great boat over the the tempest, the flood, ceased mighty waters, from the battle In which it had fought like a host.

The Sun-G.o.d came forth shedding Then the sea rested and was light over heaven and earth. still, and the wind-storm, the flood, ceased.

(3) Col. V, ll. 3-6 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 128-32.

The two narratives do not precisely agree as to the duration of the storm, for while in the Sumerian account the storm lasts seven days and seven nights, in the Semitic-Babylonian Version it lasts only six days and nights, ceasing at dawn on the seventh day. The difference, however, is immaterial when we compare these estimates with those of the Hebrew Versions, the older of which speaks of forty days' rain, while the later version represents the Flood as rising for no less than a hundred and fifty days.

The close parallel between the Sumerian and Babylonian Versions is not, however, confined to subject-matter, but here, even extends to some of the words and phrases employed. It has already been noted that the Sumerian term employed for "flood" or "deluge" is the attested equivalent of the Semitic word; and it may now be added that the word which may be rendered "great boat" or "great s.h.i.+p" in the Sumerian text is the same word, though partly expressed by variant characters, which occurs in the early Semitic fragment of the Deluge story from Nippur.(1) In the Gilgamesh Epic, on the other hand, the ordinary ideogram for "vessel" or "s.h.i.+p"(2) is employed, though the great size of the vessel is there indicated, as in Berossus and the later Hebrew Version, by detailed measurements. Moreover, the Sumerian and Semitic verbs, which are employed in the parallel pa.s.sages quoted above for the "overwhelming" of the land, are given as synonyms in a late syllabary, while in another explanatory text the Sumerian verb is explained as applying to the destructive action of a flood.(3) Such close linguistic parallels are instructive as furnis.h.i.+ng additional proof, if it were needed, of the dependence of the Semitic-Babylonian and a.s.syrian Versions upon Sumerian originals.

(1) The Sumerian word is (gish)ma-gur-gur, corresponding to the term written in the early Semitic fragment, l. 8, as (isu)ma-gur-gur, which is probably to be read under its Semitized form magurgurru. In l. 6 of that fragment the vessel is referred to under the synonymous expression (isu)elippu ra-be-tu, "a great s.h.i.+p".

(2) i.e. (GISH)MA, the first element in the Sumerian word, read in Semitic Babylonian as elippu, "s.h.i.+p"; when employed in the early Semitic fragment it is qualified by the adj. ra-be-tu, "great". There is no justification for a.s.suming, with Prof. Hilbrecht, that a measurement of the vessel was given in l. 7 of the early Semitic fragment.

(3) The Sumerian verb ur, which is employed in l. 2 of the Fifth Column in the expression ba-an-da-ab-ur-ur, translated as "raged", occurs again in l. 4 in the phrase kalam-ma ba-ur-ra, "had overwhelmed the land". That we are justified in regarding the latter phrase as the original of the Semitic i-sap-pan mata (Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 129) is proved by the equation Sum. ur-ur = Sem. sa-pa-nu (Rawlinson, W.A.I., Vol. V, pl. 42, l. 54 c) and by the explanation Sum. ur-ur = Sem. sa-ba-tu sa a-bu-bi, i.e.

"ur-ur = to smite, of a flood" (Cun. Texts, Pt. XII, pl.

50, Obv., l. 23); cf. Poebel, Hist. Texts, p. 54, n. 1.

It may be worth while to pause for a moment in our study of the text, in order to inquire what kind of boat it was in which Ziusudu escaped the Flood. It is only called "a great boat" or "a great s.h.i.+p" in the text, and this term, as we have noted, was taken over, semitized, and literally translated in an early Semitic-Babylonian Version. But the Gilgamesh Epic, representing the later Semitic-Babylonian Version, supplies fuller details, which have not, however, been satisfactorily explained. Either the obvious meaning of the description and figures there given has been ignored, or the measurements have been applied to a central structure placed upon a hull, much on the lines of a modern "house-boat" or the conventional Noah's ark.(1) For the latter interpretation the text itself affords no justification. The statement is definitely made that the length and breadth of the vessel itself are to be the same;(2) and a later pa.s.sage gives ten gar for the height of its sides and ten gar for the breadth of its deck.(3) This description has been taken to imply a square box-like structure, which, in order to be seaworthy, must be placed on a conjectured hull.

(1) Cf., e.g., Jastrow, Hebr. and Bab. Trad., p. 329.

(2) Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 28-30.

(3) L. 58 f. The gar contained twelve cubits, so that the vessel would have measured 120 cubits each way; taking the Babylonian cubit, on the basis of Gudea's scale, at 495 mm.

(cf. Thureau-Dangin, Journal Asiatique, Dix. Ser., t.

XIII, 1909, pp. 79 ff., 97), this would give a length, breadth, and height of nearly 195 ft.

I do not think it has been noted in this connexion that a vessel, approximately with the relative proportions of that described in the Gilgamesh Epic, is in constant use to-day on the lower Tigris and Euphrates. A kuffah,(1) the familiar pitched coracle of Baghdad, would provide an admirable model for the gigantic vessel in which Ut-napishtim rode out the Deluge. "Without either stem or stern, quite round like a s.h.i.+eld"-so Herodotus described the kuffah of his day;2() so, too, is it represented on a.s.syrian slabs from Nineveh, where we see it employed for the transport of heavy building material;(3) its form and structure indeed suggest a prehistoric origin. The kuffah is one of those examples of perfect adjustment to conditions of use which cannot be improved. Any one who has travelled in one of these craft will agree that their storage capacity is immense, for their circular form and steeply curved side allow every inch of s.p.a.ce to be utilized. It is almost impossible to upset them, and their only disadvantage is lack of speed. For their guidance all that is required is a steersman with a paddle, as indicated in the Epic. It is true that the larger kuffah of to-day tends to increase in diameter as compared to height, but that detail might well be ignored in picturing the monster vessel of Ut-napishtim. Its seven horizontal stages and their nine lateral divisions would have been structurally sound in supporting the vessel's sides; and the selection of the latter uneven number, though prompted doubtless by its sacred character, is only suitable to a circular craft in which the interior walls would radiate from the centre. The use of pitch and bitumen for smearing the vessel inside and out, though unusual even in Mesopotamian s.h.i.+pbuilding, is precisely the method employed in the kuffah's construction.

(1) Arab. kuffah, pl. kufaf; in addition to its common use for the Baghdad coracle, the word is also employed for a large basket.

(2) Herodotus, I, 194.

(3) The kuffah is formed of wicker-work coated with bitumen. Some of those represented on the Nineveh sculptures appear to be covered with skins; and Herodotus (I, 94) states that "the boats which come down the river to Babylon are circular and made of skins." But his further description shows that he is here referred to the kelek or skin-raft, with which he has combined a description of the kuffah.

The late Sir Henry Rawlinson has never seen or heard of a skin-covered kuffah on either the Tigris or Euphrates, and there can be little doubt that bitumen was employed for their construction in antiquity, as it is to-day. These craft are often large enough to carry five or six horses and a dozen men.

We have no detailed description of Ziusudu's "great boat", beyond the fact that it was covered in and had an opening, or light-hole, which could be closed. But the form of Ut-napishtim's vessel was no doubt traditional, and we may picture that of Ziusudu as also of the kuffah type, though smaller and without its successor's elaborate internal structure. The gradual development of the huge coracle into a s.h.i.+p would have been encouraged by the Semitic use of the term "s.h.i.+p" to describe it; and the attempt to retain something of its original proportions resulted in producing the unwieldy ark of later tradition.(1) (1) The description of the ark is not preserved from the earlier Hebrew Version (J), but the latter Hebrew Version (P), while increasing the length of the vessel, has considerably reduced its height and breadth. Its measurements are there given (Gen. vi. 15) as 300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in breadth, and 30 cubits in height; taking the ordinary Hebrew cubit at about 18 in., this would give a length of about 450 ft., a breadth of about 75 ft., and a height of about 45 ft. The interior stories are necessarily reduced to three. The vessel in Berossus measures five stadia by two, and thus had a length of over three thousand feet and a breadth of more than twelve hundred.

We will now return to the text and resume the comparison we were making between it and the Gilgamesh Epic. In the latter no direct reference is made to the appearance of the Sun-G.o.d after the storm, nor is Ut-napishtim represented as praying to him. But the sequence of events in the Sumerian Version is very natural, and on that account alone, apart from other reasons, it may be held to represent the original form of the story. For the Sun-G.o.d would naturally reappear after the darkness of the storm had pa.s.sed, and it would be equally natural that Ziusudu should address himself to the great light-G.o.d. Moreover, the Gilgamesh Epic still retains traces of the Sumerian Version, as will be seen from a comparison of their narratives,(1) the Semitic Version being quoted from the point where the hurricane ceased and the sea became still.

(1) Col. V, ll. 7-11 are here compared with Gilg. Epic, XI, ll. 133-9.

SUMERIAN VERSION SEMITIC VERSION

When I looked at the storm, the uproar had ceased, And all mankind was turned into clay; In place of fields there was a swamp.

Ziusudu opened the opening of I opened the opening (lit.

the great boat; "hole"), and daylight fell upon my countenance.

The light of the hero, the Sun- G.o.d, (he) causes to enter into the interior(?) of the great boat.

Ziusudu, the king, Bows himself down before the I bowed myself down and sat down Sun-G.o.d; weeping; The king sacrifices an ox, a Over my countenance flowed my sheep he slaughters(?). tears.

I gazed upon the quarters (of the world)-all(?) was sea.

It will be seen that in the Semitic Version the beams of the Sun-G.o.d have been reduced to "daylight", and Ziusudu's act of wors.h.i.+p has become merely prostration in token of grief.

Both in the Gilgamesh Epic and in Berossus the sacrifice offered by the Deluge hero to the G.o.ds follows the episode of the birds, and it takes place on the top of the mountain after the landing from the vessel. It is hardly probable that two sacrifices were recounted in the Sumerian Version, one to the Sun-G.o.d in the boat and another on the mountain after landing; and if we are right in identifying Ziusudu's recorded sacrifice with that of Ut-napishtim and Xisuthros, it would seem that, according to the Sumerian Version, no birds were sent out to test the abatement of the waters. This conclusion cannot be regarded as quite certain, inasmuch as the greater part of the Fifth Column is waning. We have, moreover, already seen reason to believe that the account on our tablet is epitomized, and that consequently the omission of any episode from our text does not necessarily imply its absence from the original Sumerian Version which it follows. But here at least it is clear that nothing can have been omitted between the opening of the light-hole and the sacrifice, for the one act is the natural sequence of the other. On the whole it seems preferable to a.s.sume that we have recovered a simpler form of the story.

As the storm itself is described in a few phrases, so the cessation of the flood may have been dismissed with equal brevity; the gradual abatement of the waters, as attested by the dove, the swallow, and the raven, may well be due to later elaboration or to combination with some variant account. Under its amended form the narrative leads naturally up to the landing on the mountain and the sacrifice of thanksgiving to the G.o.ds. In the Sumerian Version, on the other hand, Ziusudu regards himself as saved when he sees the Sun s.h.i.+ning; he needs no further tests to a.s.sure himself that the danger is over, and his sacrifice too is one of grat.i.tude for his escape. The disappearance of the Sun-G.o.d from the Semitic Version was thus a necessity, to avoid an anti-climax; and the hero's att.i.tude of wors.h.i.+p had obviously to be translated into one of grief. An indication that the sacrifice was originally represented as having taken place on board the boat may be seen in the lines of the Gilgamesh Epic which recount how Enlil, after acquiescing in Ut-napishtim's survival of the Flood, went up into the s.h.i.+p and led him forth by the hand, although, in the preceding lines, he had already landed and had sacrificed upon the mountain. The two pa.s.sages are hardly consistent as they stand, but they find a simple explanation of we regard the second of them as an unaltered survival from an earlier form of the story.

If the above line of reasoning be sound, it follows that, while the earlier Hebrew Version closely resembles the Gilgamesh Epic, the later Hebrew Version, by its omission of the birds, would offer a parallel to the Sumerian Version. But whether we may draw any conclusion from this apparent grouping of our authorities will be best dealt with when we have concluded our survey of the new evidence.

As we have seen, the text of the Fifth Column breaks off with Ziusudu's sacrifice to the Sun-G.o.d, after he had opened a light-hole in the boat and had seen by the G.o.d's beams that the storm was over. The missing portion of the Fifth Column must have included at least some account of the abatement of the waters, the stranding of the boat, and the manner in which Anu and Enlil became apprised of Ziusudu's escape, and consequently of the failure of their intention to annihilate mankind. For in the Sixth Column of the text we find these two deities reconciled to Ziusudu and bestowing immortality upon him, as Enlil bestows immortality upon Ut-napishtim at the close of the Semitic Version. In the latter account, after the vessel had grounded on Mount Nisir and Ut-napishtim had tested the abatement of the waters by means of the birds, he brings all out from the s.h.i.+p and offers his libation and sacrifice upon the mountain, heaping up reed, cedar-wood, and myrtle beneath his seven sacrificial vessels. And it was by this act on his part that the G.o.ds first had knowledge of his escape. For they smelt the sweet savour of the sacrifice, and "gathered like flies over the sacrificer".(1) (1) Gilg. Epic, XI, l. 162.

It is possible in our text that Ziusudu's sacrifice in the boat was also the means by which the G.o.ds became acquainted with his survival; and it seems obvious that the Sun-G.o.d, to whom it was offered, should have continued to play some part in the narrative, perhaps by a.s.sisting Ziusudu in propitiating Anu and Enlil. In the Semitic-Babylonian Version, the first deity to approach the sacrifice is Belit-ili or Ishtar, who is indignant with Enlil for what he has done. When Enlil himself approaches and sees the s.h.i.+p he is filled with anger against the G.o.ds, and, asking who has escaped, exclaims that no man must live in the destruction. Thereupon Ninib accuses Ea, who by his pleading succeeds in turning Enlil's purpose. He bids Enlil visit the sinner with his sin and lay his transgression on the transgressor; Enlil should not again send a deluge to destroy the whole of mankind, but should be content with less wholesale destruction, such as that wrought by wild beasts, famine, and plague. Finally he confesses that it was he who warned Ziusudu of the G.o.ds' decision by sending him a dream. Enlil thereupon changes his intention, and going up into the s.h.i.+p, leads Ut-napishtim forth. Though Ea's intervention finds, of course, no parallel in either Hebrew version, the subject-matter of his speech is reflected in both. In the earlier Hebrew Version Yahweh smells the sweet savour of Noah's burnt offering and says in his heart he will no more destroy every living creature as he had done; while in the later Hebrew Version Elohim, after remembering Noah and causing the waters to abate, establishes his covenant to the same effect, and, as a sign of the covenant, sets his bow in the clouds.

In its treatment of the climax of the story we shall see that the Sumerian Version, at any rate in the form it has reached us, is on a lower ethical level than the Babylonian and Hebrew Versions. Ea's argument that the sinner should bear his own sin and the transgressor his own transgression in some measure forestalls that of Ezekiel;(1) and both the Hebrew Versions represent the saving of Noah as part of the divine intention from the beginning. But the Sumerian Version introduces the element of magic as the means by which man can bend the will of the G.o.ds to his own ends. How far the details of the Sumerian myth at this point resembled that of the Gilgamesh Epic it is impossible to say, but the general course of the story must have been the same. In the latter Enlil's anger is appeased, in the former that of Anu and Enlil; and it is legitimate to suppose that Enki, like Ea, was Ziusudu's princ.i.p.al supporter, in view of the part he had already taken in ensuring his escape.

(1) Cf. Ezek. xviii, pa.s.sim, esp. xviii. 20.

VI. THE PROPITIATION OF THE ANGRY G.o.dS, AND ZIUSUDU'S IMMORTALITY

The presence of the puzzling lines, with which the Sixth Column of our text opens, was not explained by Dr. Poebel; indeed, they would be difficult to reconcile with his a.s.sumption that our text is an epic pure and simple. But if, as is suggested above, we are dealing with a myth in magical employment, they are quite capable of explanation. The problem these lines present will best be stated by giving a translation of the extant portion of the column, where they will be seen with their immediate context in relation to what follows them: "By the Soul of Heaven, by the soul of Earth, shall ye conjure him, That with you he may ... !

Anu and Enlil by the Soul of Heaven, by the Soul of Earth, shall ye conjure, And with you will he ... !

"The niggilma of the ground springs forth in abundance(?)!"

Ziusudu, the king, Before Anu and Enlil bows himself down.

Life like (that of) a G.o.d he gives to him, An eternal soul like (that of) a G.o.d he creates for him.

At that time Ziusudu, the king, The name of the niggilma (named) "Preserver of the Seed of Mankind".

In a ... land,(1) the land(1) of Dilmun(?), they caused him to dwell.