A HEBREW DELUGE STORY IN CUNEIFORM

THE PIERPONT MORGAN LIBRARY

ALBERT T. CLAY

FOREWORD

The title of this little monograph tells its own story, namely, that an ancient Hebrew deluge tradition written in cuneiform is here presented. It is not a recent discovery, nor is it the first time that it has appeared in print. It was first published a number of years ago, but owing to a faulty copy of the text originally presented, its importance has never been understood.

This story of the deluge which had found its way into Babylonia, where it was made to conform largely to the Akkadian dialect, fully betrays its origin; it came from the same source whence the Hebrew traditions came, namely from the people who lived in Amurru (Syria and Mesopotamia), called the Amorites. As was the case in pre-Mosaic days, and to a large extent in early Israel, when henotheism prevailed, "God" is the foremost deity.

We learn from this tradition, and also from its redaction written centuries later, that a long famine preceded the deluge, which is not referred to in the Old Testament, that the famine had been sent because men had multiplied, and also because of their clamor, reminding us of the causes given for the deluge in the Old Testament.

The great importance of this inscription, which was copied about the time of Abraham from an older tablet, together with other facts here presented, is that it will require that the prevailing view be abandoned that the Hebrew traditions were borrowed from Babylonia. This involves many scholarly works written in recent decades upon the early history of Israel. It has been generally held that these stories are of Babylonian origin; that Canaan was a domain of Babylonian culture in the time of Moses; and that Israel had assimilated this foreign culture as well as its religion, "feathers and all". Not only is the Israelitish cult held to be dependent upon the Babylonian, but also many of the chief characters are said to have descended from Babylonian mythology.

In Germany where these views developed, some scholars have gone to great extremes; only a change of names had taken place, and Marduk or Bel was transformed into Christ. In America a more moderate position has generally been accepted, in which the extreme views were toned down, and the Pan-Babylonian theory made more palatable. Nevertheless, it is generally held that these traditions had been brought from Babylonia in the time of Abraham, or in the Amarna Period, or at the time of the exile; and that many of the characters had their origin in myth.

Twelve years ago the writer took issue with this general position, holding that the traditions of the Hebrews were indigenous in the land of the Amorites; and that contrary to the prevailing view, this land was not dependent for its population upon Arabs who migrated from Arabia a little before and after the time of Abraham, but upon an indigenous people, the antiquity of whose culture is as high as that known in Egypt or Babylonia; and also that the Semites who moved into the lower Euphrates valley mainly came from this quarter, and brought with them their culture. He has also consistently maintained that such familiar Biblical characters as the patriarchs and others, instead of being the creations of fiction writers, were historical personages.

While the new point of view was accepted by many scholars, and the tremendous flow of Pan-Babylonian literature was suddenly and very materially reduced in volume, only a few of those who had written upon the subject acknowledged the gains that had been made, and reversed their positions. Even some scholars in their efforts to nullify the advances, instead of facing the real issue in their reviews, dwelt upon and held up as proof of the writer's thesis some extraneous suggestions which had been intended for consideration in filling in the background of the two or more millenniums of Amorite history prior to Abraham.

The writer's thesis in brief is, that the Arabian origin of the Semites living in ancient Syria and Babylonia, including the Hebrews, is baseless; but that the antiquity of the Amorite civilization is very great; and also the assertion that the culture and religion of Israel were borrowed from Babylonia is without any foundation; for they were indigenous; and that the Semites who migrated to Babylonia with their culture were mainly from Amurru. In the judgment of the writer the material presented in this little monograph, as well as in his recently published Empire of the Amorites, will require a very extensive readjustment of many views bearing upon the subject, as well as the abandonment of many others. Moreover, it also has bearings of a far-reaching character on many other Old Testament problems.

Amurru, called "the land of the Amorites," it might be added, is a geographical term which was used in ancient times for the great stretch of territory between Babylonia and the Mediterranean. By reason of its products and its position this land had been attractive to other peoples ever since one strove to obtain what the other possessed, resulting in almost innumerable invasion and conflicts taking place in this land. Within the historical period we know that the Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, and other peoples controlled this territory. It should be added that this country in turn also prevailed at times over other lands, notably Babylonia and Egypt. In these pages we have evidence that one of its rulers conquered Babylonia as early as 4000 BC.

This country has always represented ethnologically a great mixture. Linguistically, as far as is known, a Semitic language has always prevailed in this great stretch of territory. The Amorite or Hebrew language, being the oldest of which we have knowledge, was followed by the Aramaic, and later by the Arabic which now prevails. To what extent the Akkadian dialect was used in certain parts, and what script was employed in the early period, are as yet undetermined. Excavations at one or two well selected sites will throw light on this and many other questions, and furnish us with the material whereby we will be able to reconstruct many chapters of its early history.

It gives the writer great pleasure to inscribe this little contribution to his colleague and friend, Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, who not only has watched sympathetically these investigations advance, but also in reading the manuscript has made a number of suggestions as well as several identifications of roots which are indicated in the foot notes.

ALBERT T. CLAY.

NEW HAVEN, CONN.

May 19, 1922.

I An Ancient Hebrew Deluge Story

II An Ancient Fragment of the Etana Legend

III A Fragment of the Adapa Legend

IV An Early Chapter in the History of Amurru and Babylonia

APPENDIX

Transliterations and Translations of the Deluge Stories

A An Early Version of the Atrahasis Epic

B A Late Redaction of the Atrahasis Epic

C An Assyrian Fragment of the Atrahasis Epic

D A Deluge Story in Sumerian

E The Deluge Story in the Gilgamesh Epic

F A Fragment of a Deluge Story in Babylonian...... 81

G Berossus' Version of the Atra-hasis Epic

Dynastic Lists of Early Babylonia

Autographed Texts

Plates I-IV

Heliotype Reproductions

AN ANCIENT HEBREW DELUGE STORY

This fragment of a large tablet was published in text, transliteration and translation nearly twenty-five years ago, before it had come into the possession of the Pierpont Morgan Library Collection of Babylonian Inscriptions; in the meantime many other translations have appeared. Moreover, owing to the form in which the tablet had been presented, due somewhat to its not having been thoroughly cleaned, its importance has only been slightly appreciated. While it was understood that it had the same general application as a legend preserved in the British Museum, known as the Ea and Atrahasis legend, and belonging to a later period, the latter, owing to its fragmentary condition, could not be said to refer to the deluge. Moreover, while it was apparent that the present text did refer to the deluge, it was considered even by one who examined the tablet that it "contained little more than a few phrases and words, without any coherent connection."

Further study, however, as will be seen from what follows, reveals the fact that this is a mistake; that it is a part of an old version of what should properly be called the Atrahasis Epic, which is a very ancient Hebrew or Amorite Deluge Story; and that the so-called Ea and Atrahasis Legend of the Assyrian period, which has also been translated by a number of scholars, is a late redaction of it.

The later version or redaction was put into a magical setting for incantation purposes. In the Appendix will be found the transliteration and translation of all the versions of this deluge story or stories, both cuneiform and Greek. The ancient dated text is designated as A, and the late redaction as B.

A small fragment in the British Museum, ostensibly from a version of the Atrahasis Epic, for it mentions the hero's name, which was also written in the late period, furnishes us with the conversation between the god Ea and Atrahasis concerning the construction of the ship, and with what it should be loaded.

This is designated in the Appendix as C.

A few years ago there was published a brief epitomized history of the world, written in Sumerian, beginning with the creation, followed by an account of the building of cities and the story of the deluge. This tablet was found during the excavations at Nippur conducted by the University of Pennsylvania. The tablet was written after the Sumerian language had ceased to be spoken in its purity, sometime between the middle of the First Dynasty of Babylon and the second Nisin era, that is between 2300 and 1300 BC.

Like the other legend written in the late period, it seems to have been used for incantation purposes. It is evidently based upon the same story as that from which the Gilgamesh Epic story has descended, as is apparent from several expressions found in it.

The phrase in the Sumerian version "when for seven days and nights the flood overwhelms the land" is paralleled in the Semitic by "six days and nights the wind drives; the deluge-tempest overwhelms the land, when the seventh day arrives, the tempest subsides in the onslaught". The reference also to "the wall", when the hero was apprised of the impending deluge, is in both. Further, the title of the hero, Um-napishtim, is replaced in the Sumerian by Zi-u-suddu, which is composed of three elements, Zi (napishtim) "life", and fu (am) "day", to which the element suddu (requ) "to be distant" has been added.

It is not impossible that Um-napishtim, which contains two of the three elements of the Sumerian name, is an abbreviated form of the original (see below). This version is designated as D.

The hero of the other and well known deluge story, which in the late period had been woven into the Gilgamesh Epic, is Atrahasis, but his title, which is better known in connection with the story, is Um-napishtim, or Uta-napishtim.

This is designated as E.

Besides these versions or fragments of versions there is also known a little fragment of thirteen partially preserved lines, written probably in the Cassite period (about 1400 BC), in whichneither the name of a god nor that of the hero is preserved.

This is designated as F.

The deluge story handed down by Berossus, in which the hero is Xisuthros (Soovoopo,), which name represents a transposition of the elements of Atrahasis, i. e., Hasis-atra, is still another version of the epic.

This is designated as G.

The only dated version written in cuneiform is the one in the Pierpont Morgan Collection. It was copied from a still earlier inscription by a junior scribe named Azag-Aya, on the 28th day of Shebet, in the 11th year of Ammi-zaduga (1966 BC), which date is about 1300 years earlier than the time of the Library of Ashurbanipal (668-626 BC), to which the late redaction of it, now in the British Museum, belonged. The original from which the scribe copied had already been injured in the 12th line, which is indicated by the word hibis "broken". How much earlier the previous text was written, cannot be surmised; but there are reasons for believing it is a very ancient legend, probably written two thousand years earlier (see below).

Unfortunately, the tablet has been injured since it was first published twenty-five years ago. Several small pieces have been lost from the surface of it. In the copy of the inscription, given in the Appendix, these parts are based upon the original copy made twenty-five years ago, and are indicated by small ink dots, easily recognized.

The fragment shows that the tablet, of which it was a part, had eight columns. This can be determined from the shape of the fragment, the second column of which, not being complete, does not reach the thickest part of the tablet, i.e., the middle. It can also be determined that it had eight columns from the number of lines.

Deducting those of the last column, namely 37, from the total number of the tablet, which is 439, leaves 402; which divided into the remaining seven columns, gives 57 or 58 for each. This can be verified by adding 37 to the nearly 20 preserved in the seventh column, which equals 57.

This fragment of the ancient version contains the opening lines of what was the second tablet of the series, which was entitled or known by the words I-nu-ma i-lu a-we-lum. This is an incomplete sentence meaning "When God, man," etc.

It recalls the well known title Enuma Anu Enlil "When Anu, Enlil," the complete form of which is known: "When Anu, Enlil, and Ea, the great gods, entrusted the great laws of heaven," etc. Inuma ilu awelum were doubtless the initial words of the first tablet of the series. What the content of the first tablet was cannot be surmised.

Like the Sumerian text found at Nippur, and the first chapter of Genesis, it may have contained an account of the creation. This second tablet of the ancient version opens with a reference to the famine, as in the late redaction. In the latter we learn that the famine lasted six, probably seven years; and that it became so severe that human flesh was eaten. The Biblical story makes no reference to a famine preceding the deluge; nor does the Gilgamesh Epic story; yet in the light of the Atrahasis Epic this would seem to be implied in the Gilgamesh story in the message which Ea tells Um-napishtim to give to the people, namely, "it will rain for you abundance," after the ship is built.

The famine in the ancient Atrahasis version came after men began to multiply, and the land had become satiated "like a bull."

This fact is hinted at in the late redaction where we have the line "[The people] have not become less; they are more numerous than before" (B, III: 39). It was ordered that the fig tree be cut off, that Adad withhold the rain; that the rivers be restrained at their source; that the fields withhold their produce; and that the womb be closed. The lines of the seventh column refer to the intervention of the god Ea, after Adad had opened the heavens and sent a deluge. The promise to preserve the seed of life is also referred to, as well as the entering into the ship.

What is preserved of the redactor's work makes no reference to the flood. Whether the redactor included in his work also the account of the deluge, the main theme of the epic, can be determined only when other parts of his incantation are found. The ancient version, however, enables us to ascertain where he obtained his account of the famine, which he used for incantation purposes, in connection with sickness and the bearing of children. The story of the famine involving the lack of fertility lent itself to such a purpose. That he modified, enlarged, and glossed it, is perfectly clear from the transliteration and translation of the two texts, the ancient and the redaction.

Complete translations of all the cuneiform deluge stories are given in the Appendix; but in order to have the related parts of the two texts of the Atrahasis Epic together for the purpose of comparison, the following selections are here given: A, I: 1 to 19 of the former, and B, III: 2 to 8 and 37 to 59 of the latter.

SELECTION FROM THE EARLY VERSION

I will bring (?) their clamor (?)

The land had become great; the people had multiplied.

The land like a bull had become satiated.

[In] their assemblage God was absent.

...... heard their clamor.

He said to the great gods (?)

Those observing the clamor of men.

In their assemblage he spoke of desolations.

Let the fig tree for the people be [cut off].

[In] their [fields], let the plant become a weed (?).

...... the sheep let Adad destroy.

[The fountains of the deep] let not flow.

[That the flood rise not at the source.

Let the wind blow.

Let it drive mightily.

Let the clouds be held back, that

Rain from the heavens pour not forth.

Let the field withhold its fertility.

[Let a change come over] the bosom of Nisaba.

[Concerning] their clamor he became troubled.

[He spoke in] their assemblage to

those untouched [by the desolations].

[Enlil) held [his] assembly.

[He sa]id to the gods his children,

Those observing the clamor of men:

[Concerning] their clamor I am troubled.

[He said in] their assemblage to

those untouched by the desolations.

[Enlil] held his assembly; he

speaks to the gods his children.

...... I will put them to death.

[The people] have not become

less; they are more numerous than before.

[Concerning] their clamor I am troubled.

[He said in] their assemblage to

those untouched by the desolations :

Let the fig tree for the people be [cut off.]

[I]n their bellies let the plant be wanting.

Above, let Adad make his rain scarce.

Below let (the fountain of the

deep) be stopped that the flood

rise not at the source.

Let the field withhold its fertility.

Let a change come over the bosom

of Nisaba; by night let the fields

become white.

Let the wide field bear weeds (?).

Let her bosom revolt, that the

plant come not forth, that the

sheep become not pregnant.

Let calamity be placed upon the

people.

Let the [womb] be closed, that it

bring forth no infant.

The fig tree was cut [off] for the

people.

In their bellies, the plant was want-

ing.

Above, Adad made scarce his rain.

Below (the fountain of the deep)

was stopped, that the flood rose

not at the source.

The field withheld its fertility.

A change came over the bosom of

Nisaba; the fields by night be-came white.

RESEARCHES V-3

The wide field bore weeds (?); her

womb revolted.

The plant came not forth; the

sheep did not become pregnant.

The critical historical study of the late redactor's work is comparatively easy in this instance, because we have an original from which his work has descended. In the thirteen hundred years many copyists and redactors had doubtless taken part in transmitting the legend. How many times the text had been re-copied during the two or three thousand years of its history prior to the time the present early version was inscribed, cannot be surmised.

This old version contains absolutely nothing to suggest the idea that it had originally been written in Sumerian. On the contrary, it is clearly evident that it is of Amorite origin. Not only are the hero and the deities Amorite, but also certain words, which were not in current use in Akkadian.

One of the most striking Amorite words in the text is huburu (line 4), which also is found in the redaction. This has been left untranslated in all the translations known to the writer except one, where the meaning "totalite" is given. The word unquestionably is West Semitic, and means “assemblage, association”. It is found also in the Creation Story, in ummu jhubur “mother of the assembly (or association)” of gods, the title of Tiamat, “the mother of them all” (muallidat gimrisun), who was of West Semitic origin.

The redactor, fearing the word would not be understood by his Assyrian readers, inserted a line which follows in his transcription, reading “[En]-lil established his assembly”; in which he used the regular Assyrian word for “assembly” (puhru).

The root of it-ta-ah-da-ar (A, 4) is not found in Akkadian, but it is in Hebrew, in 'adar “to be absent, to be lacking; in which language the verbal forms occur also in the Niphal, see 2 Sam., 17: 26, Isaiah 40: 26, etc. Apparently the redactor did not understand the word, for he changed the sense, and wrote in his paraphrase "”Concerning their clamor he was troubled” (ittadir) (B, III: 2).

The word iq-ta-ab-ta (A. 7) does not occur in Akkadian; it is Amorite. In Ethiopic and Aramaic, 'aqab means “to observe, mark”, etc. It is found in Hebrew with the meaning “to follow at the heel”.

The word ma-si-it-ta “desolations” (A, 8) is Hebrew; see Job 30: 3; Psalm 74: 3, etc. In the redaction, the word used is ni-si-tu. This also is Hebrew (see Psalm 88: 13).

A very striking and important proof that the original story was Amorite or Hebrew is to be seen in the use of the word te-i-na (A, 9), which is the Hebrew word for “fig tree”. This the early redactors had allowed to stand, but a later scribe, feeling that this would not be understood in his country where the fig was practically unknown, replaced the Hebrew word te-i-na with ti-ta, the Babylonian word for “fig tree”. In Babylonian and Assyrian literature the word titu or tittu is little more than known. In Hebrew literature, as in the present text, the word “fig tree” is synonymous with “prosperity”. It was not in Babylonia nor in Assyria that man “dwelt under” and ate “every one of his fig tree”, but in Syria (see Mic. 4: 4; Is. 36: 16, etc.).

Owing to the injury of the tablet it is not possible to say that su (A, 11), translated “flock”, is not the pronominal suffix, but the word Sub which does occur in the redactor's paraphrase, is another Hebrew word meaning “flock, sheep”, which is frequently found in the Old Testament.

In li-sa-aq-ti-il (A, 11) is to be seen an Amorite word which had not been used in Akkadian. Whether the redactor understood its meaning, we do not know; but he changed the wording; and he also condensed the six lines of the original which follow (A, 12 to 16) into one line (see B, II: 30 and III: 45). Not only do we find lisaqtil instead of lusaqtil, but note also limtanni, listarriq, lis'aznin, and perhaps also lierri and imassid. This probably is a peculiarity of the early Amorite language in which the legend had been written.

In line 12 the word hibis indicates that a previous tablet had been injured. The words [i]a [li]-il-li-ka “let not flow” are preserved at the end of the line. Probably the words e-na-tata-ma-ta “fountains of the deep”, as in Genesis 7:11, stood in the original, and an Akkadian scribe who lived in Babylonia, a land where springs are unknown, being in doubt as to the reading, wrote hibis, “injured”.

The root of li-e-ir-ri (A, 15) is doubtless to be found in Hebrew in the common yarah “to throw, hurl”. This root was not in current use in Babylonia.

The root of li-im-ta.an-ni-ma (A, 16), is evidently the familiar Hebrew manac' “to withhold, to hold back”, used in connection with rain, Amos 4: 7; of “showers”, Jer. 3: 3, etc., but the root was not in current use in Babylonia.

If we had no other data to show that Nisaba (A, 19), the goddess of fertility, is Amorite, this passage would be sufficient; but we have. Naturally no one would question that Adad is the Amorite Hadad. And there can be no doubt, but that Ea also had his origin in the West.

These words are all found in the first nineteen lines of the text.

Naturally the words currently used in Babylonia, as well as in Amurru, are not discussed. It is to be noted that the hero, Atrahasis, bears an Amorite name.

The fact that the determinative for man is placed before it, especially in this early period, makes it impossible to regard it here as being an epithet for a hero bearing another name.

These facts and others which follow, especially those in connection with the name Ilu "God" for the chief deity's name in this legend, prove conclusively that this was originally a Hebrew or Amorite Deluge Story.

If this is an Amorite legend we would expect to find also in the work of the late redactor or glossarist, Amorite words which had not been adopted by the Semitic Babylonians; and in this we are not disappointed. A comparison of the two texts shows how the redactor inserted glosses or parallel phrases in connection with huburisina, iqtabta, etc., and as we already have seen, how he replaced the Hebrew teina with the Babylonian titu, and used the Hebrew word Su “flock”. The following, however, will show that all the Hebrew or Amorite words had not been eliminated in the thirteen hundred years which intervened between the dates when the two tablets were written.

The word zi-ba-ni-it “treasures” (B, I: 33), is Amorite from the root sapan “to hide, to treasure”. This root is not in current use in Akkadian.

The words a-na pat-te (B, I: 36) do not mean “aussitot”, nor is the reading a-na kurmate “for food” correct; but pat-te is the Hebrew word pat in the plural, meaning “morsels”; and the sentence reads “they prepare the child for morsels”. This being a word foreign to the Akkadians, the redactor wrote the gloss which precedes, “They prepare the daughter for a meal”.

The ma at the beginning of B, I: 43 ma-bel mdti has been left wholly unaccounted for in all the translations. This is the Hebrew waw conjunctive.

The word i-ri-ha-ma (B. II: 50) is not Akkadian but Amorite.

The word 'aruhah “meal, food”, is found several times in the Old Testament, see Jer. 40: 5, etc.

The word la-.su (B, II: 56) has been construed by all the translators as the negative particle, three of whom, recognizing the difficulty, added a question mark to their conjectural translation of it; but la-su is the Amorite inseparable preposition with the pronominal suffix, meaning “to him”. The redactor glossed la-su with the Akkadian word it-ti-su which precedes.

In the passage which is exactly parallel (B, III: 20), it is omitted.

The word i-sa-ba-ta (B. III: 3), translated as if Akkadian from the root sabatu “to take”, makes an insurmountable difficulty; but considering that it is from the Hebrew root 'asab “to grieve”, see Isaiah 54: 6; I Chron. 4: 10, etc., the difficulty disappears.

The word ni-si-tu “desolation” (B, 111:3), as referred to above in connection with mna-si-it-ta of the ancient version, is Amorite.

The me which follows Atrahasis (B, III: 29) is not an enclitic or emphatic particle attached to that name, but the Hebrew waw consecutive.

The fact that me is written instead of ma may probably be due to compensative lengthening as in Hebrew.

There are other Amorite words in the late text which are discussed in the foot notes of the transliteration and translation.

The study of the late redaction also shows that it goes back to a Hebrew or Amorite original. In no other way can the Hebrew words found in its composition be explained.

The legend had been Akkadianized before the early text was written, in 1966 BC. In the long period which preceded it had suffered many changes when redactors had made the original Amorite text conform to the dialect in current use in Babylonia; fortunately, as we have seen, all the words peculiar to the West had not been eliminated. We see how this process went on in the writing of personal names of those coming fresh from the West in the Hammurabi period; for example, names like Ishbi-Urra, Ishme-Dagan etc., had become Akkadianized, but on the arrival from the West of others bearing those names, we find that they were written Yashbi-Urra, Yashme-Dagan, etc. Even the position of the verbs in the sentence had suffered changes; for while they are frequently found at the beginning, as in Hebrew, they are also found placed at the end, or indifferently in the sentence, as is the case in Akkadian.

The story of the deluge, as contained in the Gilgamesh Epic, certain scholars maintain, embraces elements of more than one tradition. They say Um-napishtim is the hero of the epic, yet it nevertheless also refers to Atrahasis. This has prompted some scholars to identify him with Um-napishtim, while others consider that, as has already been noted, in this late story the name Atrahasis is used as a synonym for “a very wise man”, as is the case in several of the epics. However, it seems to the writer that the situation is entirely misunderstood. As stated above (foot note 16) Atrahasis is a personal name. The passage, “the wise one, Atrahasis” (B, III: 17), could hardly be translated “the wise one, the very wise”; and it doubtless shows also where the later etymologists got their idea for their play upon the name. In all the versions except the Sumerian the hero's name is Atrahasis. After the flood he was given a title. Although not fully understood it is Urn(or Uta)-napishtim ruqirm (rigam, also ina riqi), which in the Sumerian paraphrase is written Zi-u-suddu. This title has been variously translated: “He who lengthened the days of life”, “He who made life long of days”, etc. Certainly this is not a personal name, which fact the Gilgamesh Story fully recognizes. When Ea (in the Gilgamesh Story E, 196) tells the gods how the hero learned that the flood would occur, he does not say, “I made Um-napishtim see a dream”; for at that time he had not been thus designated; but Ea says “I made Atrahasis see a dream”. That was his name; he had not yet earned the title. In short, this is no confusion of names, as some have inferred, but an exact statement. And the use of the title instead of the name in the Sumerian paraphrase is a proof that it is borrowed from the Semitic legend.

The writer has previously maintained, simply on a basis of the personal names found in the Gilgamesh Epic story, that it is largely from a Hebrew or Amorite original. Let us inquire whether a study of the language used in its composition will betray its original source.

The first Hebrew word to be noted in the Gilgamesh Epic story is nisirtu “secret”, (E, 9). This word, as far as known to the writer, was not in current use in Akkadian; but the Hebrew word meaning “hidden thing” from this root is known in the Old Testament (see Isaiah 48: 6, etc.).

The word for part of the boat called la-an (E, 60), which was the “hull” or “bottom”, is Hebrew from the root lin “to lodge”, doubtless, because there is where the people lodged.

The word used for “the roof” of the boat, namely sa-a-si (E, 60), is Amorite (see note in Appendix).

The word qiru, used for the outside wall of the ship (E, 66), is not Akkadian, but it is the common word for “wall” in Hebrew.

The word sussullu “basket” (E, 68) was not used in Akkadian but it is found in Hebrew, see Jer. 6: 9.

The root of u-pa-az-zi-ru (E, 70) is the common Hebrew basar “to gather, gather in, enclose”.

The root of the word e-si-en-si “I loaded it” (E, 81) is found in all the Semitic languages except the Akkadian dialect. In Isaiah 33: 20 we have reference to “a tent that shall not be moved”, i. e., “loaded”.

In pi-hi-i (E, 95) is to be seen the common Hebrew word pehah “governor”, which was not in current use in Akkadian.

The word ha-aia-al-ti has been translated “army” (E, 131), but this is Amorite; it is not found in Akkadian.

Where one text reads u-mu (E, 133) the variant text reads ta-ma-ta. The former word has been translated “day”, and the latter “sea.”Certainly iUmu is the Hebrew yam “sea”, as the context and the variant clearly show.

The word na-a-si (E, 142) is not Akkadian; it is from the Hebrew root nuis “to escape”.

There are other Hebrew words discussed in the notes beneath the translations, some of which are tentatively offered, while others are reasonably certain. There are also glosses. Doubtless, further study will reveal more which were rarely, if ever, used in Akkadian. If the Um-napishtim story was originally written in Sumerian, or even in Akkadian, certainly it becomes necessary to explain how these foreign Hebrew words, even in this late version of the Assyrian period, came to be used in the Epic.

It is the writer's opinion that no other conclusion can be arrived at but that this deluge story, which probably embraces some elements indigenous to Babylonia, was mainly an Amorite legend which the Semites from Amurru brought with them from the West.

Since we know that other peoples of the early period had deluge stories, it would be precarious to say that the Sumerians and the Babylonians did not have their own, especially as this land must have suffered even more than others, and because this legend refers to Shurippak. But with this exception there is nothing in the Gilgamesh Epic story that can be said to be distinctively Babylonian. Even the word translated “reed hut” is very probably an archaic West Semitic word.

And on the other hand, there are, as we have seen, a number of Hebrew words used in the Epic, which were not current in Babylonia; which together with other facts show that the story is mainly Amorite. Moreover, it is not at all improbable that the reference to Dilmun in the Sumerian version, if that name is to be identified with the region of the Persian Gulf, is also a part of the local coloring the legend received after it was brought into Babylonia.

Since it has been shown that the Sumerian story, whose hero was named Zi-u-suddu, is connected with the Um-napishtim story and that it was probably written at a time when Sumerian as a spoken language had survived in a more or less corrupt style, some time between 2300 and 1300 BC, it seems, in light of the above, until other evidence is forthcoming, the only conclusion at which we can arrive is that it must be regarded as a short paraphrase of the Amorite story, which may include some features of a Sumerian tradition. It has even taken over the Akkadian word puhru; which, as we have seen, had displaced the Amorite huburu.

The fact that Sumerian was used for official communications, for legal documents, as well as for literature in general, in certain Babylonian cities in the latter half of the third millennium BC, makes it possible to understand why such very ancient stories, which had been brought into Babylonia from Amurru, should also be found written in Sumerian. Nearly every inscription from Nippur of this period is written in Sumerian. It was the legal and liturgical language. In some of the neighboring cities it was not so; for example, Sippara; whence probably came the ancient version of the Amorite Atrahasis Epic. This city was preeminently Semitic.

It has been claimed that the little Semitic fragment, containing thirteen partially preserved lines, now in the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, was originally written in Sumerian, and that it was brought to Canaan at the time Abraham “left his home on the Euphrates and moved westward”. But the few lines of this supposed Sumerian story are full of Hebrew words which were not in current use in Akkadian.

The word ub-bu-ku “overthrow” (F, 5) has not as yet been found in either language; but it is from the very common Hebrew root meaning “to overthrow”, which root, excepting two substantives, was not in current use in Akkadian.

Instead of reading lu-pu-ut-tu hu-ru-su “destruction, annihilation” (F, 5), the present writer prefers to read lu-pu-ut-tu hu-ru-su “verily give attention to silence”. The root of the latter in Hebrew means “to be silent, to be speechless”. In other words, the hero is told of the proposed flood, to keep silence, and to build a ship.

The word ga-be-e “high” or “height” (F, 7) is found in Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic; but not in Akkadian.

Instead of ba-bil (F, 8) the reading is ma-snum-a “and its name”; this contains the Amorite waw conjunctive.

Certainly it must be admitted that it seems strange that the Akkadian translator of this supposed Sumerian story should have used so many Hebrew words which were not in current use in Babylonia, in making the translation of these few lines into Akkadian.

The writer fully appreciates the fact that at any time cuneiform inscriptions may be found in Babylonia which will contain examples of these Hebrew words other than those already known; because of the flow of Western Semites in nearly all periods into this land; nevertheless, it will be possible to continue to maintain that they were not in current use in the Akkadian dialect.

Nearly all scholars who have published discussions of the Biblical deluge traditions in recent years have conceded that they are of Babylonian origin. This view can be said to have been very generally accepted by scholars. Some hold that these stories were brought from Babylonia to Canaan by Abraham; others say that they were transmitted to the West in the Amarna period, but the great majority of scholars hold that knowledge of them was obtained in Babylonia at the time of the exile. Two arguments are generally advanced for this position; the one is, the great age of Babylonian civilization, which involved the idea that civilization in the West had only developed a little before 2000 BC, by Arabs from Arabia; and the other argument is based on the frequency of inundations in Babylonia, which gave rise to these so-called nature myths.

In 1909 the present writer endeavored to show that the Babylonian origin of the Biblical deluge stories was without any foundation; but that they were indigenous to the West; and that, on the other hand, the Babylonian story of the deluge, as preserved in the Gilgamesh Epic, contained West-Semitic elements; showing that no other conclusion could be arrived at, but that extensive influences had been felt from Amurru.

The arguments for these views were based almost entirely upon such literary evidence as the names of the gods, who are mentioned in the story, as being Amorite, as well as the name of the pilot of the ship, Buzur-Amurru.

In the above discussion additional proof is offered from a linguistic point of view for this thesis. These discoveries show that there is no need to find the origin of the Biblical stories in Babylonia, because of the theory that the West in the early period did not have an indigenous literature, and did not have a civilization. The present version, and other data presented in the discussion in another chapter, forever disprove this hypothesis; and require its abandonment. Moreover, it is necessary that a general readjustment be made of views advanced by Pan-Babylonists, and Pan-Egypto-Babylonists, whose positions have been based upon the supposed Arabic origin of the Semites in Amurru; and upon the supposedly late rise and development of civilization in that land.

The discoveries made since 1909, when the present writer first contested this position, clearly show that we have reasons for believing that the civilization of the Western Semites synchronizes with the earliest that has been found in Babylonia and Egypt. More recently the writer has shown also that the theory must be abandoned that the so-called Egypto-Babylonian culture brought forth the earliest civilization in the thousand years between four thousand and three thousand BC, while all the rest of the world continued to live in stone age barbarism or savagery; for there is every reason to believe that in Amurru, with its natural agricultural districts over wide-spread areas such as those about Hit, Aleppo, Haran, etc., with its wonderfully wooded districts, as in the Lebanon region, with its mines and natural products, which in ancient times, as at present, have been so attractive for other peoples; and also in Elam, with its valleys so well adapted for agriculture, with its hills for grazing, its quarries for stone, its mines for metal, and its forests for wood; as well as in other lands in Asia, man throve before the time when through intelligence and labor, it was possible for him to control the annual floods in alluvial Babylonia, and dwell there. And further, if the Egyptian chronology of the Berlin School is correct, there is every reason to believe that in Syria there was a civilization which greatly antedated the Egyptian; for, as will be seen, we now have additional discoveries that prove beyond doubt that civilization in Syria has as great an antiquity as in Babylonia. The importance of this will be readily recognized, in connection with the discovery of the Hebrew or Amorite Deluge Legend; in that it furnishes us with the background for the civilization to which it belonged; and it also makes it appear more reasonable that the Biblical legends of the deluge could be indigenous.

There is another very important fact which the old version has revealed, and that is the occurrence of I-lu “God”, in the title of the series, as well as in the text, for the foremost deity's name. This title was originally incorrectly read Inuma sallu awelum, and since translated many times “when a man lay down to sleep”; but I-lu is perfectly clear on the tablet, in the legend's context and in the colophon. Ilu “God” here takes the place of AN in the early Semitic and Sumerian texts, and of Anu of later texts. The ideogram AN in the early period in nearly all such connections has been generally read Anu or Ana.

It is well known that the god whose name was written with the sign AN “god”, was the highest of the gods; who had created mankind; and who was worshipped as the supreme ruler of the universe. In the text here published, we learn that the Western Semites in this early period called the Godhead I-lu, or El “God”, the same as in the Old Testament; and there can be little doubt but that in the early period, the Akkadians did the same.

It is not impossible that the Sumerians, before they came to Babylonia, called their foremost deity Ana or Anna; but there is no proof for this. To the writer it seems more probable that after they had conquered the land, and created or furnished the people with the cuneiform syllabary, they wrote AN, which in their language meant “heaven”, as well as dingir “god”, for the name of the most high god of the Semites, namely Ilu. Certainly in the early syllabaries (see below), AN represented Ilu. In time AN became Semitized into Anu, in the same way that En-lil “lord of the storm” became Ellil. It is also not improbable that the West Semitic Anu-Ilu, whose influence was so extensively felt in the West, even in Egypt, is the origin of the Erechian Anu.

Moreover, we know for a certainty that while Anu of Erech later generally replaced Ilu, this fact was fully appreciated by later generations when they used Anu and Antu with the generic sense of “god” and “goddess”.

This explanation of the origin of Anu or Anu(m), also written Annum, and in Sumerian texts An and An-na, and the fact that Anu had the meaning “god”, which was pointed out many years ago, gives us reasons why the Erechian Anu “the creator”, “the father of the gods”, was never displaced as the head of the pantheon. And it seems that these reasons satisfactorily account for the name being written without the determinative for deity, even after the ideogram AN had become Babylonized into A-num, as is the case in the “Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic”; where, except A-num, all the gods, even the heroes, have the determinative. This can only mean that Anu at that time meant “god”. And although the Babylonian word or name Anu “god” had its origin in the Amorite word or name Ilu, the deity designated by these words or names in time became quite distinct. This becomes apparent especially in periods when fresh migrations from the homeland take place.

The reading Anu for AN in the initial line of the Hammurabi Code is being very generally adopted; but it is a mistake.

When Anu of Erech is referred to in the Code, his name is written Anum(-num), whereas the chief deity's name, “the father of the gods”, who together with Ellil, as Hammurabi says, “raised the towers of Babylon”, is written Ilu(AN). This clear-cut distinction must be recognized. Moreover, the present text containing ilu, as well as the hundreds of personal names belonging to this early period compounded with ilu, and other facts, clearly show that the Western Semites, as well as the early Akkadians, used the word ilu “God” to represent their creator and supreme ruler.

Naturally, this fully confirms the impression we get from the Old Testament, that the Semites, in the land called Amurru by the Babylonians, which included Aram, used the word il (u) or el(u) to designate their most high god, their El Elyon.

Ea was not a Sumerian god, but the second in the Amorite triad, Ilu, Ea and Adad. His name was written phonetically dE-a, and ideographically dEn-Ki “lord of the land”, because he was Ba'al, so well known to us in the inscriptions of the West, including the Old Testament. While Ilu was supreme, Ea was the lord of the earth, of the rivers, of the springs, of the wells, and of the waters beneath the earth. It was only after the Semites had carried his worship to the southern part of the great alluvium, where a temple was erected for him at Eridu on the sea, that his cult took on the peculiar Babylonian aspect with which we are so familiar. In this alluvium, wells are dug, but springs of the earth are unknown. The rivers and the rain alone bring fertility to the soil. Ea having presided over the waters of the earth naturally became in Eridu the god of the deep and of the rivers. But this is a local and a late conception of Ea, the great Amorite Ba' al. Simply because excavations have been conducted in Babylonia where the almost imperishable clay tablets have been recovered in such masses, and in Amurru little or nothing of this kind has as yet been done, where also the perishable papyrus and skin was used so extensively for writing material, is responsible for the faulty conception that exists at present not only of the god Ea, but of the entire historical situation prior to the time of Hammurabi.

Adad, the god of the elements, usually called the “storm god”, is Hadad of Amurru, the third of the early triad. At a very early time his worship was brought into Babylonia. It is generally conceded that he is an Amorite god, and that he had been adopted as a member of the Babylonian pantheon. The ideogram dIM read Adad, as is well known, stands for other names of the storm-god, as Ramman, Amurru, Mark, Mur, Sharu, etc.

At Nippur, the foremost deity was such a god as Adad. His name was written ideographically dEn-Lil, “the lord of the Storm”; which in time was used as his name, and even pronounced Ellil. It is possible that the Sumerians, who at an early time took possession of this city, also had a storm god; but this cannot be proved. The writer feels that dEn-Lil was originally Adad.

In the Gilgamesh Epic, he instead of Adad is the destructive god; in other words he had supplanted him after Nippur became the supreme city in the land. En-lil also displaced Ea, when he became the bel mdatati, “lord of the lands”; and thereafter he took the place of Ea as the second god in the triad; so that instead of Ilu, Ea, and Adad, the triad became Ilu(AN), Enlil, and Ea. Later, when Babylon became the centre of the hegemony, Enlil was displaced by Marduk, the god of that city, who himself became the Ba'al, or Bel.

This forcibly recalls the fact that a large name syllabary found at Nippur, belonging to the early period, contains several groups of Semitic names compounded with those of Amorite gods. One of these groups, occurring several times, contains AN, E-a and dIM, and the other contains Dagan, Ishtar and Gaga; while Enlil, in whose school of scribes the tablet was written, occurs only twice among its several hundred names.

We have knowledge of certain syllabaries having been repeated for millenniums; and it is not impossible that this particular one was originally written prior to the time when Nippur's god became “the lord of lands”; in other words, prior to the time when the foremost triad became AN, Enlil, and Ea. Certainly we can understand why Ea, who figures in the early myths and legends in a much higher position and role than the storm-god Adad (or Enlil), originally followed the foremost deity. Yes, even in the West Semitic creation myth, Anu and Ea are the creators, while the storm-god, who is there called Marduk, fights the great Tiamat. And we can also understand how, subsequent to the time when Nippur's Enlil became “lord of the lands”, that god came to take the place of Ea next to the most high god. Moreover, it seems that conclusive proof of this position is to be found in the “Explanatory Lists of Gods”.

In the most ancient (II R 59), Ilu (AN) is followed by Ea (and his consort), and Enlil (and his consort). In the later and fuller lists, which were also written in an early period, this order is maintained, but Anu, and a consort Antu who was created by the force of analogy, take the place of Ilu.

In consideration of all available data, it is reasonable to conjecture that this Amorite deluge story, which preserves the names of the foremost original triad, goes back to a time as early as 4000 BC.