Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition.pdf

Now the tablets from the Royal Library at Nineveh inscribed with the Gilgamesh Epic do not date from an earlier
period than the seventh century B.C. But archaeological evidence has long shown that the traditions themselves were
current during all periods of Babylonian history; for Gilgamesh and his half-human friend Enkidu were favourite
subjects for the seal-engraver, whether he lived in Sumerian times or under the Achaemenian kings of Persia. We have
also, for some years now, possessed two early fragments of the Deluge narrative, proving that the story was known to
the Semitic inhabitants of the country at the time of Hammurabi's dynasty.[1] Our newly discovered text from Nippur
was also written at about that period, probably before 2100 B.C. But the composition itself, apart from the tablet on
which it is inscribed, must go back very much earlier than that. For instead of being composed in Semitic Babylonian,
the text is in Sumerian, the language of the earliest known inhabitants of Babylonia, whom the Semites eventually
displaced. This people, it is now recognized, were the originators of the Babylonian civilization, and we saw in the first
lecture that, according to their own traditions, they had occupied that country since the dawn of history.
[1] The earlier of the two fragments is dated in the eleventh year of Ammizaduga, the tenth king of Hammurabi's
dynasty, i.e. in 1967 B.C.; it was published by Scheil, /Recueil de travaux/, Vol. XX, pp. 55 ff. Here the Deluge story
does not form part of the Gilgamesh Epic, but is recounted in the second tablet of a different work; its hero bears the
name Atrakhasis, as in the variant version of the Deluge from the Nineveh library. The other and smaller fragment,
which must be dated by its script, was published by Hilprecht (/Babylonian Expedition/, series D, Vol. V, Fasc. 1, pp.
33 ff.), who assigned it to about the same period; but it is probably of a considerably later date. The most convenient
translations of the legends that were known before the publication of the Nippur texts are those given by Rogers,
/Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament/ (Oxford, 1912), and Dhorme, /Choix de textes religieux Assyro-
Babyloniens/ (Paris, 1907).
The Semites as a ruling race came later, though the occurrence of Semitic names in the Sumerian Dynastic List
suggests very early infiltration from Arabia. After a long struggle the immigrants succeeded in dominating the settled
race; and in the process they in turn became civilized. They learnt and adopted the cuneiform writing, they took over
the Sumerian literature. Towards the close of the third millennium, when our tablet was written, the Sumerians as a
race had almost ceased to exist. They had been absorbed in the Semitic population and their language was no longer
the general language of the country. But their ancient literature and sacred texts were carefully preserved and
continued to be studied by the Semitic priests and scribes. So the fact that the tablet is written in the old Sumerian
tongue proves that the story it tells had come down from a very much earlier period. This inference is not affected by
certain small differences in idiom which its language presents when compared with that of Sumerian buildinginscriptions.
Such would naturally occur in the course of transmission, especially in a text which, as we shall see, had
been employed for a practical purpose after being subjected to a process of reduction to suit it to its new setting.
When we turn to the text itself, it will be obvious that the story also is very primitive. But before doing so we will
inquire whether this very early version is likely to cast any light on the origin of Deluge stories such as are often met
with in other parts of the world. Our inquiry will have an interest apart from the question itself, as it will illustrate the
views of two divergent schools among students of primitive literature and tradition. According to one of these views,
in its most extreme form, the tales which early or primitive man tells about his gods and the origin of the world he
sees around him are never to be regarded as simple stories, but are to be consistently interpreted as symbolizing natural
phenomena. It is, of course, quite certain that, both in Egypt and Babylonia, mythology in later periods received a
strong astrological colouring; and it is equally clear that some legends derive their origin from nature myths. But the
theory in the hands of its more enthusiastic adherents goes further than that. For them a complete absence of
astrological colouring is no deterrent from an astrological interpretation; and, where such colouring does occur, the
possibility of later embellishment is discounted, and it is treated without further proof as the base on which the original
story rests. One such interpretation of the Deluge narrative in Babylonia, particularly favoured by recent German
writers, would regard it as reflecting the passage of the Sun through a portion of the ecliptic. It is assumed that the
primitive Babylonians were aware that in the course of ages the spring equinox must traverse the southern or watery
region of the zodiac. This, on their system, signified a submergence of the whole universe in water, and the Deluge
myth would symbolize the safe passage of the vernal Sun-god through that part of the ecliptic. But we need not spend
time over that view, as its underlying conception is undoubtedly quite a late development of Babylonian astrology.
More attractive is the simpler astrological theory that the voyage of any Deluge hero in his boat or ark represents the
daily journey of the Sun-god across the heavenly ocean, a conception which is so often represented in Egyptian