“All the mighty windstorms blew together … at the same time the rainflood swept over the cult centers … and the windstorms drovethe mighty boat about on the mighty waters” (Epic of Gilgamesh, Sumerian version, circa 3rd millennium BC). ^{1, 2}

Clay tablets with curious wedge-shaped script emerging into daylight from beneath nearly three millennia of dust electrified the biblical and archeological community in the 1850s. These tablets – the “books” in an Assyrian temple library at Nebo from around 650 BC – spoke of a great flood and a ship saving both mankind and animals from complete destruction. The biblical community immediately appreciated the significance of this discovery (see R1615), however it was well into the twentieth century before linguists and archeologists completed their important work of recovering and translating the oldest and most extensive versions of this parallel non-biblical deluge account.

We now know that the originally discovered AsSyrian account was itself a translation of what the Assyrians would have considered an ancient account. Tracing this deluge account back to earlier versions, archeologists uncovered a more extensive and older Babylonian version, and finally, after some extensive spade work, the oldest original version from Ur of the Chaldees in Sumer – Abraham’s hometown (Genesis 11:31). This oldest account would be contemporary with Abraham if not older.

GILGAMESH – KING OF URUK IN HISTORY

This non-biblical deluge account is a chapter from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a coming-of-age story concerning the arrogant and tyrannical young king Gilgamesh of Uruk.³ Gilgamesh is an historical and not a mythical figure. He ruled after the flood as the fifth king of Uruk, or biblical Erech, a city just north of Ur, and second in importance only to Babel in the confederacy of Nimrod (Genesis 10:10). Gilgamesh took great pride in being powerful enough to press the citizens of Uruk into forced servitude to construct a great walled city. Archeological studies have confirmed that contemporary with Gilgamesh a 9.5 km wall was constructed around Uruk with at least 900 semi-circular towers.⁴ To put this in perspective, while Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was approximately 1 km² in area, Uruk’s wall of sturdy convex bricks encompassed an area of 5.5 km?

WHY WAS A DELUGE ACCOUNT INCLUDED IN AN EPIC ABOUT THE RAUCOUS
LIFE OF A POST-DELUVIAN KING?

In the Epic, Gilgamesh, experiencing a “mid-life crisis,” sets off on a quest to learn the secret of longevity by taking a very difficult and distant trip to visit the father of all mankind. This patriarch became the father of all by building a large box-like craft to survive a great deluge.

Was an interview with the venerable patriarch Noah actually possible?

The genealogical record of Genesis shows that Noah could have conversed with the eighth generation of his descendants, so indeed such an interview was possible. However, it is highly improbable. There is a clumsy and polytheistic treatment of details in the Gilgamesh Epic suggesting that this was an imperfect recounting of the oral traditions about the flood then current in the fifth post-deluvian generation.

WHY REGARD NON-BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS?

These deluge accounts are from societies that lost sight of the Patriarchal view of the one God. In place of the Almighty’s fullness and power they substituted a fragmented view of divinity comprised of many deities. Because of this, we might be inclined to dismiss these accounts and their polytheist trappings in their entirety before observing some of their underlying themes. “It is important to notice, however, that many of the ancient mythical tales have a substratum of historical fact; and much in them that appears fabulous and nonsensical on the surface proves on careful investigation to have a hidden meaning.”⁵

Today, elucidating this “substratum of historical fact” and its “hidden meaning” is the focus of cultural anthropology and archetypal psychology. As spiritually famished modern man hungers for purpose and place, even latter-day myth tellers have received broader public attention.⁶ While portions of these contemporary studies have merit and deserve serious consideration, they require extensive sifting and evaluation and should be approached very cautiously. On the other hand, ignoring this new-found interest in myths and their interpretations has two negative consequences. (1) Contemporary studies in cultural anthropology and psychology frequently point to a somewhat different original psychological underpinning for even familiar myths than could be accepted in the past. (2) The modern interest in myths constitutes one of the significant winds of contemporary social change.

Here are several points of observation about the two accounts.

1. While the Babylonian account is vague as to the reasons for the flood, the oldest accounts from Sumer may suggest a remembrance of improper marriage identified in Genesis 6:2-3. Specifically, Ishtar, an otherwise minor goddess, is offended by man.⁷
2. The flood was divine retribution for man’s offence and was to be of such severity that “no man was to live through the destruction.”
3. The Biblical name “Noah” means “rest” The Babylonian name “Utnapishtim” means “he saw life , ” and is likely an honorary title. Both patriarchs are the tenth generation of their pre-deluvian ancestors.
4. In both accounts there is a divine decision to spare them and their families. Pious devotion by both patriarchs is recorded.
5. Both accounts give detailed instructions for constructing a large ark to save, as the Babylonian account explains, “the seed of all living creatures”
6. Noah preaches about the coming judgment for 120 years (Genesis 6:3; 2 Peter 2:5). In contrast, Utnapishtim also speaks to his neighbors, but he is deceptive about his construction project. The Babylonian account recounts pestilence, famines, and repeated plagues of reduced fertility preceding the flood. The Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian accounts preserve “120” as the dimension in cubits of an unwieldy cubic boat. It may be that the original sense of the text was that the boat of Utnapishtim was “120 in extent,” that is, in the time it took to build, not its length. This ambiguous sense that confuses length and time persists as late as the befuddled King James translation of Matthew 6:27.8
7. Both boats are coated within and without with “pitch” The Babylonian account suggests that it came in a solid form and needed to be softened with heat for use.
8. In both accounts those on board are the sole survivors of the cataclysm. Noah takes only four married couples. The Babylonian account embellishes this by including a daughter, a few additional relatives, construction workers, and a boatman.
9. Multiple animals and specifically sheep are present in each account.
10. Both accounts begin the flood in the month of May.
11. Both accounts record the deluge as a combination of rain and other dammed up waters.
12. In both accounts the flooding is sufficient to cover the mountains. The record of Genesis 7:20 notes that 15 cubits of flooding was sufficient to cover the mountains. No flood depth is transmitted in the parallel accounts. Additionally, the Genesis account records the ark being sealed for seven days, followed by a deluge lasting forty days. The Babylonian account speaks only of a seven day deluge.
13. In both accounts the ship grounds on a mountain. The Genesis account gives a period of 14 months on the ark after which there is a going forth at the Lord’s command. The Babylonian account does not provide this detail, and the disembarking is at the discretion of Utnapishtim.
14. Noah thoughtfully first sends forth a raven – a highlands bird. Following this as the waters abate further, three times he sends forth a dove – a lowland bird – for lowlands reconnaissance. The Babylonian account bewilderingly reverses the logical order, sending forth a dove, then a swallow, then a raven.
15. In both accounts there is a sacrifice of thanksgiving of “every clean beast and every clean fowl” (Genesis 8:20). The Babylonian account records the sacrifice of an “ox and numerous sheep” upon leaving the ark.
16. In both accounts a divine promise is made that no more floods will occur.
17. The Genesis account speaks of a rainbow after the flood as a remembrance of the covenant between God and man never to destroy the earth again with a flood of waters. In the parallel accounts, the “necklace of Ishtar”
    – a possible poetic reference to a rainbow – is mentioned. Some accounts specifically mention the “lapis” of Ishtar’s necklace. The lapis is a deep sky-blue colored stone, and the cataclysm would certainly have provided the first clear dust-free view of the skies in almost 1400 years.⁹

What is most interesting is that Ishtar normally is viewed as a minor deity. Yet all the accounts maintain a prominent remembrance of her at their conclusion. Possibly these parallel accounts sought to link the original sin of begetting the nephilim with the covenant of promise.

WHERE THE ACCOUNTS DIVERGE INSIGHTS INTO THE TOWER OF BABEL

Having looked at the remarkable points of convergence in these other deluge traditions, looking at where they differ is also of value. In sum, the Sumerian Utnapishtim is portrayed as more self-reliant, and even a cunning individual. In the non-biblical accounts there is no divine shutting of the door to the ark. Nor is there any record of commands from the Almighty to go forth.

The polytheistic underpinnings have an equally curious side that deserves mention. The gods are portrayed as frightful by the havoc they have caused: “The gods were frightened by the deluge, and shrinking back they ascended to the [highest] heaven … [even there] the gods cowered like dogs … [and] Ishtar cried out like a woman in travail … the gods, all humbled, sit and weep.” This is a world-view in which man may be compelled to offer set worship to the gods, the gods may be more powerful than him, but he certainly does not need to reverence them. The attitudes conveyed are closer to those of disgruntled and disenfranchised factory workers speaking about a distant and hostile board of directors. When sacrifice is offered, the gods gather “like flies”

Notice the quotation at the head of this article and consider the response of a people harboring irreverent and hostile attitudes toward divinity. The first place of importance that the non-biblical accounts mention being flooded are the cult centers. Is it possible that the communal building of ziggurats such as the tower of Babel were intended as raised flood-proof cult centers?

SUMMARY

The Sumerian and Babylonian tablets predate the writing of Genesis and contain overwhelming parallels that speak to the common remembrance of the greatest environmental catastrophe man has ever witnessed. They speak most distinctly to a tradition that is more vaguely remembered by flood accounts from Greece, Persia, India, China, Japan and both North and South America. The principal impact of the Babylonian accounts upon the scholarly community has been to increase the respectability of the Genesis account and build a consensus that at least some sort of flood must have taken place.¹⁰ These accounts are not simply “cunningly devised fables.” At the same time, we can see how rapidly mankind is capable of forgetting the providential care of our gracious and Almighty god and substituting in his place clumsy inventions of their own. May we faithfully transmit the record we have received!

– Richard Doctor

 

---

1. Heidel, Alexander, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, University of Chicago (1949, 1963 edition), page 104. This is still in print as a paperback in 1998. Though this work is very scholarly, the following two are more readable. As an added bonus, Heidel’s essay on Sheol in this tome is in harmony with present truth.
2. Pritchard, James B., The Ancient Near East – An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, Princeton (1958, 1969 edition), page 28. We are indebted to S. N. Kramer, linguist for the Gilgamesh translation, for clarifying that it was the “cult-centers” which were flooded.
3. Sanders, N. K., The Epic of Gilgamesh, Penguin Classic (1964). This translation is edited to be readable while staying true to the text.
4. Nissen, Hans J., The Early History of the Ancient Near East, University of Chicago (1988), page 95.
5. Edgar, Morton, Faith’s Foundations; “Mythology and the Bible,” Portland Bible Students (1967), page 37.
6. Campbell, Joseph, with Bill Moyers, The Power of Myth, Doubleday, New York (1988). This is a companion book to a public television series of the same title.
7. The Sumer account maintained that the greatest offence was taken by the goddess Ishtar. Since Ishtar is the goddess of fertility and procreation identified with the planet Venus, the offence of improper marriage identified in Genesis 6:2, 3 would map over into Ishtar’s province of care in the thinking of a polytheist. In the Epic of Gilgamesh there is a major sub-plot in which Gilgamesh deliberately spurns Ishtar’s amorous advances, insults her, and amazingly (at least for mythology) survives her revenge [see footnote 101. Gilgamesh holds Ishtar directly responsible for manipulating Tammuz (Nimrod) and then seeing him torn apart (Chapter 3). For those who have been nurtured on a classic examination of world mythology and biblical themes such as The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (1916), in particular “Sub-section IV – Death of the Child,” the distinctly non-reverent, but particularly insightful treatment of this myth in treatises such as The Origins and History of Consciousness by Erich Nuemann (1954) deserve attention. In brief, Ishtar is a manipulative, controlling and “terrible” mother using and then destroying her son-lovers. The significance of the Gilgamesh Epic is that it is a celebration of the rejection of a matriarchy of the worst sort in favor of a patriarchal focus for society.
8. Goodspeed, Edgar J., The Problems of New Testament Translation, University of Chicago (1954), page 24. For Matthew 6:27 Goodspeed would translate “But which of you with all his worry can add a single hour to his life?”
9. The current scientific geophysical evidence for the flood, and for low or locally non-existent rains and consequent high dust levels prior to the flood in harmony with Genesis 2:5, 6 may be the subject of a later article. For the high dust levels prior to the flood see Mayewski, PA., et al., “The atmosphere during the Younger Dryas;’ Science, Volume 261 (July 9, 1993), page 195.
10. “Prehistoric flood from ice surge,” Science News (October 4, 1975).

 

---

Download PDF