The Omega Profblog is pleased to present Alpha professor
and Biblical scholar Larry Lyke for today's post!
Remember: Alpha is using a different translation which keeps the old Tablet numbers.
It also uses the name Uta-napishti instead of Utnapishtim.
The story of Uta-napishti’s
experience in the great deluge (Tablet XI) likely sounds familiar to most of
us. Even if we haven’t read the biblical account of Noah’s flood, the motifs
and much of the imagery of that account in Genesis 6-9 have infused popular
culture to the point that everyone knows that Noah took on board two of every
kind of animal (female and male) and that the flood lasted 40 days and 40
nights. We’ll say more about this popular version of Noah’s flood later. For
now, we should acknowledge that when we read about Uta-napishti’s flood we
likely start wondering if the flood account in Gilgamesh is dependent on the
account in the Bible or, perhaps, the reverse.
 |
| Noah's Ark, by Edward Hicks |
The two accounts are so similar that
the question of genetic relationship is natural and quite sound. While the
divine motive for the flood in Gilgamesh remains obscure, it may be that the
gods are attempting to save Uta-napishti from Enlil’s wrath (XI 36-39). If this
reading is correct, then this account differs from Noah’s where God is fed up
with humanity and Noah is saved due to his righteousness (Gen 6:8&9) This
difference in motive for bringing the flood should not obscure the remarkable
similarities that follow. Like Noah, Uta-napishti (and family) is singled out
to survive the coming deluge. Both are told to gather animals to repopulate the
post-diluvian world. Moreover, they get remarkably detailed instructions on how
to build their respective boats and share the account of sending out birds to
determine when the flood is over. The details of the boat building and the
sequence and kinds of birds differ but these stories are too similar to dismiss
the phenomenon as coincidence. To reinforce this sense of connection between
the accounts, each includes an account of the survivor offering a sacrifice,
the sweet smell of which pleases the god(s). Finally, each account records the
divine regret brought on by the aftermath of the flood.
For those with only vague knowledge
of Genesis 6-9, this parallel account might seem unusual. However, we don’t
need to turn to the Epic of Gilgamesh to find a parallel to the story of Noah’s
flood. Indeed, Genesis 6-9 contains two differing accounts itself. In fact,
these two biblical accounts differ at least as much from one another as the
popular biblical version we discussed above differs from Uta-napishti’s flood.
Moreover, the Uta-napishti flood story has its own Mesopotamian parallels in
the Akkadian Atrahasis and the Sumerian Ziusudra myths.
We don’t have time or space to
detail all these myths let alone the two accounts that have been edited
together in Genesis 6-9, but pointing out a few details of the latter should
suffice. An attentive reader of Genesis 6-9 would likely be left with two very
significant questions. Does the flood (actually the rain) last 40 days (Gen
7:12) or 150 days (Gen 8:1-2)? Additionally, just how many of each type of
animal does Noah take on board with him? Is it two of each kind of animal (Gen
6:19-22) or two each of unclean animals and seven pairs of clean animals (Gen
7:2)?
The mental gymnastics required to
harmonize these two accounts are arduous. A simple solution to these (and more)
questions is to realize that one of the biblical flood accounts comes from a
priestly school of scribes who think that Noah took two pairs of ALL animals
and that the flood/rain lasted 150 days. Because the priestly school did not
consider sacrifice to be legitimate until much later (when Moses gets
instruction in Exodus), it did not include a sacrifice at the end of the story.
Had they done so, Noah would have exterminated all trace of the animals he
sacrificed!
Another flood story that has been
combined with the priestly presumes that the flood/rain lasted 40 days, that
Noah took two of each unclean animal and seven pairs of clean animals. This
account includes the story of Noah’s sacrifice of ritually clean animals at the
end of chapter 8. Only this version accounts for the extra animals required for
the sacrifice and, clearly, does not share the priestly aversion to such
practice this early in history.
Now that we have three separate
flood accounts in view (and two more from ancient Mesopotamia in mind), we
might continue to speculate on the genetic relationship and issues of priority.
Unfortunately, these are very difficult to determine . Later texts can contain
older versions of a story than earlier texts. This is the nature of ancient
story and textual transmission. If we had to speculate on priority, we have to
recognize that the Uta-napishti account, and its Mesopotamian parallels, are
likely the older. Moreover, the biblical account acknowledges that Abraham (if
we accept the text at face value) was born in Mesopotamia where he and his
ancestors worshiped alien gods (Joshua 24:2). It is not hard to imagine that a
flood story came west with Abraham, or at least those whom he represents, and
that the flood stories in Genesis are related in unspecified ways to ancient
Mesopotamian antecedents.
The question of genetic
relationship, while of interest, draws our attention away from a much more
intriguing and complicated issue. If we look at the larger complex of story
telling in Gilgamesh and the early chapters of Genesis, we recognize a
constellation of motifs and imagery that seems to be the real focus of these
ancient texts.
Again, we don’t have the luxury of
going into great detail but there are a number of fascinating links between the
early parts of Genesis and the Gilgamesh epic. Both stories seem to suggest the
connection between sexuality (whether coming of age or sexual activity) and
civilization. Enkidu’s liaison with Shamhat (the Prostitute) leads to being rejected by his
animal friends and inexorably being drawn into human culture. In Genesis 3,
Adam and Eve become aware of their sexuality after becoming “knowledgeable”
and, as a result, cover their nakedness. Before this event, we are to
understand they have childlike innocence of their sexual nature. Moreover, each
narrative implies that there is a significant loss in this step toward maturation.
We have covered the connections
between the flood accounts but what do these accounts suggest about the human
situation? Among may things these stories connote, we see the acknowledgment
that human society is flawed and, no matter how many times the gods try to
start over, the flaws remain. The stories also reveal an ambivalence toward
water as both life sustaining and threatening. Like its modern counterpart,
ancient civilization could not sustain itself without water. Absent deep wells,
modern pipelines, and canals, ancient civilizations flourished in river
valleys. Of course, annual or occasional catastrophic floods meant that living
with and near water had its “ups and downs”! In biblical language, “The lord
giveth, the lord taketh away”. It may be that part of the value of flood
stories was to suggest the possibility of renewal despite the catastrophic
consequences of floods.
 |
| Sun god battles the ocean chaos monster. From A.H. Layard's Monuments of Nineveh, 2nd Series, plate 19/83 (London, J. Murray, 1853) |
In Genesis we
have hints of this notion in Genesis 1-2:4 where God’s mastery of the
primordial muck (not an unformed void!) ends in founding the sabbath on day
seven. This sequence seems also to inform the version of the flood that
concludes with Noah’s sacrifice (see Uta-napishti’s similar actions). A quick
read of Exodus 15 will sound remarkably similar with these images in mind as
well. All of this suggests the profound religious quality of the Gilgamesh epic
that is lost on modern readers.
Finally, the Epic and Genesis
include stories of snakes who rob humans, in one way or the other, of the
opportunity for either immortality or, perhaps, eternal youth. These stories
likely each are etiologies (stories of origins) of why snakes shed their skin
on occasion. They seem to have a monopoly on self renewal, on which humans
have, unfortunately, missed out!
We could say much more about the
connections between Genesis and the Epic but for now it is worth noting that
they seem to share a common competence in the ways they tell stories and the
significance these stories have for understanding who they are. While the motifs
vary and their order changes, these are the conceptual DNA - the narrative
building blocks - of these ancient cultures and how they narrate the origins of
the imperfect world in which they live.
--Larry Lyke
Works cited
Andrew George, The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian (New York: Penguin Books, 1999). Translation.
No comments:
Post a Comment