The Real Noah, Part 1, The Other Epics

It's best to not think about it

In 1999 a computer expert and inventor with a BS in Physics self-published one of the best books on Noah and the Ark that you’ve never heard of and probably haven’t read. But if you are interested in Old Testament studies, you should put this volume on your shelf, especially in light of the recent Hollywood rendition of the story. It’s called Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic, published by Enlil Press, distributed by Eisenbraun, a well-established publisher of scholarly works on the Ancient Middle East (ANE). The author, Robert MacAndrews Best, spent years researching and designing it. In a future post, I will give a little bio of Mr. Best, who is still alive at this writing, but in this post, I want to tell you why you should read it if you are at all interested in the story of Noah’s Ark.

In my fundamentalist, inerrant days (the Bible is truth without error and was pretty much dictated by God and reflects His thinking without being diluted by ancient cultural biases) I was studious enough to know that there were other Flood stories. It wasn’t until my Ph.D. program that I actually read that older literature. There are several Flood stories in which a deity told a human to build a boat to save his family and the seed of animals. Decades ago, the idea of Sumerian and Babylonian stories made me uncomfortable, but not too much so because those stories weren’t easily available, therefore I didn’t have to deal with them. Certainly no one else I knew was confronting them. It was easy to forget that they existed. I also mentally shelved the knowledge that there was no worldwide Flood layer in geological deposits. That's what limited education can do for you. It offers drawers and closets where you can stuff things and forget that they're there, like evidence of several major local floods in Sumer but no evidence of a global one.

However, I was historically savvy enough to understand that Noah of the Hebrew story lived in a Proto-Sumerian, Mesopotamian world and would not have been named Noah, a Hebrew word which suggests ‘rest.’ The name carries with it a narrative that traces back to the curse on the soil due to Adam’s sin. The original cuneiform story, written on clay tablets in the Sumerian language, would not involve Yahweh, and would not be associated with the Fall in Genesis. In the Hebrew version mankind was wicked and violent, so God disturbed normal seasons from Adam to the Flood, making agriculture difficult. Then he wiped out the known world of the Hebrew author to punish the corruption of mankind. He sent the rainbow as a promise to not repeat that particular judgment.

In my doctoral program I read parts of the several recensions of the legend, but never had the time to organize them all in one place. By that time, I was way past seeing the Genesis story as inerrant history. Robert Best has done a fabulous job in chapter 2 of setting up all six versions of the tale, comparing them to one another. This excellent comparison makes it clear that the stories are literarily various recensions of the first one, even maintaining parallel passages and ideas.

The early Noahs

The first was the story of Ziusudra, king of the ancient city-state of Shuruppak, who lived in what archaeologists call the Jemdet Nasr period of history. Ziusudra was told that he should tear down his house and build a boat. That inundation was a river flood limited to Sumer. Only a third of the whole epic remains today. Best theorizes that as king, Ziusudra built a large river barge for hauling animals and goods from Shuruppak to Eridu on the coast of the Persian Gulf. As he develops the theme of the book, he speculates that the barge drifted downstream into the Persian Gulf, where it would seem that all life had been destroyed. When the boat finally beaches, the hero is elevated to godlike status and goes to live in Dilmun (today’s Bahrain). Best is not careless with the text or the language. He has plausible reasons why the ark didn't come to ground on a mountain.

Next was Atrahasis, the Assyrian Flood hero. Written in Akkadian, two thirds of this longer epic remains today. Best feels that much of what is missing in the first story can be found in this recension. His approach in the book is to weave them all together to get the whole picture of what may have happened. Enlil commands the other gods to swear that they will bring a flood to destroy mankind. He gives no reason, but they all agree with no debate. Enki tells Atrahasis, who serves in the temple in Eridu. He shows him how to make the boat, which is made of wood and reeds and is called Saver of Life. A huge storm arises; it pours for 7 days and nights. The banks overflow, the dams break, and the levees crumble, and all local life on the river dies. Then the gods begin to grieve and wail and blame themselves for concocting such a plan. Enlil is angry when he finds out that a few humans survived. Anu points the finger at Enki, who confesses. Atrahasis offers a sacrifice, and the gods crowd around like hungry flies.

In the Babylonian Flood Story, which has many parallels with the Atrahasis epic, the names of the gods have changed somewhat. The hybrid man-god Gilgamesh interviews the Flood hero, Utnapishtim, who is a demi-god living in Dilmun. Utnapishtim relates that Enki/Ea informed him of the coming river flood, which was concocted by the deity Enlil. In these versions the towns people help in the building and are allowed on the boat when the river flood comes. It ends in a similar fashion as the Assyrian version except that the boat grounds on Mt. Nisir and Utnapishtim offers a sacrifice on the top of a ziggurat. Best writes, “The most complete copy was written in Akkadian and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal. Several fragmented copies survive in the Akkadian, Middle Babylonian, Hittite and Hurrian languages.” (p. 23)

The Genesis story came next. Best incorporates the long expanse of time for the floodwaters to recede by speculating that the barge floated downstream into the Persian Gulf, where it was just blown about for many months. During that time, the family on board eats most of the cargo, which was destined for Eridu. Noah had no idea where he was and could only see seawater from horizon to horizon.

Why was the Noah narrative written?

In my opinion, the Genesis narrative was a Hebraized version of the general legend. It was written by a monotheist who inserted Yahweh into the story to show that Yahweh is in charge of such disasters. Hebrew beliefs like sin, judgment, redemption, and God’s covenant-making interaction with the family of Israel were foremost in the narrative. References to Mesopotamian locations were deliberately dropped out, as was any suggestion of other deities. Noah is not raised to god status as were other heroes. I personally think it’s possible that the Flood was elevated to oceanic status in order to disassociate it from the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, but Best’s theory about the Persian Gulf is quite plausible. Either way, the Genesis author doesn’t want to remind you that the original story, which he undoubtedly had before him, was a Sumerian river flood, called up by scheming gods for no good reason. The author wasn’t necessarily being deceptive. He may have figured that everyone already knew about the other versions anyway. It probably never dawned on him that one day there would be immense religious division over whether the story was literally true.

Shortly before the Masoretic Hebrew text was translated into the Greek Septuagint, a Babylonian priest names Berossus wrote the story in Greek (c. 281 BC), calling the Flood hero Xisuthros. Although it is similar to other versions, there is the added aspect of tablets buried in the flood debris in Shuruppak that need to be retrieved. On these tablets were the history of all beginnings of mankind. This version was lost, but parts of it were preserved by other Greek writers.

One of the great features of Best’s book is that he provides the text of all six narratives. These texts are difficult to find unless one has acquired an extensive library on the Ancient Near East. In my next post, I want to reproduce Best's collection of parallel passages common to two or more versions of the flood story. It would also be useful to ponder a little on what it means for the Christian or Jew who has been taking this story literally for years or decades.

In Part of this series, we'll take a close look at the parallels.

Comments

  1. Hi sir, I recently acquired and read his book "Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic." It was really eye-opening and educational. Christian geologist Carol A. Hill also places the Flood in 2900 BCE in the Jemdet Nasr period.

    I noticed he did not mention the olive tree, or Berosus' report from Josephus that it was being scavenged for tar, which is based on the idea that it landed on Mt. Cudi). I think Berosus could have been confused.

    I also wonder if Robert M. Best is still alive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, what are the islands that Noah thought were mountain tops in the extended Persian Gulf? These should be locatable and identifiable. This is one point Robert Best did not cover that needs to be examined.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim, I'm so sorry I couldn't answer your comments earlier. blogger just changed their format, and I can see these comments for the first time. I had no idea anyone commented. I can't really add any scholarly light to what I've posted here. I have to admit that I don't believe there was a Noah's ark. This was a Sumerian story that got add ons by Assyria, Babylonia, and Israel. It's a great story, and there is much important theology for the Israelites in their version. But I don't believe the Bible story or any of them really, are literal history. Thank you for your comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Janet, thanks for the reply and explanation.

      Delete
    2. Hi Janet, I thought I'd just add that Robert Best helped me to historicize this account. So I agree it was not "Noah" per se, as this name was given to him in the Hebrew version in Genesis. I'm also very curious about "Noah's" 3 sons. Was this reflecting a tripartite geology at the time (Mid-East, Egypt and Greece-Italy)? Were his 3 sons then a teaching aid emphasizing repopulating the known world? For instance, Genesis has Japheth and Greek mythology has Iapetus, both who had a brother involved in a sexual indiscretion with their father, Ham to Noah and Kronos to Uranus. In Hittite mythology, Kumarbi sexually assaults his father Anu. I note the similarities here.

      So, something happened which is shrouded in mystery to this day. I think the Genesis Flood, the sexual assault in Gen. 9, and the Table of Nations are reconstructions (as is the Adam and Eve narrative). The Eden and Flood narratives had to endure periods of oral transmission before accounts of them were written down, and then pieced together in Genesis. Anyway, that's where my thinking is currently.

      Delete
    3. I think that's a good way to look at it. If the author had used the original names, it would cease to be a Jewish story and it wouldn't fit with their theology of one Deity with the Name they were given. They had to adapt to put all history into the hands of the One and only God. And you are right that it wouldn't have been a Jewish story at all until there was a literate Jewish state and sufficient literacy. My best guess is that it was written during the captivity of Northern Israel in Assyria or during the captivity of Judah in Babylon.

      Delete

Post a Comment