The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1-9

Author(s): Tikva Frymer-Kensky

Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 1977), pp. 147-155
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3209529 .
Accessed: 02/04/2013 14:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.58.65.10 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ATRAHASIS EPIC AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE
FOR OUR OF
UNDERSTANDINGGENESIS 1-9

Dedicated to the memory of J. J. Finkelsteinwhose unique genius is sorely missed.

TIKVA FRYMER-KENSKY

The Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis, written no later than

1700 B.C.E., is an ancient Primeval History of Man which
relates the story of manfrom the events that resultedin his
creationuntil after theflood. Therecentrecoveryof this epic
has enormous importancefor understandingthe great cos-
mological cycle of Genesis1-9,for it enablesus to appreciate
the major themes of this cyclefrom a new perspective.

The Babylonian Flood Stories Millard,Atrahasis:TheBabylonianStoryof the Flood,

Oxford, 1969)can only be understoodwith the aid of
Three'differentBabylonianstories of the flood the other known flood stories. The Gilgamesh Epic
have survived:the Sumerian Flood Story, the ninth a differentproblemfor comparativeanalysis.
presents
tablet of the GilgameshEpic, and the AtrahasisEpic. Here the flood
Details in these stories, such as the placing of animals story is clearly in a secondarycontext,
in the ark, the landing of the ark on a mountain,and and,
more importantly,this context is so differentfrom
the biblicalas to causeseriousdifferencesin content.In
the sendingforth of birdsto see whetherthe watershad the
GilgameshEpic the story of the flood is relatedas
receded, indicate clearly that these stories are part of the tale of Gilgamesh'squest for immortality.
intimately related to the biblical flood story and, Utnapishtimtells his descendantGilgameshthe story of
indeed, that the Babylonianand biblical accounts of the flood in orderto tell him why he becameimmortal
the flood representdifferentretellingsof an essentially
and, in so doing, to show Gilgameshthat he cannot
identical flood tradition. Until the recovery of the become immortal in the same way. This purpose is
Atrahasis Epic, however, the usefulnessof these tales
stated, for the story is introduced by
towardan understandingof Genesiswas limitedby the explicitly
lack of a cohesive context for the flood story compa- Gilgamesh's question, "As I look upon you, Utnapish-
tim, features are not strange;you are just as I ...
rableto that of Genesis.The SumerianFlood Story has how your did you join the Assembly of the gods in your
survivedin a very fragmentarystate, and even its most
recent edition (by Miguel Civil in Lambert and concludes quest for life?" (Gilgamesh XI:2-7). Utnapishtim
his recitationwith the admonition,"Butnow
who will call the gods to Assemblyfor your sake so
Tikva Frymer-Kensky is Assistant Professor ofNear Eastern that you may find the life that you are seeking?"
Studies at Wayne State University, Detroit. Her manu- (GilgameshXI:197-98).
script, Judicial Ordeal in the Ancient Near East, is forth- The nature of the story as "Utnapishtim'stale"
coming in the series Bibliotheca Mesopotamicafrom Undena colors the recitationof the flood episodeand makesit
Publications (Malibu, CA). fundamentallydifferent from the biblical flood story.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST 147

This content downloaded from 130.58.65.10 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The "first person narrative"format means that Utnapish-
tim can only tell those parts of the story that he knows,
and that he may leave out those aspects that do not
concern him or fit his purpose. For example, even though
Babylonian gods are not portrayed as capricious and are
considered as having reasons for their actions,
Utnapishtim tells us nothing about the reasons that the
gods brought the flood. This lapse is dictated by the
literary format: Utnapishtim may not know the reason
for the flood, or he may not record it because it is irrele-
vant to his purpose, which is to recount how he became
immortal. Similarly, the only event after the flood that
Utnapishtim relates to Gilgamesh is the subsequent
convocation of the gods that granted him immortality.
The result of the "personalization" of the flood story in
the Gilgamesh Epic is that the scope of the story is
Jacob J. Finkelstein restricted to the adventures of one individual and its
significance to its effects upon him, with the flood itself
emptied of any cosmic or anthropological significance.
(1922-1974) The flood stories in Genesis and in Gilgamesh are so far
removed from each other in focus and intent that one
cannot compare the ideas in the two versions of the flood
In the three years since Jacob J. Finkelstein's without setting up spurious dichotomies.
premature death at 52, the measure of his loss to
Assyriological and biblical studies has become
increasingly apparent. J. J. Finkelstein was a many-
faceted scholar. He was a superb cuneiformist; his The AtrahasisEpic
ability to read and copy cuneiform texts was
unparalleled among Assyriologists, and the volumes The recoveryof the AtrahasisEpicprovidesnew
of cuneiform texts that he published are an enduring perspectiveson Genesis because, unlike the other two
monument to his work. Also an acknowledged Babylonianversions of the flood, the AtrahasisEpic
master of cuneiform law, Finkelstein published presentsthe flood storyin a context comparableto that
seminal and provocative articles on many aspects of of Genesis, that of a Primeval History. The flood
Babylonian law. His interest in law was far-reaching, episode of the Atrahasis Epic has been known for a
and his essays "The Goring Ox: Some Historical long time, but the literarystructureof the epic, and
Perspectives on Deodands, Forfeitures, Wrongful thereforethe context of the flood story,was not under-
Death and the Western Notion of Sovereignty" stood until Laessoe reconstructedthe work(J. Laessoe,
Temple Law Quarterly 46/2 (1973) 169-290 demon- "The Atrahasis Epic, A Babylonian History of
strates an interest in and mastery of the entire field Mankind," Biblioteca Orientalis 13 [1956] 90-102). In
of History of Law. Although Finkelstein would not 1965, Lambert and Millard (Cuneiform Texts from
have considered himself a biblicist, he had a deep Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, London)
interest in the Bible, particularly in the relationship publishedmanyadditionaltexts fromthe epic, including
of biblical law and religion to Mesopotamian an Old Babylonian copy (written around 1650 B.C.E.)
culture. His insights in this area were so numerous which is our most completesurvivingrecensionof the
and perceptive that many biblicists came to Yale to tale. These new texts greatlyincreasedour knowledge
sit in on his classes and to discuss their ideas with of the epic and served as the foundation for the English
him. His death is thus a deep loss to everyone edition of the Epic by Lambert and Millard (Atrahasis:
interested in the development of biblical and The Babylonian Story of the Flood, Oxford, 1969).
Western culture. A complete bibliography of The Atrahasis epic starts with a depiction of the
Finkelstein's publications has been compiled by world as it existed before man was created: "When the
Peter Machinist and Norman Yoffee and appears in gods worked like Man" (the first line and ancient title
Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of of the composition). At this time the universe was
Jacob Joel Finkelstein, Memoirs of the Connecticut divided among the great gods, with An taking the
Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 19, Dec. 1977. heavens, Enlil the earth and Enki the great deep. Seven
gods (called the Anunnaki in this text) established

148 DECEMBER1977

This content downloaded from 130.58.65.10 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
themselves as the ruling class, while the rest of the gods same problem recurs, and the gods bring famine (and
provided the work force. These gods, whose "work was saline soil), which again do not end the difficulties. At
heavy, (whose) distress was much," dug the Tigris and last Enlil persuades the gods to adopt a "final solution"
Euphrates rivers and then rebelled, refusing to continue (II viii 34) to the human problem, and they resolve to
their labors. On the advice of Enki, the gods decided to bring a flood to destroy mankind. Their plan is
create a substitute to do the work of the gods, and Enki thwarted by Enki, who has Atrahasis build an ark and
and the mother goddess created man from clay and so escape the flood. After the rest of mankind have
from the flesh and blood of a slain god, "We-ilu, a god been destroyed, and after the gods have had occasion
who has sense," from whom man was to gain ration- to regret their actions and to realize (by their thirst and
ality. The various themes and motifs out of which this hunger) that they need man, Atrahasis brings a sacri-
part of the epic is composed can all be documented fice and the gods come to eat. Enki then presents a
elsewhere and do not seem to have originated with this permanent solution to the problem. The new world
text (for details see box). after the flood is to be different from the old, for Enki
This epic, ancient though it is, is already the summons Nintu, the birth goddess, and has her create
product of considerable development, and the author new creatures, who will ensure that the old problem
of the composition has utilized old motifs and has does not arise again. In the words of the Epic (III vii 1):

In addition, let there be a third category among the

The AtrahasisEpicpresents theflood story peoples,
in a context comparable to that of Genesis, Among the peoples women who bearand womenwho
that of a Primeval History. do not bear.
Let there be among the peoples the Pagittu-demon
to snatch the baby from the lap of her who bore it.
Establish Ugbabtu-women,Entu-women,and Igisitu-
united them into a coherent account of Man's begin- women
nings in which he presents a picture of the purpose of and let them be taboo and so stop childbirth.
Man's creation, his raison detre, as doing the work of
the gods and thus relieving them of the need to labor.
In the same way, he seems to have taken the previously
Other post-flood provisions may have followed, but the
known story of the flood and juxtaposed it to his
text now becomes too fragmentary to read.
creation story to continue the tale of primeval man and
indicate the prerequisites of human life upon earth. Despite the lacunae, the structure presented by
the Atrahasis Epic is clear. Man is created . .. there is a
In the Atrahasis Epic the creation of man causes
problem in creation . . . remedies are attempted but the
new problems. In the words of the Epic (I 352f.
problem remains . . . the decision is made to destroy
restored from II 1-8): man . . . this attempt is thwarted by the wisdom of
Twelve hundred years [had not yet passed] Enki ... a new remedy is instituted to ensure that the
[when the land extended]and the peoples multiplied. problem does not arise again. Several years ago Anne
The [land] was bellowing [like a bull]. Kilmer ("The Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopula-
The gods were disturbedwith [their uproar]. tion and its Solution as Represented in the Mythology,"
[Enlil heard] their noise Orientalia 41 [1972] 160-77) and William J. Moran
[and addressed]the great gods. ("The Babylonian Story of the Flood [review article]"
"Thenoise of mankind[has becometoo intensefor me] Biblica 40 [1971] 51-61), working independently,
[with their uproar] I am deprived of sleep. demonstrated that the problem that arose and that
necessitated these various remedies was that of over-
To solve this problem, the gods decided to bring a population. Mankind increased uncontrollably, and the
plague, which ends when Enki advises man to bring methods of population control that were first attempted
offerings to Namtar, god of the plague, and thus induce (drought, pestilence, famine) only solved the problem
him to lift the plague. This plague does not solve the temporarily. This overpopulation led to destruction
problem permanently, for twelve hundred years later (the flood), and permanent countermeasures were
the same problem arises again (Tablet II 1-8) and the introduced by Enki to keep the size of the population
gods bring a drought, which ends when men (upon down. The myth tells us that such social phenomena as
Enki's advice) bribe Adad to bring rain. Despite the non-marrying women, and such personal tragedies as
fragmentary state of Tablet II, it is easy to see that the barrenness and stillbirth (and perhaps miscarriage and

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST 149

This content downloaded from 130.58.65.10 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
infant mortality) are in fact essential to the very will fill the number of your days," seems to be a repudi-
continuation of man's existence, for humanity was ation of yet another of the "natural" methods of
almost destroyed once when the population got out of population control, that of premature death. In the
control. ideal world which is to be established in the land of
Israel there will be no need for such methods, for over-
population is not a major concern.
Genesis and Atrahasis Genesis states explicitly that God decided to
This Babylonian tale, composed no later than destroy the world because of the wickedness of man
1700 B.C.E., is very attractive to us today and can (Gen 6:5). Although this traditionally has been under-
stood to mean that God destroyed the world as a
almost be called a "myth for our times," for we share
with the Babylonians a consciousness of a limited punishment for man's sins, this understanding of the
passage entails serious theological problems, such as
ecology and a concern about controlling the human the propriety of God's destroying all life on earth
population. In addition to this inherent relevance, because of the sins of man. Such an interpretation also
however, it is very important for biblical studies, for it causes great problems in understanding the text of
points out what (by the clear logic of hindsight) should Genesis itself and creates what seems to be a paradox,
have been obvious to us all along: there is an organic
for the "wickedness of man" is also given as the reason
unity to the first section of Genesis. The importance of that God decides never again to bring a flood (Gen
the Atrahasis Epic is that it focuses our attention away
from the deluge itself and onto the events immediately 8:21). Since the evil nature of man is presented after the
after the rains subside. In Genesis, as in Atrahasis, the
flood came in response to a serious problem in creation,
a problem which was rectified immediately after the
flood. A study of the changes that God made in the Unlike Atrahasis, the flood story is
world after the flood gives a clearer picture of the emphatically not about overpopulation.
conditions prevailing in the world before the flood, of
the ultimate reason that necessitated the flood which
almost caused the destruction of man, of the essential
differences between the world before the flood and the
world after it, and thus of the essential prerequisites for flood as the reason for God's vow never again to bring
the continued existence of man on the earth. a flood, we should not infer that God brought the flood
Unlike Atrahasis, the flood story in Genesis is as a punishment because man was evil. Genesis also
emphatically not about overpopulation. On the states that God brought the flood because the world
contrary, God's first action after the flood was to was full of h~mds. The term hamds is very complex,
command Noah and his sons to "be fruitful and and a semantic analysis is presented below (p. 154). The
multiply and fill the earth" (Gen 9:1). This echoes the wide range of meanings for the term h~mas means that
original command to Adam (1:28) and seems to be an a lexical analysis of the word is not sufficient to allow
explicit rejection of the idea that the flood came as a us to determine what particular evil is here called
result of attempts to decrease man's population. The and what it was about this particular evil that h.amas
neces-
repetition of this commandment in emphatic terms in sitated a flood. The nature of the evil and the cause of
Gen 9:7, "and you be fruitful and multiply, swarm over the flood must be found in the story of Genesis.
the earth and multiply in it," makes it probable that the The Atrahasis Epic is so important to biblical
Bible consciously rejected the underlying theme of the studies because it enables us to determine the cause of
Atrahasis Epic, that the fertility of man before the the flood by focusing our attention away from the
flood was the reason for his near destruction. deluge itself and onto the events immediately after the
It is not surprising that Genesis rejects the idea flood, i.e., to Genesis 9. In this chapter God offers
of overpopulation as the reason for the flood, for the Noah and his sons a covenant, in which he promises
Bible does not share the belief of Atrahasis and some never again to bring a flood to destroy the world, and
other ancient texts that overpopulation is a serious gives the rainbow as the token of this promise. At this
issue. Barrenness and stillbirth (or miscarriage) are not time God gives Noah and his sons several laws, and the
considered social necessities, nor are they justified as difference between the ante- and post-diluvium worlds
important for population control. On the contrary, can be found in these laws. These laws are thus the
when God promises the land to Israel he promises that structural equivalent of the new solutions proposed by
"in your land women will neither miscarry nor be Enki in the Atrahasis Epic. In Atrahasis the problem in
barren" (Exod 23:26). The continuation of this verse, "I man's creation was overpopulation, and the solutions

150 DECEMBER1977

This content downloaded from 130.58.65.10 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
proposed by Enki are designed to rectify this problem ATRAHIASIS
by controlling and limiting the population. In the Bible
the problem is not overpopulation, but "since the
devisings of man's heart are evil from his youth" (Gen
8:21), God must do something if he does not want to
destroy the earth repeatedly. This something is to
create laws for mankind, laws to ensure that matters do
not again reach such a state that the world must be
destroyed.
The idea that man's nature is basically evil and
that laws are therefore necessary to control his evil is a
rather Hobbesian view of mankind, and it should be
mentioned that this was not always the philosophy of
Israel. The Bible also affords support for the idea that
man is intrinsically good, and even Gen 8:21 can be I
reinterpreted to agree with this philosophy, as in the
Midrash Tanhuma, where this verse is interpreted to
mean that the evil inclination does not come to a man
until he becomes a youth, i.e., 10 years old, and that it
is man who raises himself to be evil (Midrash Tanhuma
Bereshit 1.7). The simple meaning of the statement in S , ,
. '
.. . . . .
Gen 8:21, "the imagination of man's heart is evil from . - . . .? .

his youth," however, indicates clearly that Genesis

comes down on the Leviathan side of what is obviously
a very old controversy about the nature of man. Such
&
perceptions of an inherently evil aspect of man's nature,
one which is naturally prone to violent and unrighteous ....r ""' -. [:
acts, logically entails a recognition that man cannot be
allowed to live by his instincts alone, that he must be
directed and controlled by laws, that in fact, laws are the
sine qua non of human existence. It is for this reason that
God's first act after the flood is to give man laws.
.-... :: :j - : : : :
... ? -.
..-::;

The Flood in Genesis

'
" ~." ?'.
The realization that the granting of laws after ". ..
."'
.i

the flood was a direct response by God to the problem

posed by man's evil nature resolves the apparent para-
dox between the statement that the wickedness of man
somehow caused the flood and the statement that the
wickedness of man caused God to take steps to ensure
that he will never again have to bring a flood. How-
ever, it does not answer the question of why the flood
was necessary, why God could not simply have
announced a new order and introduced laws to man-
kind without first destroying almost all of humanity.
This problem does not arise in the Babylonian flood
stories, where there is a clear distinction between the
gods who decide to bring a flood (Enlil and the council
of the gods) and the god who realized the error of this Copy of Tablet I, column i (BM 78941 + 78943) of the
decision, saved man and introduced the new order Atrahasis Epic, which begins:
(Enki). The problem, however, is quite serious in the "When the gods like men
monotheistic conception of the flood in which the same Bore the work and suffered the toil -"

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST 151

This content downloaded from 130.58.65.10 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Theflood is not primarily a means of punishment ...
but a means of getting rid of a thoroughlypolluted world and starting over again.

God decidesto bringthe flood, savesman, and resolves HumanLife"(as it is usuallycalled)is givenin the text:
never to bring a flood again. If God is rationaland "for man is createdin God's image"(Gen 9:6). Taken
consistentin his actions, there must have been a com- independently,these two commandments-theprohibi-
pellingreasonthat necessitatedthe flood. "Punishment" tion againsteatingblood (andthe livinganimal)andthe
is not enough of a reason, for it not only raises the declarationof the principleof the inviolabilityof human
questionof God'srightto punishall the animalsfor the life with the provision of capital punishment for
sins of man, but also raisesthe serious issue of God's murder- embodytwo of the basicprinciplesof Israelite
rightto punishmanin this instanceat all: If manhas evil law.
tendencies,and if he has not been checkedand directed The Bibleviewsblood as a veryspecialsubstance.
by laws, how can he be punishedfor simplyfollowing Israel is seriouslyenjoinedagainst eating the blood of
his own instincts?The flood cannot simply have been animals,and this prohibitionis repeatedsix timesin the
brought as a punishment,and its necessitatingcause Pentateuch(Gen9:4;Lev3:17;7:26;17:10-14;Deut 12:16
must lie in the particularnatureof the evil whichfilled and 12:23-24).This prohibitionis calledan eternalordi-
the worldbeforethe flood. Ourbest way to find out the nance (Lev 3:17), and the penaltyfor eating blood (at
nature of the evil is to look at the solution given to leastin the Priestlytradition)is karet,whichis someform
control the evil, i.e., to the laws givenimmediatelyafter of outlawry,whetherbanishmentor ostracism(Lev 7:27;
the flood. 17:10,14). The reason for this strict prohibition is
The oral traditionof Israel (as reflectedin the explicit:the spirit (nepe?)of the animalis in the blood
rabbinicwritings)has developedand expandedthe laws (Lev 17:11,14;Deut 12:23).The greatestcare must be
given to Noah and his sons afterthe flood into a some- exercised in the eating of meat. According to the
what elaboratesystemof "thesevenNoahidecommand- Priestly tradition, slaughteringof animals (other than
ments." The traditional enumerationof these is the creaturesof the hunt) can only be done at an altar.
prohibitionof idolatry, blasphemy,bloodshed, sexual Failureto bringthe animalto the altar was considered
sins, theft, eating from a living animal, and the com- tantamountto the sheddingof blood (Lev 17:4).The
mandmentto establishlegal systems. Additionallaws sprinklingof the animal'sblood upon the altar served
are sometimesincluded among the commandmentsto as a redemption(Lev 17:11).In Deuteronomy,where
Noah and his sons, and the system of Noahide com- the cult is centralizedand it is no longer feasible to
mandments can best be understood as a system of bringthe animalsto an altar, permissionis givento eat
universalethics, a "NaturalLaw"system in which the and slaughteranimalsanywhere.However,(as with the
laws are given by God. Genesis itself, however,does animals of the hunt in Leviticus),care must be taken
not contain a list of all seven of these commandments. not to eat the blood, which should be pouredupon the
According to Genesis 9, God issued three command- ground and covered (Deut 12:24).
ments to Noah and his sons immediatelyafter the The idea expressedin the third commandment,
flood: (1) he commandedman to be fruitful,to increase, that of the incomparabilityand inviolabilityof human
multiplyand swarm over the earth;(2) he announced life, is one of the fundamentalaxioms of Israelite
that although man may eat meat he must not eat philosophy, and the ramificationsof this principle
animalsalive (or eat the blood, which is tantamountto pervadeevery aspect of Israelitelaw and distinguishit
the same thing - Gen 9:4);and (3) he declaredthat no dramaticallyfrom the other Near Easternlegal systems
one, neither beast nor man, can kill a human being with which it otherwisehas so much in common. In
withoutforfeitinghis own life, providingfor the execu- Israel, capital punishment is reserved for the direct
tion of all killers,"whoeversheds the blood of man, by offense against God and is never invoked for offenses
man shall his blood be shed." against property.The inverse of this is also true; the
The significanceof the first commandment(that primeoffense in Israelis homicide,whichcan neverbe
of fertility)has alreadybeenmentioned:it is an explicit compensatedby the payment of a monetaryfine and
and probablyconscious rejectionof the idea that the can only be rectifiedby the executionof the murderer.
cause of the flood was overpopulationand that over- Despite the importanceof this principle,if we
population is a serious problem. Together the other look at the world before the flood, it is immediately
two commandments introduce a very clear differentia- apparent that this demand for the execution of
tion between man and the animal kingdom: man may murderers is new. Only three stories are preserved in
kill animals for food (while observing certain restric- Genesis from the ten generations between the expulsion
tions in so doing), but no one, whether man or beast, from the Garden and the bringing of the flood. Two of
can kill man. The reason for this "Absolute Sanctity of these, the Cain and Abel story (Gen 4:1-15) and the tale

152 DECEMBER1977

This content downloaded from 130.58.65.10 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of Lemech (Gen 4:19-24), concern the shedding of
human blood. In the first tale Cain, having murdered
his brother Abel, becomes an outcast and must lose his
home. However, he is not killed. In fact, he becomes ~i~~A$-~-Q~Sf K.g~
one of "God's protected" and is marked with a special ~---~;ksf~~S~F~f~I~ ~ff
sign on his forehead to indicate that Cain's punishment c~~-1?L~b: XFA~
(if any) is the Lord's and that whoever kills him will be
subject to seven-fold retribution. The next story
preserved - that of Lemech five generations later -
also concerns murder, for Lemech kills "a man because ~:"~"~"""~6"'~"~
of my wounding, a young man because of my hurt"
(Gen 4:23). Lemech, too, is not killed and claims the
same protection that Cain had, declaring that as Cain
was protected with sevenfold retribution he, Lemech,
will be avenged with seventy-sevenfold (Gen 4:24). The
Copy of the fragmentof Tablet II, columnviii (Ni 2552),
main difference between the world before the flood and which translates:
the new order established immediately after it is the The Assembly . . [ .
different treatment of murderers, and the cause of the Do not obey. .. ...
flood should therefore be sought in this crucial The gods commandedtotal destruction,
difference. Enlil did an evil deed on the peoples.
Murder has catastrophic consequences, not only Atrahasis opened his mouth
for the individuals involved, but for the earth itself, And addressedhis lord.
which has the blood of innocent victims spilled upon it.
As God says to Cain after Abel's murder (Gen 4:10-12):

Your brother'sblood criesout to me from the soil. And

now you are cursed by the earth which opened her
mouth to receivethe blood of your brotherfrom your term can stand for evil of any sort (Ps 11:5; Prov 13:2);
hand. Whenyou till the groundit shall no longeryield it may simply stand for falsehood, as in 'Cd
its strengthto you; a wandererand a vagabondyou and its
"false witness" (Exod 23:1; Deut 19:15; Ps 35:1)h.lmls
will be on the earth. occurrence with mirma (Isa 60:18; Jer 6:7, 20:8), with
the two together meaning something like "plunder and
The innocent blood which was spilled on it has made pillage." has a very close connection to damim
the ground barren for Cain, who must therefore leave as can be seen from Ezek 9:9. Like
HI.amas
"bloodshed,"
his land and become a wanderer. This process of the damim, the term hmiis can be used in a physical way,
cursing and concomitant barrenness of the ground had for hIdmas(or the pollution from it) can cover clothes
become widespread. The explanation of the name given (Mal 2:16) and hands (Job 16:17; 1 Chron 12:17). In
to Noah makes this point. The Masoretic Text reads: Genesis, the earth is filled with hammisand has itself
"This one will comfort us from our acts and the toil become polluted because all flesh had polluted its way
of our hands." Alternatively, if we follow the Septuagint upon the earth (Gen 6:11-12). It is the filling of the
(old Greek translation), the text would read: "This one earth with h~amis and its resultant pollution that
will give us rest from our acts and the toil of our prompts God to bring a flood to physically erase every-
hands." Either way, the latter part of the verse, thing from the earth and start anew. The flood is not
"because of the ground which God has cursed" is clear: primarily an agency of punishment (although to be
Noah's name is explained by Genesis as related to the drowned is hardly a pleasant reward), but a means of
conditions which caused the flood, the "cursing" of the getting rid of a thoroughly polluted world and starting
ground, and Noah's role somehow alleviates that again with a clean, well-washed one. Then, when every-
condition. thing has been washed away, God resolves (Gen 8:21):
By the generation of the flood the whole earth
has become polluted, (KJV "the earth also was I will no longer curse the groundbecauseof man, for
corrupt") and is filled with (Gen 6:11). The wide the devisings of man's heart are evil from his youth,
range of meanings of the hi.mas
word in the Bible and I will no longerstrikeall the livingcreaturesthat I
h.amas of evil. The
encompasses almost the entire spectrum have created;

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST 153

This content downloaded from 130.58.65.10 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and goes on to give Noah and his sons the basic laws, also because of the mystical conception of blood in
specifically the strict instructions about the shedding of Israelite thought, the blood of the slain physically
blood, to prevent the earth's becoming so polluted pollutes the land. For this reason, the discovery of a
again. corpse posed a real problem for the people. When such
an unsolved murder occurred, recourse was had to the
Pollution in the Bible procedure of the cegld c~rapd, ("the breaking of the
heifer's neck") a ritual meant to cleanse the land of the
The idea of the pollution of the earth is not a
pollution of the murder: the elders of the nearest town
vague metaphorto indicatemoral wrongdoing.On the were to bring a heifer to an uninhabited wadi, strike off
contrary,in the biblicalworldview,the murdersbefore its head, wash their hands over it and offer the follow-
the flood contaminatedthe land and createda state of
ing prayer:
physical pollution which had to be eradicated by

Our handshave not shed this blood, nor have our eyes
seen (the deed). Be merciful O Lord, to your people
Israel whom you have redeemedand lay not innocent
Israel was admonished not to allow blood into the midst of the people (Deut 21:7-8).
compensation for murder .., for by doing
so they would cause the land to become
The shedding of human blood was of concern to
contaminated. the whole nation, for it involved an actual pollution of
the land. Israel was enjoined against this bloodguilt
pollution and was admonished neither to allow
compensation for murder, nor even to allow an
physical means (the flood). Although this concept may accidental murderer to leave a city of refuge, for by so
seem strange to us, it is not surprising to find it here in doing they would cause the land of Israel to become
the cosmology of Israel, for Israel clearly believed that contaminated:
moral wrongdoings defile physically. This is explicitly
stated with three sins - murder, idolatry, and sexual
abominations - and it is interesting to note that these You shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer
who is deservingof death. He shall be executed.You
are the three cardinal sins for which a Jew must suffer
shall take no ransomto (allow someoneto) flee a city
martyrdom rather than commit them (b. Sanhedrin of refugeor to (allow someoneto) returnto live in the
74a). These are mentioned in Acts as offenses from land beforethe priest'sdeath. You shall not pollutethe
which all the nations must refrain (Acts 15:20); these land that you are in, for the blood will pollutethe land,
three offenses are given as the explanation of h/imds in and the land may not be redeemedfor blood spilledon
the flood story by Rabbi Levy in Genesis Rabbah it except by the blood of the spiller. You shall not
(31:16); and these (together with the non-observance of contaminatethe land in whichyou are living, in which
the sabbatical year) are given in the Mishna as the I the Lord am dwellingamong the childrenof Israel
reasons that exile enters the world (Nezigin 5:8). (Num 35:31-34).
According to the biblical tradition, the pre-Israelite
inhabitants of Canaan had defiled the land with the
sexual abominations enumerated in Leviticus 18. As a The idea of the pollution of the earth by murder,
result God had punished the land (Lev 18:25), and the of the physical pollution caused by "moral" wrongs
land had therefore vomited up the inhabitants which such as sexual abominations and idolatry, underlies
had defiled it. For this reason, Israel is admonished not much of Israelite law. The composer of Genesis 1-9 had
to commit these abominations and defile the land lest it reinterpreted the cosmology and the early history of
vomit them out in the same way (Lev 18:24-28). Later, Man in the light of these very strong concepts. He has
Israel was told that it has defiled the land (Jer 2:7) and used a framework that is at least as old as the Epic of
that because Israel defiled the land with their idols and Atrahasis, the framework of the Primeval History of
because of the blood which they spilled upon the land, Creation-Problem-Flood-Solution, and has retold the
God poured his fury upon them (Ezek 36:18). story in such a way as to reinterpret an ancient
The most serious contaminant of the land is the tradition to illuminate fundamental Israelite ideas, i.e.,
blood of those who have been murdered; the concept of the biblical ideals that law and the "sanctity of human
"bloodguilt" is well known in Israelite law. Because of life" are the prerequisites of human existence upon the
the seriousness of the crime of murder, and perhaps earth.

154 DECEMBER1977

This content downloaded from 130.58.65.10 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The AtrahasisAccount in CuneiformLiterature

Like Genesis, Atrahasis is the product of a corv6ebasket.This text, however,seems to be a late

long processof development,and many of the ideas reflex of these traditions,and the Sumerianseemsto
and motifs containedin it can be tracedelsewherein be very late. There would, therefore,seem to be no
Sumero-Babylonian literature. The idea of the Sumerian tradition in the use of blood in the
division of the universeamongthe greatgods can be creationof man, and Lambert'sattemptto find it in
found in the introductionto "Gilgamesh,Enkiduand "Enki and Ninmah"(Creationof Man in Sumero-
theNetherworld," in whichAn takesthe heavens,Enlil BabylonianMyth" CRAAI 11, 1964:103)has now
the earth, Ereshkigalreceives the netherworldand been givenup (oral communication).Consideringthe
Enki sets sail for the Apsu. The working gods are special notion of blood that we find in the Bible, it
found in UET VI 118:20,and in "Enkiand Ninmah" seems likely that the blood motif in Atrahasisand in
(11-12), in which the lesser gods work and dig the Enuma Elish may be a West Semiticidea, and may
Tigrisand Euphrates.The conceptionof the creation have entered Mesopotamian mythology with the
of man to relieve the gods from labor is found in coming of the West Semites.
"Enki and Ninmah"(25), as is creation from clay, Most of the motifs in the Atrahasisaccount
for man is createdthere from the "heartof clay over of man's beginningare paralleledin the Sumerian
the abzu" (33). Clay as the material out of which myth of "Enki and Ninmah,"and it is natural to
man is created is quite common in Mesopotamian assume that the Sumerian composition came first
literature.In the creationof Enkiduin the Gilgamesh and that Atrahasis was already based on this
Epic, long recognizedas a doublet to the creationof accountof the creationof man. This may be, but the
man, Aruru washes her hands, takes the clay, and precedence of the Sumerian tale cannot be pre-
either casts it upon the steppe or draws a design supposed, and the whole matter deserves serious
upon it. Similarly, in the Babyloniantheodicy, Ea study. There are severalpuzzlingphenomenain the
nips off the clay and Arurufashionsit. In the "ritual Sumerianstory which might indicatethat Enki and
for the restorationof temples"Ea nips off the clay in Ninmah is an adaptationof an Akkadiantale. One
the abzu and fashionsboth Man and a whole host of of these is the use of the word zub-sig for that
lesserdeities.In the Sumerianmyth of the descentof which is bound on man at his creation. In context
Inannato the netherworldEnki createsthe Kalatur this is almost certainlythe (corv6e)basketand must
and the Kurgarra from the "dirt under one of his be a loan from Akkadiangupgikku,the form of the
fingernails"(JCS 5: 219-20). more common Akkadian tupfikku that occurs in
The question of the killing of a god to create Atrahasis. Although both 9upfikku/tupfikku and
man presentsa differentpicture.Thismotifis foundin zub-sig may be ultimately derived from a third
Enuma Elish, where Kingu, the head of Tiamat's (substrate?)language, the Akkadian word is fairly
forces, is killed after the defeat of Tiamat,and his common in Akkadian,while zub-sig in this sense
blood is used in the creation of man. The only may be confined to this story. Similarly,the other
"Sumerian"text in which this motif is found, word for corv6e basket that is used in Enki and
however, is the bilingual KAR 4, in which the Ninmah seems to be an Akkadian word (terihum,
Lamga gods are slain and mankindis createdfrom line 12). In the light of suchanomalieswe shouldnot
theirblood. This text has manyancientelements:the assumethat the Akkadianepic is derivativefromthe
dividing of the universe, the digging of the Tigris Sumerian, for "Enkiand Ninmah"may have been
and Euphrates,the giving to man of the hoe and the written with Atrahasis in mind.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST 155

This content downloaded from 130.58.65.10 on Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:21:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions