THE PATRIARCHS BEFORE THE FLOOD

Babylonian Long-lived Kings. Comparison with Genesis 5. Comparison with Genesis 4. Comparison with the List of Berossos.

A Biblical narrative that challenges attention is that in Genesis 5, which contains the list of long-lived patriarchs who flourished before the flood. This narrative finds a striking parallel in the following tablet which tells of long-lived kings who are said to have ruled in ancient Babylonia. The beginnings of all the columns of the tablet are broken away.[370]

1. Babylonian Long-lived Kings

Column I

Column II

Column III

Column IV[374]

Column V

Column VI

This interesting document does not stand alone. Three other tablets published in the same volume[376] contain similar material, though all that would have a bearing on our present topic is too broken for connected translation. It is clear from the translation here given that the Babylonians ascribed to some early kings reigns as long, and even longer in some cases, than those ascribed to the antediluvian patriarchs in Genesis 5.

The peculiar spelling of Galumum and Zugagib in the Babylonian characters, together with the meaning of the words, shows that they are animal names. Zugagib means “scorpion” and Galumum, “lamb.” In the lines which preceded, probably similar animal names were recorded. Perhaps this expresses the idea that animals were made before men, as is stated in Gen. 1:24-26.

2. Comparison with Genesis 5.—The next name, Aripi,[377] may also have been read AdimÊ, and perhaps was so read by the Sumerians themselves. If it came to the Hebrews in this form they would naturally equate it with the Hebrew Adam, which means “man.”

Etana, the shepherd, is said in this list to have gone to heaven. This at once suggests the fate of Enoch, who “was not; for God took him” (Gen. 5:24). In the Sumerian the words “to heaven” are AN-ŠU, which may also be read AN-KU. If these words were not fully understood by the Hebrews, to whom Sumerian was not only a foreign language but a dead language, they might easily be mistaken for a proper name, and would in Hebrew give us Enoch.[378] Another suggestion as to the method of borrowing is also possible. Later traditions cherished the name of a king, Enmeduranki, whom they called a king of Sippar or Agade.[379] Enmeduranki means “the hero who binds together heaven and earth.” Etana is in our list of kings called a king of Kish, but in later times kings of Kish were also called kings of Agade. It is altogether probable, therefore, that the “hero who binds together heaven and earth” is simply another designation of Etana who went to heaven. The last two syllables of Enmeduranki, i. e., AN-KI, “heaven and earth,” would, if taken over into Hebrew, also give Enoch. If we assume that Etana and Enoch are the same, we may at a later point be able to determine by which of these processes the name is most likely to have come into Hebrew. In an old poem, fragments of which have been found on some broken tablets from Nineveh, the fortunes of Etana were given in detail. He is said to have been carried to heaven on the back of an eagle. If he be really the prototype of Enoch, this lends a touch of realism to the narrative.

The Sumerian name Enmenunna means “exalted hero” or “exalted man.” A natural translation of this into Semitic Babylonian about 2000 B. C. would be Mutu-elu,[380] or, in one word, amelu, and an equally natural translation of this into Hebrew would give us Enosh.

Pilikam,[381] the next name, means in Sumerian “with intelligence to build.” In Babylonian Semitic it would be literally Ina-uzni-erÊŠu, or, rendered in one word, ummanu, “artificer.” The Hebrew translation of this is Kenan, which means “artificer.” Melamkish gives us the Hebrew Lamech by the simple elision of the first and last consonants. All people are lazy and words sometimes wear away both at the beginning and at the end.[382]

Barsalnunna, translated into Semitic Babylonian, becomes Shit?u-elu.[383] Seth may well be a transfer of a part of this name to Hebrew. The final radical of the first part of the name may have worn away or have been accidentally omitted.

Meskingashir is resolvable into four elements, MES-KI-INGA[384]-SHIR,[385] “the hero” or “man who is great” or “exalted.” Translate this into Semitic Babylonian and it becomes Mutu-Ša-elu, which is almost exactly Methuselah.

Enmeirgan becomes when translated into Semitic Mutu-Šalal-eqla,[386] and Mahalalel is a much closer transfer of the first two elements of this to Hebrew than are Sennacherib, Esar-haddon, Merodach-baladan, and Evil-merodach of the names Sin-akhi-irba, Ashur-akhi-iddina, Marduk-apal-iddin, and Amel-Marduk. Finally Dumuzi means “son of life,” or “living son,” and Jared[387] means “descendant.”

The equivalent of Noah does not appear in this list, but there is no doubt that he was Ziugiddu, otherwise called Ut-napishtim, of the Babylonian accounts of the flood.

We have then the following equivalents, four of which are Hebrew translations of Sumerian names; three, transfers into Hebrew of the whole or of parts of Semitic Babylonian equivalents of these Sumerian names, two of which are transfers to Hebrew of portions of a Sumerian original, and one of which, Noah, is still unexplained.

Of course, it may be objected that our list of kings did not furnish the originals of these patriarchs, since there are more kings than patriarchs, even though some of the names of kings have been lost by the breaking of the tablet. In this connection, however, one should remember that in 1 Chron. 1-9, many names which appear in the earlier books of the Bible are omitted, and that in Matt. 1:8, three kings—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—are omitted from the genealogy of Christ. (Compare 2 Kings 11-15.) It appears, then, that Biblical writers did not always copy a full list.

It thus seems that the tablet translated above may be related to the text of Genesis 5 in the names of the patriarchs as well as in the matter of their ages. When we recall that the tablet was apparently written in the year 2170 B. C., it seems probable that it may be a source from which the Biblical names came.3. Comparison with Genesis 4.

But our examination of the matter cannot stop here. In Gen. 4:16-23 there is a list of the descendants of Cain strikingly similar to the list of the descendants of Seth in Genesis 5. If the names of Adam and Abel be supplied from Gen. 4:1,2, the two lists appear as follows:

The close parallelism of these two lists of names is really greater than it appears to the English reader to be. Cain, which means “artificer,” is in Hebrew the same word as Kenan, lacking only one formative letter at the end. Irad and Jared differ in Hebrew only by the wearing away of one consonant. Mehujael is as much like Mahalalel, and Methushael as much like Methuselah as the Assyrian name of Tiglath-pileser, Tukultu-apal-esharra, is like Tiglath-pileser, while Enoch and Lamech are the same.

The importance of this likeness arises from the fact that the so-called critical scholars claim that these two lists of names are in reality the same original list as it came through two lines of tradition and was worked up differently by two writers. This view has been vigorously opposed by some conservative scholars, notably by the late Professor Green, of Princeton.[388]

Between rival critical hypotheses it is not the function of archÆology to decide. It must be admitted, however, that the names of the descendants of Genesis 4 can be equated with those of our Babylonian kings, as well as those of Gen. 5. Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cain, Enoch, Mehujael, and Methushael would be derived exactly as it has been explained that the corresponding names of Genesis 5 could be derived. It only remains to explain the names Abel and Irad. It will be noticed that Abel occupies in the list a position next to Adam and Cain; Abel is also said to have been a shepherd. In the list of Babylonian kings Etana the shepherd comes in between AdimÊ (Aripi) and Pilikam, the equivalent of Cain. It is probable, therefore, that Etana is the king that corresponds to Abel. Etana is described in the Sumerian as “the shepherd who went to heaven,” SIBA LÙ AN-ŠU NI-IB-E-DA. If the two words SIBA LÙ became detached and misunderstood as a proper name, the s at the beginning, according to a well known phonetic law, could become h and give us the Hebrew Abel. Irad may also be ir-tu, a corruption of ZI-IR-TU, a name of the mother of Dumuzi, who may at times have been referred to as the son of ZI-IR-TU.[389] These possibilities are not proof that the names arose as suggested, but are not without weight.

If Abel arose from the traditions of Etana and Enoch did also, and if the names of Genesis 4 are derived from the list of Babylonian kings, then Etana figures twice in the fourth chapter of Genesis. If Enoch is a fragment of the name Enmeduranki, a possibility already recognized, it is not difficult to understand how Etana came into the tradition twice.

4. Comparison with the List of Berossos.

Another list of names awaits comparison. Berossos, a Babylonian priest who died about 260 B. C., compiled a list of kings who lived before the flood, and attributed to them incredibly long reigns. His work has not survived, but his list is quoted by two early Christian writers, Eusebius and Syncellus, and Hommel[390] and Sayce[391] have claimed that his names are, many of them, identical with the patriarchs of Genesis 5.

The list of Berossos is as follows:

It has long been recognized that Amelon is the Semitic Babylonian word amelu, “man.” It is a Babylonian synonym of Mutu-elu, the equivalent of Enosh, and is also a translation of Enmenunna. Ammenon has also been recognized as the Semitic Babylonian ummanu, “artisan.” It is a translation in one word of the Sumerian Pilikam.

Daonos or Daos has, too, been seen to be the phonetic transliteration into Greek letters of the Sumerian Dumu, the first part of the name Dumuzi.

Euedorachos has also been thought to be the Sumerian Enmeduranki, whom we have recognized as another name for Etana. Four of the names of Berossos are thus easily connected with names in the new list of kings.

The fifth one, Megalaros, might be a corruption either of Mutu-shalal or of Mutu-Ša-elu, and so go back ultimately either to Enmeirgan or to Meskingashir. Xisouthros is clearly the same person as Ziugiddu. He had no connection with this list of kings, but is, like Noah in Genesis 5, attached to it on account of the flood. Hommel long ago saw that Otiartes is the same as Ubara-tutu, who is said in the account of the deluge which was found at Nineveh to have been the father of Utnapishtim, the hero of the deluge.[392] Berossos has, accordingly, not only added the hero of the deluge, but has displaced one of the names from the king list in order to find a place for the father of Xisouthros.

The other names are puzzling. Poebel has suggested[393] that Alorus may be a Greek corruption of the Sumerian name Laluralim, who is said to have been a king of Nippur. An old text which contains this name[394] is accompanied by a gloss zugagib, “scorpion,”[395] and the first king in the list translated above is Zugagib. If, therefore, this suggestion is true, the name may go back to the same source as the others, after all.

Amempsinos has been thought by some to be a corruption of the well known Babylonian name Amil-Sin. There was an Amil-Sin in the first dynasty of Babylon, but why the name should be inserted here cannot at present be explained; nor has a satisfactory explanation been suggested for Alaparos.The above discussion may be summed up in a few words. The Babylonian list of kings with which this chapter begins makes no reference to the flood, neither does the fourth chapter of Genesis. All the names in Genesis 4 may be found in the Babylonian list, though Etana seems to have been inserted twice under different names. As Genesis 5 omits Abel, it has Etana only once. All the other names of Genesis 5, except Noah, are found in the Babylonian list. Noah has been added to connect the list with the flood. The ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 correspond approximately to the general lengths of the reigns assigned to the kings in the tablet. Berossos seems to have exercised much greater freedom, inserting several names, the origin of some of which cannot now be made out. He also greatly exaggerated the lengths of the kings’ reigns.

These correspondences are simply noted. It is but a few months since the writer discovered them, and he was the first to do so. It is too early to correctly estimate their ultimate significance. It should, however, be observed that the Biblical numbers (Gen. 5) lack the gross exaggerations of Berossos, and that, if the correspondences here pointed out are real, the tradition embodied in Genesis is carried back to a time from 800 to 1000 years earlier than Moses.