Atrahasis Epic (D. D. Luckenbill, 1923)

About this edition. This historical transcription follows an online presentation of early flood-text translations. It has not yet been collated against the original printed edition. Gaps and original line references are preserved; distinct translations and related accounts are catalogued separately.

Scholarly introduction

BY D. D. LUCKENBILL
University of Chicago

In a much advertised volume Professor Clay has given us a new edition of a well-known text, from a thoroughly cleaned original. For this we are thankful. He has also given us excellent photographs of the tablet. For which we are grateful. He has furnished a translation and commentary. This we deplore. Over the translation, page 58, stands the title “An Early Version of the Atra-hasis Epic,” which adequately describes the text. On the title-page this becomes  A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform , which is a misnomer.
We are to believe that this is a copy of an older version, dating from perhaps 4000 в.с. This is an excellent date for the “Empire of the Amorites.” If Amurru were to be located on the moon, it would  be  even more difficult for the doubting Thomases to pick flaws.
Is it a Hebrew story translated into Babylonian, or a Hebrew text in cuneiform characters? This point is not made quite clear. The scribe seems to have had a good Babylonian name, which does not necessarily prove that he was no “Amorite.” The language he uses seems to the writer to differ little from that of the contemporaneous Babylonian literature. It is Babylonian. And we know from the personal names brought into Babylonia in First Dynasty times that the language of Syria had already in those days developed the characteristic “western” forms which it displays in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. That the Hebrew lexicon has been and is useful in the decipherment of the cuneiform and in the reclaiming of the Babylonian tongue, everybody admits. So have those of the Arabic, Aramaic, and Syriac tongues. But from this we can draw hardly any conclusions of a historical nature. The grammatical structure of a language does permit one to draw some few historical inferences. Professor Clay tells us that this or that word “is not current in Akkadian.” Well, what of it? The Babylonian syllabaries are full of words which are not current in the language. How many times must a word be used to be rated as “current in Akkadian”? Do ἅπαξ λεγόμενα always indicate that the piece of literature containing them is a translation from a foreign tongue? Was the Book of Job translated from the Amorite?
If  iqtabta  ”seems to be from the root יעקב” (p. 58), and  ișabata  from “the well known Hebrew root עצב” (p. 65), why does not Professor Clay construe these forms for us? On page 24 we are informed that “ sussullu,  ’basket’ (E, 68) was not used in Akkadian but it is found in Hebrew, see Jer. 6:9.” We need not stop to decide whether סַלְסְלוֹת of Jer. 6:9, a ἅπαξ  λεγόμενον , means “baskets” or “shoots,” or whether it is the same word as  sussulu , but if Professor Clay had consulted Muss-Arnolt’s  Dictionary , page 774b, or Delitzsch’s  Sumerisches Glossar , page 70, he would have found this word decidedly more current in Akkadian than in Hebrew. In a footnote to page 78 we are told that “all translators” translate  û - ma  (var.  ta-ma-ta ) of E, 133, by “day.” Ungnad,  Texte und Bilder , page 54, translates it “Wetter”; Rogers,  Cuneiform Parallels , page 96, “sea.” Examples might be multiplied almost indefinitely; but those we have given will suffice to show the philological methods applied to good Babylonian texts to make them “Amorite.”
I here offer a translation of the text, assuming that it is good Babylonian. (The publication of an Amorite grammar and lexicon may cause me to change my opinion.) I have used the photographs in several doubtful passages, well aware that this is hazardous. Restorations are offered as such. From them I do not attempt to prove anything. There are many  lacunae  in the text, which fact makes the interpretation of what is left doubtful at many points.

COLUMN I

1. There came no [destroyer] of seed(?).
2. The land prospered, the people multiplied,
3. the land becoming sated (waxing fat) like cattle.
4. The god became disturbed by their (the people’s) numbers (size),
5. the god heard their clamor,
6. (and) said to the great gods:
7. “Great has become the clamor of men:
8. because of their numbers, I(?) will proclaim a dispersion(?).
9. Let the fig-tree be cut off for the people;
10. from their fields let them carry off the plants (let vegetation be
cut off).
11. Above let Adad withhold his rains.
12. Below, let not the waters (springs) flow;
13. let not the floods rise from the depth(s).
14. Let the wind come,
15. let it burst through the underworld.
16. Let the ________ and
17. ______ not gush forth.
18. Let the field diminish its products;
19. Let Nisaba (_____ vegetation) be restrained.

COLUMN II

1–3. . . . . . . . .
4. In the morning let him rain down pestilence,
5. at night let him make gifts of . . .
6. Let him rain . . .
7. The field, like a thief . . .
8. Of Adad, in the city they made his . . . .
9. They spoke and cried out (?) . . . .
10. They sent up a cry . . . .
11. They feared not . . . .

COLUMN III

1. Ea . . . .
2. Ea . . . .
3. Ea (opened) his mouth
4. (and) spoke to Enlil:
5. “Why hast thou commanded . . . . ?
6. I will stretch forth my hand to . . . .
7. The flood which thou art ordering . . . .
8. Whoever (whatever) it is, I will . . . .
9. yea, I will bring forth (beget) [a new race of men(?)]
10. His work he (it) . . . . .
11. Let them see(?) . . . . .
12. Shullat and . . . . .
13. Let them go in . . . . .
14. the masts(?) . . . . .
15. Let them go . . . . .
16. let them . . . . .

COLUMN IV

1–2. . . . .
3. . . . . for the people he made.
4. Atrahasis opened his mouth
5. and spoke to his lord.