Tablet XI.

Column I.

Column II.

Column III.

Column IV.

Column V.

Column VI.

The opening line of the next tablet is preserved, it reads: “The gad-fly in the house of the serving-man was left.” After this the story is again lost for several lines, and where it reappears Izdubar is mourning for Hea-bani.

The fragments of this tablet are:—

Column I.

(Several lines lost.)

This is the bottom of the first column. The next column has lost all the upper part: it appears to have contained the remainder of this lament, an appeal to one of the gods on behalf of Hea-bani, and a repetition of the lamentation, the third person being used instead of the second. The fragments commence in the middle of this:

Column III.

Column IV.

Here there is a serious blank in the inscription, about twenty lines being lost, and Mr. Smith has conjecturally inserted a fragment which appears to belong to this part of the narrative. It is very curious from the geographical names it contains.

The rest of Column IV. is lost, and of the next column there are only remains of the first two lines.

Column V.

Here there are about thirty lines missing, the story recommencing with Column VI., which is perfect.

Column VI.

Xisuthrus or Noah and Izdubar; from an Early Babylonian Cylinder.

This passage closes the great Epic of the ancient Chaldeans, which even in its present mutilated form is of the greatest importance in relation to the civilization, manners, and customs of that early people. The main feature in this part of the Izdubar legends is the description of the Flood in the eleventh tablet, which evidently refers to the same event as the Flood of Noah in Genesis.

The episode of the Flood has been introduced into the Izdubar Epic in accordance with the principle upon which it has been formed. The eleventh tablet or book answers to the sign of Aquarius and the month called “the rainy” by the Accadians, and it was therefore rightly occupied by the story of the Flood. The compiler of the Epic seems to have used for this purpose two independent poems relating to the event; at least it is otherwise difficult to account for the repetitions observable in certain lines which sometimes differ slightly from one another, as well as for certain inconsistencies which the skill of the compiler has not been able entirely to remove. Thus according to I. 13, the Deluge was caused by all “the great gods;” according to II. 30, by Samas only; according to IV. 4, 5, by Bel. There is little doubt that many independent versions of the history of the Deluge were current in a poetical form; indeed, a fragment of one of these, containing the original Accadian text along with the Assyrian translation has been preserved, and the version found in Berosus differs in several notable points from the version embodied in the great Chaldean Epic.

The fragment of the variant version of which the Accadian text has been preserved is as follows:—

If we compare the Babylonian account of the Deluge contained in the Epic with the account in Genesis we shall find some differences between them; but if we consider the differences that existed between the two countries of Palestine and Babylonia these variations do not appear greater than we should expect. Chaldea was essentially a mercantile and maritime country, well watered and flat, while Palestine was a hilly region with no great rivers, and the Jews were shut out from the coast, the maritime regions being mostly in the hands of the Philistines and Phœnicians. There was a total difference between the religious ideas of the two peoples, the Jews believing in one God, the creator and lord of the Universe, while the Babylonians worshipped gods and lords many, every city having its local deity, and these being joined by complicated relations in a poetical mythology, which was in marked contrast to the severe simplicity of the Jewish system. With such differences it was only natural that, in relating the same stories, each nation should colour them in accordance with its own ideas, and stress would naturally in each case be laid upon points with which they were familiar. Thus we should expect beforehand that there would be differences in the narrative such as we actually find, and we may also notice that the cuneiform account does not always coincide even with the account of the same events given by Berosus from Chaldean sources, from which, as already observed, we may infer that there was more than one version of the story of the Deluge current in Babylonia itself.

The great value of the inscriptions describing the Flood consists in the fact that they form an independent testimony to the Biblical narrative at a much earlier date than any other evidence. The principal points in the two narratives compared in their order will serve to show the correspondences and differences between the two. It must, however, be remembered that the Biblical narrative is composed of two different accounts of the Flood, generally known as the Elohistic and Jehovistic, and, as M. Lenormant has observed, it is with the union of the two in our present Hebrew text rather than with either one of them alone that the Babylonian version corresponds. The repetitions observable in the Hebrew text are not to be found in the cuneiform text.

Genesis:Babylonian
Elohist.Jehovist.Account.
1.Announcement of the Delugevi. 11-13.vi. 5-8.i. 12-23.
2.Command to build the arkvi. 14-16.i. 20-27.
3.What was to enter the arkvi. 19-21.vii. 2, 3.i. 41-43.
4.Size of the arkvi. 15, 16.i. 25, 26.
5.Speech of Xisuthrusi. 45-52.
6.The building of the arkvi. 22.vii. 5.ii. 2-24.
7.The coating within and without with bitumen.vi. 14.ii. 10, 11.
8.Food taken in the ark.vi. 21.ii. 12-20.
9.The coming of the Floodvii. 10-12.vii. 10.ii. 14, &c.
10.Destruction of the peoplevii. 21, 22.vii. 23.iii. 2-15.
11.Duration of the Delugevii. 12, 24.vii. 17.iii. 19-21.
12.Assuaging of the watersviii. 1.viii. 2.iii. 21-23.
13.Opening of windowviii. 6.iii. 27.
14.Ark rests on a mountainviii. 4.iii. 33-36.
15.Sending forth of the birdsviii. 6-12.iii. 38-44.
16.Order to leave the arkviii. 15-17.
17.Leaving the arkviii. 18, 19.iii. 45.
18.Building the altar and sacrificeviii. 20.iii. 46-48.
19.The savour of the offeringviii. 21.iii. 49.
20.A deluge not to happen againix. 11.viii. 21, 22.iv. 15-20.
21.The Covenantix. 9-11.iv. 26.
22.The rainbow a pledge of the covenantix. 13-17.iii. 51, 52.
23.The Deluge caused by the sin of menvi. 11-13.vi. 5-7.iv. 14, 15.
24.Noah saved by his righteousnessvi. 8., vii. 1.iv. 16.
25.The translation of the patriarch (in Genesis of Enoch)v. 24.iv. 28-30.

One of the first points that strike us on comparing the Biblical and cuneiform accounts together is that they both agree in representing the Flood as a punishment for the sins of mankind. This agreement is rendered remarkable by the absence of such a moral cause in the legends of a deluge current among other nations; it is wanting even in the version of the Babylonian account given by Berosus. Equally remarkable is the agreement of the two accounts in the narrative of the sending forth of the birds, two of which, the raven and the dove, are the same in both. Some of the actual phrases and words found in Genesis are also found in the cuneiform tablet; though sometimes they are modified, as when Genesis says of the entrance of Noah into the ark: “The Lord shut him in;” whereas in the Babylonian narrative the closing of the door is ascribed to Xisuthrus himself.

Positive discrepancies, however, occur between the two records. Thus they differ as regards the size of the ark. According to the cuneiform account, its length and breadth were in the proportion of ten to one and the height and breadth were the same; but the Bible makes the proportion as six to one, and describes the height as being thirty cubits and the breadth fifty. The version of the story given by Berosus, on the other hand, agrees in this matter neither with Genesis nor with the tablet from Erech. It measures the ark by stadia and not by cubits, makes the proportion of its length and breadth as five to two, and says nothing of the height.

Another difference may be found in the description of the patriarch who escapes the Flood. Xisuthrus is a king who enters the ark with his servants, people, and pilot, while in the Bible only Noah and his family are saved. So, too, no reference is made in the Babylonian account to the distinction between the clean and unclean animals mentioned by the Jehovist, though seven was a sacred number among the Babylonians. The most remarkable difference, however, between the two accounts is with respect to the duration of the Deluge. On this point the inscription gives seven days for the Flood, and seven days for the resting of the ark on the mountain, while the Elohist puts the commencement of the Flood on the 17th day of the second month (Marchesvan) and its termination on the 27th day of the second month in the following year, making a total duration of one lunar year and eleven days. This exactly accords with the climatic conditions of Babylonia, where the rains begin at the end of November. The Euphrates and Tigris then begin to rise, the country is inundated in March, the seventh month of the Hebrew narrative, and from the end of May onwards the waters go down. According to the Jehovist, however, the Deluge is announced to Noah only seven days before it takes place; the waters are at their height for forty days and then decrease during another forty days, after which the patriarch sends out the birds at intervals of seven days, so that it was not till twenty-one days after he has first opened the window that he finally leaves the ark. This is in practical agreement with the cuneiform account, since seven was a sacred number among the Babylonians just as forty is in the Old Testament. As M. Lenormant points out, the date of the 15th of Dæsius (or May) given by Berosus must be due to a scribe’s error, since this would place the Flood at a time when the waters were going down. There is again a difference as to the mountain on which the ark rested; Nizir, the place mentioned in the cuneiform text, being east of Assyria, and its mountain, also called “the mountain of the world” where the gods were supposed to dwell, being the present peak of Elwend, while the mountains of Ararat mentioned in the Bible were north of Assyria, near Lake Van. It is evident that different traditions have placed the mountain of the ark in totally different positions, and there is not positive proof as to which is the earlier traditionary spot. The word Ararat is connected with a word Urdhu, meaning “highland,” and might be a general term for any part of the hilly country to the north-east of Assyria.

It is interesting to find references in the Jehovistic account to the sacred Babylonian number seven and the seven-day week. Just as Xisuthrus set vessels by sevens on the altar of sacrifice, so Noah offered clean beasts and fowls which had been taken by sevens into the ark. And the narrative of the sending-out of the birds contains a clear reference to the seven-day week, which was known from very early times to the Accadians, who had named each day after one of the seven planets. The Sabbath also, which occurred on the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st and 28th days of the lunar month, was rigorously observed by them. They called it “a day of completion of labours,” or “a day unlawful to work upon,” and a sort of saints’ calendar for the month of the intercalatory Elul says that upon it “the shepherd of many peoples may not eat the flesh of birds (?) or cooked fruit. The garments of his body he must not change. White robes he may not put on. Sacrifice he may not offer. The king in his chariot may not ride. He may not legislate in royal fashion. A place of garrison the general by word of mouth may not appoint. Medicine for the sickness of the body one may not apply.” The very word Sabattu or Sabbath was used by the Assyrians, and a bilingual tablet explains it as “a day of rest for the heart.”

One striking difference between the descriptions of the Deluge given in the Old Testament and in the Epic of Izdubar is due to the fact that the Hebrews were an inland people, whereas the Accadians were a maritime, or rather fluviatile one. Hence it is that while the ark is called in the Babylonian version “a ship,” it is called têbâh, that is, “a coffer” in Genesis. In Genesis, too, nothing is said about launching the ark, testing its seaworthiness, or entrusting it to a pilot. However, the narrative in Genesis preserves a recollection of the bitumen for which the Babylonian plain was famous, and like the cuneiform narrative states that the ark was pitched.

Some of the other differences observable in the two accounts are evidently due to the opposite religious systems of the two countries, but there is again a curious point in connection with the close of the Chaldean legend: this is the translation of the hero of the Flood.

In the Book of Genesis it is not Noah but the seventh patriarch Enoch who is translated, three generations before the Flood.

There appears to have been some connection or confusion between Enoch and Noah in ancient tradition; both are holy men, and Enoch is said, like Noah, to have predicted the Flood.

It is a curious fact that the dynasty of gods, with which Egyptian mythical history commences, resembles in some respects the list of antediluvian kings of Babylonia given by Berosus as well as the list of antediluvian patriarchs in Genesis.

This dynasty has sometimes seven, sometimes ten reigns, and in the Turin Papyrus of kings, which gives ten reigns, there is the same name for the seventh and tenth kings, both being called Horus, and the seventh king is stated to have reigned 300 years, which is the length of life of the seventh patriarch Enoch after the birth of his son.

Here are the three lists of Egyptian gods, Hebrew patriarchs, and Chaldean kings.

Egypt.Patriarchs.Chaldean Kings.
Ptah.Adam.Alorus.
Ra.Seth.Alaparus.
Su.Enos.Almelon.
Seb.Cainan.Ammenon.
Hosiri.Mahalaleel.Amegalarus.
Set.Jared.Daonus. (Dun in the inscriptions.)
Hor.Enoch.Ædorachus.
Tut.Methuselah.Amempsin.
Ma.Lamech.Otiartes (Opartes).
Hor.Noah.Xisuthrus.

It is well known that Enos, like Adam, signifies “man;” hence some writers have supposed that the list of Noah’s ancestors was originally counted from Enos, so that Lamech, Noah’s father, would have been the seventh in descent. There is, moreover, a curious resemblance between the names of the descendants of Seth and those of the descendants of Cain, Methuselah, indeed, being apparently more correctly written Methusael (Gen. iv. 18), which is the Assyrian Mutu-sa-ili, “Man of God.” Now Lamech, the descendant of Cain, is the seventh from Adam. It may be noticed that Irad or Jared is the same word as the Assyrian Arad, “servant,” and Arad or Ardutu is the Assyrian rendering of the Accadian Ubara, the first part of the name of the father of Xisuthrus, who is actually called Ardates by Abydenus.

Mr. George Smith believed that the real connection between the traditions of Babylonia and Palestine would never be cleared up until the literature of the Syrian population which intervened is recovered. It is very possible that light may be thrown upon the question by the excavations now being made at Jerablus, the site of Carchemish, the capital of the ancient Hittites. Terah may be the same word as Tarkhu, who seems to have been worshipped as a god by the Hittites; and Lucian has preserved a legend of the Flood and the patriarch Sisythes, who is evidently the Xisuthrus of the Babylonians, which was current at Hierapolis or Mabug, a little to the south of Jerablus. In this legend the ark has become a coffer, Sisythes and his family are alone preserved, and the Flood was sent to punish the wickedness of mankind.

There is one point which still deserves notice: these traditions are not fixed to any localities in or near Palestine, but even on the showing of the Jews themselves, belong to the neighbourhood of the Euphrates valley, and Babylonia in particular; this of course is clearly stated in the Babylonian inscriptions and traditions.

Eden, according even to the Jews, was by the Euphrates and Tigris; the cities of Babylon, Larancha, and Sippara were supposed by the Babylonians to have been founded before the Flood. Surippak was the city of the ark, the mountains east of the Tigris were the resting-place of the ark, Babylon was the site of the tower, and Ur of the Chaldees the birthplace of Abraham. These facts and the further statement that Abraham, the father and first leader of the Hebrew race, migrated from Ur to Harran in Syria, and from thence to Palestine, are all so much evidence in favour of the hypothesis that Chaldea was the original home of these stories, and that the Jews received them originally from the Babylonians; but on the other hand there are such striking differences in some parts of the legends, particularly in the names of the patriarchs before the Flood, that it is evident further information is required before we can determine how or when they were received by the Jews.

To pass, now, to the twelfth tablet of the Izdubar Epic, a curious fragment has been provisionally placed by Mr. Smith in the fourth column, in which Izdubar appears to call on his cities to mourn with him for his friend. This tablet is remarkable for the number of cities mentioned as already existing in the time of Izdubar. Combining this notice with other early inscriptions, the statements of Berosus and the notice of the cities of Nimrod in Genesis, we get the following list of the oldest known cities in the Euphrates valley:—

To these we may also add the great cities of Assyria:—

So far as the various statements go, all these cities and probably many others were in existence in the time of Nimrod, and some of them even before the Flood; the fact that the Babylonians four thousand years ago believed their cities to be of such antiquity, shows that they were not recent foundations, and the attainments of the people at that time in the arts and sciences prove that their civilization had already known ages of progress. The legendary epoch of Izdubar must be considered at present as the commencement of the united monarchy in Babylonia, and as marking the first of the series of great conquests in Western Asia; but how far back we have to go from our earliest known monuments to reach this era we cannot now tell.

Every nation has its hero, and it was only natural that when the Accadian kings of Ur at last succeeded in establishing an united empire throughout Babylonia, the legends of the national hero should be coloured by the new conception of imperial unity.

Chapter XVII.
CONCLUSION.

Notices of Genesis.—Correspondence of names.—Abram.—Ur of Chaldees.—Ishmael.—Sargon of Agané.—His birth.—Concealed in ark.—Creation.—Garden of Eden.—Oannes.—Berosus.—Izdubar legends.—Babylonian seals.—Egyptian names.—Assyrian sculptures.

Scattered through various cuneiform inscriptions are other notices, names, or passages, connected with the Book of Genesis. Although the names of the Genesis patriarchs are not in the inscriptions which give the history of the mythical period, nevertheless some of the patriarchal names of Genesis are found here and there in the inscriptions.

The name Adam is in the Creation legends, but only in a general sense as man, as in Gen. i. 26, 27, 28.; v. 1, not as a proper name. Several of the other names of antediluvian patriarchs correspond with Babylonian words and roots, such as Methusael (Gen. iv. 18), which is the Assyrian mutu-sa-ili, “man of God,” and has been changed into Methuselah (Gen. v. 21) in order to assimilate it to the genius of the Hebrew language, or Noah, the Assyrian nukhu, “rest;” but, besides these, certain names appear as proper names also in Babylonia, among them Cainan, Lamech, and Laban.

Cainan is found as the name of a Babylonian town Kan-nan; the inhabitants of which were sometimes called Kanunai, which must not be confounded with the name of the Canaanites or “lowlanders,” originally the inhabitants of the coastland of Phœnicia and then, by extension, of all Palestine.

Lamech has already been pointed out by Palmer (“Egyptian Chronicles,” vol. i. p. 56), in the name of the deified Phœnician patriarch Diamich; this name is found in the cuneiform texts as Dumugu and Lamga, two forms of the Accadian name of the moon.

The two wives of Lamech, Adah and Zillah, seem to be the Assyrian edhutu or edhatu “darkness,” and tsillatu “the shades of night;” and the names of his two sons Jabal and Jubal are but varying forms of the Assyrian abil “son.” Dr. Oppert long ago pointed out that this Assyrian word was the origin of the name Abel which has been assimilated in spelling to a Hebrew word signifying “mere breath.”

Some of the names of the patriarchs after the Flood are found as names of towns in Syria, but not in Babylonia; among these are Reu or Ragu, Serug, and Harran.

Laban, on the other hand, as was first noticed by Dr. Delitzsch, is mentioned in a list of gods given in a cuneiform tablet (published in the “Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia,” iii. 66, 6.)

Mugheir, the site of Ur of the Chaldees.

The name of Abramu or Abram is found in the Assyrian inscriptions in the time of Esarhaddon. After the captivity of the ten tribes, some of the Israelites prospered in Assyria, and rose to positions of trust in the empire. Abram was one of these, he was sukulu rabu or “great attendant” of Esarhaddon, and was eponym in Assyria, B.C. 677. Various other Hebrew names are found in Assyria about this time, including Pekah, Hoshea, and several compounded with the two Divine names Elohim and Jehovah, showing that both these names were in use among the Israelites. The presence of proper names founded on the Genesis stories, like Abram, and the use at this time of these forms of the Divine name, should be taken into consideration in discussing the evidence of the antiquity of Genesis.

Ur, now represented by the mounds of Mugheir, on the western bank of the Euphrates to the south of Babylon, was the capital of the earliest Accadian dynasty with which we are acquainted. It was specially devoted to the worship of the moon-god, the ruins of whose temple have been discovered there. Ur was the birthplace of Abraham, in whom we must see one of those Semitic intruders who settled among the Accadians, and after adopting their culture and civilization finally succeeded in overcoming and supplanting them. It is probable that it is called Ur Casdim, “Ur of the Casdim,” in Genesis only proleptically, since Casdim appears to be the representative of an Assyrian word meaning “conquerors”—a suitable epithet for the Semitic tribes after their conquest of Babylonia. The Greek names Chaldean and Chaldea are of much later date, being derived from the Kaldai, a small tribe settled on the Persian Gulf and first mentioned in the ninth century B.C., who under Merodach-Baladan (B.C. 721-709) possessed themselves of Babylonia and became so integral a portion of its inhabitants as to give their name to the whole of them in classical times.

Some of the Genesis names are found at a comparatively early date, the first which appears on a contemporary monument being Ishmael. In the reign of Khammuragas among the witnesses to some documents at Larsa in Babylonia, appears a man named “Abuha son of Ishmael.”

After the time of Abraham the book of Genesis is concerned with the affairs of Palestine, and of the countries in its immediate vicinity, and it has no connection with Babylonian history and traditions; however, the cuneiform records contain one story which has a striking likeness to that of Moses in the ark, and which, although not within the period covered by Genesis, is of great interest in connection with the early history of the Jews.

Sargina or Sargon I. was a Babylonian monarch who reigned in the city of Agané about B.C. 1800. The name of Sargon signifies the right, true, or legitimate king, and may have been assumed on his ascending the throne. Sargon was probably of obscure origin, and hence the myth that attached itself to him in later popular belief. This curious story is found on fragments of tablets from Kouyunjik, and reads as follows:

After this follows an address to any king who should at a later time notice the inscription.

This myth is but a repetition of the oft-told story, how the hero of noble birth is born in secret, is exposed to death, but is rescued and brought up in a humble sphere of life until the time comes when his true origin and character are revealed, and he becomes a mighty prince and conqueror. The legend was told of Perseus in Greece, of Romulus in Italy, of Cyrus in Persia. But just as Cyrus was a real personage upon whom the legend was fastened, so too Sargon was a real personage, who founded the great library of Agané, and extended his conquests as far as the island of Cyprus, which he conquered in the third year of his reign.

The most hazardous of the theories put forward in the preceding chapters is the one which identifies Izdubar with Nimrod, and makes him reign in the legendary period of Babylonian history. This theory is founded on several plausible, but probably merely superficial grounds; and if any one accepts Mr. Smith’s view on the point, it will be only for similar reasons to those which caused him to propose it; namely, because, failing this, we have no clue whatever to the age and position of the most famous hero in Oriental tradition.

We must never lose sight of the fact that, apart from the more perfect and main parts of these texts, both in the decipherment of the broken fragments and in the various theories projected respecting them, the Assyrian scholar must change his opinions many times, and no doubt any accession of new material would change again our views respecting the parts affected by it. These theories and conclusions, however, although not always correct, have, on their way, assisted the inquiry, and have led to the more accurate knowledge of the texts; for certainly in cuneiform matters we have often had to advance through error to truth.

In adopting Mr. Smith’s theory for the position of Nimrod, one thing is certainly clear: he is placed as low in the chronology as it is possible to make him.

The stories and myths given in the foregoing pages have, probably, very different values; some are genuine traditions—some compiled to account for natural phenomena, and some pure romances. At the head of their history and traditions the Babylonians placed an account of the creation of the world; and, although different forms of this story were current, in certain features they all agreed. Beside the account of the present animals, they related the creation of legions of monster forms which disappeared before the human epoch, and they accounted for the great problem of humanity—the presence of evil in the world—by making out that it proceeded from the original chaos, the spirit of confusion and darkness, which was the origin of all things, and which was even older than the gods.

The principal story of the Creation, given in Chapter V., substantially agrees, as far as it is preserved, with the Biblical account. According to it, there was a chaos of watery matter before the Creation, and from this all things were generated.

We have then a considerable blank, the contents of which we can only conjecture, and after this we come to the creation of the heavenly orbs.

The fifth tablet in the series relates how God created the constellations of the stars, the signs of the zodiac, the planets and other stars, the moon and the sun. After another blank we have a fragment which relates to the creation of wild and domestic animals; it is curious here that the original taming of domestic animals was even then so far back in the history of the race that all knowledge of it was lost, and the “animals of the city,” or domestic animals, were considered different creations from the “animals of the desert,” or “field,” or wild animals.

We next come to the war between the dragon and powers of evil, or chaos, on one side and the gods on the other. The gods have weapons forged for them, and Merodach undertakes to lead the heavenly host against the dragon. The war, which is described with spirit, ends of course in the triumph of the principle of good, and the overthrow of primeval anarchy.

In Chapter V. another account of the Creation is given which differs materially from the first. The principal feature in the second account is the description of the eagle-headed men with their family of leaders—this legend clearly showing the origin of the eagle-headed figures represented on the Assyrian sculptures.

It is probable that some of these Babylonian legends contained detailed descriptions of the Garden of Eden, which seems to have been the district of Eridu in the south of Babylonia, as Sir Henry Rawlinson believes.

There are coincidences in respect to the geography of the region and its name which render the identification very probable; of the four rivers in each case, two, the Euphrates and Tigris, are identical; then, again, the known fertility of the region, its name sometimes Gan-duni, so similar to Gan-eden (the Garden of Eden), and other considerations, all tend towards the view that it is the Paradise of Genesis.

There are evidences of the belief in the tree of life, which is one of the most common emblems on the seals and larger sculptures, and is even used as an ornament on dresses; a sacred tree is also several times mentioned in the legends and hymns, but at present there is no direct connection known between the tree and the Fall, although the gem engravings render it very probable that there was a legend of this kind like the one in Genesis.

In the history of Berosus mention is made of a composite being, half man, half fish, named Oannes, who was supposed to have appeared out of the sea and to have taught the Babylonians all their learning. The Babylonian and Assyrian sculptures have made us familiar with the figure of Oannes, and have so far given evidence that Berosus has truly described this mythological figure; but it is a curious fact that the legend of Oannes, which must have been one of the Babylonian stories of the Creation, has not yet been recovered. In fact, as previously noticed (p. 12), there is only one fragment which can be at all referred to it, and this has been accidentally preserved among a series of extracts from various Accadian works in a bilingual reading-book compiled for the use of Assyrian students of Accadian. The fragment is as follows:—

Oannes. From Nimroud Sculpture.

The legend of Oannes, whose name may possibly be the Accadian Hea-khan, “Hea the fish,” concerned the Babylonians only, and so did not interest the Assyrians, who did not care to have it in their libraries.

Besides the legend of Oannes, however, there are evidently many stories of early times still unknown, or only known by mere fragments or allusions.

The fables given in Chapter IX. form a series quite different in character from the legends, and the only excuse for inserting them here is the need of exhibiting as clearly and fully as possible the literature of the great epoch which produced the Genesis tablets.

Most of the other stories apparently relate to the great period before the Flood, when celestial visitors came to and from the earth, and the inhabitants of the world were very distinctly divided into the good and bad, but the stories are only fables with a moral attached, and have little connection with Babylonian history.

Two of these stories are very curious, and may hereafter turn out to be of great importance; one is the story of the sin committed by the god Zu, and the other the story of Atarpi.

Berosus in his history has given an account of ten Chaldean kings who reigned before the Flood, and the close of this period is well known from the descriptions of the Deluge in the Bible, the Deluge tablet, and the work of the Greek writer. According to Berosus several of the Babylonian cities were built before the Flood, and various arts were known, including writing. The enormous reigns given by Berosus to his ten kings, making a total of 432,000 years, force us to discard the idea that the details are historical, although there may be some foundation for his statement of a civilization before the Deluge. The details given in the inscriptions describing the Flood leave no doubt that both the Bible and the Babylonian story describe the same event, and the Flood becomes the starting-point for the modern world in both histories. According to Berosus 86 kings reigned for 34,080 years after the Flood down to the Median conquest. If these kings are historical, it is doubtful if they formed a continuous line, and they could scarcely cover a longer period than 2,000 years. The Median or Elamite conquest took place about B.C. 2700, and, if we allow the round number 2,000 years for the previous period, it will make the Flood fall about B.C. 4700. In a fragmentary inscription with a list of Babylonian kings, some names are given which appear to belong to the 86 kings of Berosus, but our information about this period is so scanty that nothing can be said about this dynasty, and a suggestion as to the date of the Deluge must be received with more than the usual grain of salt.

We can see, however, that there was a civilized race in Babylonia before the Median Conquest, the progress of which must have received a rude shock when the country was overrun by the uncivilized Eastern borderers.

Among the fragmentary notices of this semi-mythical period is the portion of the inscription describing the building of the Tower of Babel and the dispersion.

It is probable from the fragments of Berosus that the incursions and dominion of the Median Elamites lasted about two hundred years, during which the country suffered greatly from them.

The legends of Izdubar or Nimrod commence with a description of the evils brought upon Babylonia by foreign invasion, the conquest and sacking of the city of Erech being one of the incidents in the story. Izdubar, a famous hunter, who claimed descent from a long line of kings, reaching up to the time of the Flood, now comes forward; he has a dream, and after much trouble a half-human creature named Hea-bani is persuaded by Zaidu, the hunter, and two females, to come to Erech and interpret the dream of Izdubar. Hea-bani, having heard the fame of Izdubar, brings to Erech a midannu or tiger to test his strength, and Izdubar slays it. After these things, Izdubar and Hea-bani become friends, and, having invoked the gods, they start to attack the tyrant Khumbaba. Khumbaba dwelt in a thick forest, surrounded by a wall, and here he was visited by the two friends, who slew him and carried off his spoils.

Izdubar was now proclaimed king, and extended his authority over the Babylonian world, his court and palace being at Erech. The goddess Istar, daughter of Anu according to one myth, of Bel according to another, of Sin, the moon god, according to a third, who had loved the shepherd Tammuz, the Sun-god, fell in love with Izdubar. He refused her offers, and the goddess, angry at his answer, ascended to heaven and petitioned her father Anu to create a bull for her, to be an instrument of her vengeance. Anu complied, and created the bull, on which Izdubar and Hea-bani collected a band of warriors and went against it. Hea-bani took hold of the animal by its head and tail, while Izdubar slew it.

Istar on this cursed Izdubar, and descended to Hades to attempt once more to summon unearthly powers against the hero. She descends to the infernal regions, which are vividly described, and, passing through their seven gates, is ushered into the presence of the queen of the dead. The world of love goes wrong in the absence of Istar, and on the petition of the gods she is once more brought to the earth, ultimately Anatu, her mother, satisfying her vengeance by striking Izdubar with a loathsome disease.

Hea-bani, the friend of Izdubar, is now killed, and Izdubar, mourning his double affliction, abandons his kingdom and wanders into the desert to seek the advice of Xisuthrus his ancestor, who had been translated for his piety and now dwelt with the gods.

Izdubar now had a dream, and after this wandered to the region where gigantic composite monsters held and controlled the rising and setting sun: from these he learned the road to the region of the blessed, and, passing across a great waste of sand, arrived at a region where splendid trees were laden with jewels instead of fruit.

Izdubar then met two females, named Siduri and Sabitu, after an adventure with whom he found a boatman named Nes-Hea, who undertook to navigate him to the region where Xisuthrus dwelt.

Coming near the dwelling of the blessed, he found it surrounded by the waters of death, which he had to cross in order to reach the land of which he was in search.

On arriving at the other side, Izdubar was met by Mu-seri-ina-namari, “the waters of dawn at daybreak,” who engaged him in conversation about Hea-bani, and then Xisuthrus, taking up the conversation, described to him the Deluge. Izdubar was afterwards cured of his illness and returned with Nes-Hea to Erech, where he mourned anew for his friend Hea-bani, and on intercession with the gods the ghost of Hea-bani arose from the ground where the body had lain.

The details of this story, and especially the accounts of the regions inhabited by the dead, are very striking, and illustrate, in a wonderful manner, the religious views of the people.

It is worth while here to pause, and consider the evidence of the existence of the legends recounted in the preceding pages from the close of the mythical period down to the seventh century B.C.

We have first the seals: of these there are some hundreds in European museums, and among the earliest are many specimens carved with scenes from the Genesis legends; some of these are a good deal older than B.C. 2000, others may be ranged at various dates down to B.C. 1500.

With three exceptions, which are of Assyrian origin, all the seals engraved in the present volume are Babylonian. One very fine and early example is photographed as the frontispiece of the book. The character and style of the cuneiform legend which accompanies this shows it to be one of the most ancient specimens; it is engraved on a hard jasper cylinder in bold style, and is a remarkable example of early Babylonian art. Many other similar cylinders of the same period are known; the relief on them is bolder than on the later seals, on which from about B.C. 1600 or 1700, a change in the inscriptions becomes general.

The numerous illustrations to the present work, which have been collected from these early Babylonian seals, will serve to show that the legends were well known, and formed part of the literature of the country before the second millennium B.C.

After B.C. 1500, the literature of Babylonia is unknown, and we lose sight of all evidence of its legends for some centuries. In the meantime Egypt supplies a few notices bearing on the subject, which serve to show that knowledge of them was still kept up. Nearly thirteen hundred years before the Christian era one of the Egyptian poems likens a hero to the Assyrian chief, Kazartu, a great hunter. Kazartu probably means a “strong” or “powerful” one, and it has already been suggested that the reference is to the hero Nimrod. A little later, in the period extending from B.C. 1000 to 800, we have in Egypt several persons named Namurot, which seems to be an echo of the name of the mighty hunter.

On the revival of the Assyrian empire, about B.C. 990, we come again to numerous references to the Genesis legends, and these continue through almost every reign down to the close of the empire. The Assyrians carved the sacred tree and cherubim on their walls, they depicted in the temples the struggle between Merodach and the dragon, they decorated their portals with the figure of Izdubar strangling a lion, and carved the struggles of Izdubar and Hea-bani with the lion and the bull even on their stone vases.

Just as the sculptures of the Greek temples, the paintings on the vases and the carving on their gems were taken from their myths and legends, so the series of myths and legends belonging to the valley of the Euphrates furnished materials for the sculptor, the engraver, and the painter, among the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians.

In this way we have continued evidence of the existence of these legends down to the time of Assur-bani-pal, B.C. 673 to 626, who caused the present known copies to be made for his library at Nineveh.

Search in Babylonia would, no doubt, yield much earlier copies of all these works, but that search has not yet been instituted, and for the present we have to be contented with our Assyrian copies. Looking, however, at the world-wide interest of the subjects, and at the important evidence which perfect copies of these works would undoubtedly give, there can be no doubt that further progress will be made in research and discovery, and that all that is here written will one day be superseded by newer texts and fuller and more perfect light.