This focus upon human reproduction provides a direct link between the first and last main sections of the Atra-hasis Epic. The Creation story ends on the note of assistance to women who were to bear children. The Flood story ends with an explanation for women who would not bear children or who were to lose their children.
The book of Genesis has a similar link. At Creation Adam and Eve were told to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28). The same instructions were repeated to Noah’s family as they left the ark (Gen. 9:1). The more negative biblical note (which comes the closest to the statements at the end of the Atrahasis Flood story) occurs in the sentence upon Eve regarding the greater difficulty of childbirth after the fall (Gen. 3:16). Since no moral fall is present in Mesopotamian texts, this biblical negative side of childbearing appears to have been transposed to follow the Flood story. Atra-hasis’ “curse” upon the Babylonian Eves differs in content.
V. Comparisons
Comparisons can now be drawn between the contents of the two Creation-Flood stories: the Atra-hasis Epic and the Eridu Genesis.
While comparisons between individual segments are possible, it is difficult to compare the Creation stories of the Eridu Genesis and the Atra-hasis Epic, because that portion of the Eridu Genesis is missing and its contents can only be inferred from later passages. Both Flood stories are somewhat fragmentary but appear to be relatively close in content.
The greatest difference comes in the middle segment dealing with antediluvian life. The Sumerian source ? the Eridu Genesis ? provides a relatively optimistic view of this period, and its duration is framed in a long chronology. In contrast, the Semitic source ? the Atra-hasis Epic ? takes a more pessimistic view of man’s physical environment and frames its duration in a short chronology.
THE HEBREW CREATION-FLOOD STORY: GENESIS 1-9
I. Comparisons
Now lets look at a comparison of Gen 1-9 with the Creation-Flood stories discussed above with the approach being that of literary form and though. Each of the three main elements in the accounts can be compared individually with its counterpart in Genesis.
II. The Creation Story
It is difficult, if not impossible to compare the Creation narratives of Gen. 1-2 with the Eridu Genesis, because the latter portion is badly damaged. The main comparison therefore must come between Atra-hasis and Genesis.
In Atra-hasis several gods were involved in the project of Creation. When the lesser gods rebelled against Enlil after forty years of labor, man was created to remedy the conflict. The book of Genesis describes creation as the sole and undisputed work of the sovereign God Yahweh who rested from his work of creating, not from dredging rivers and canals. All the earth was fitted for man during the same week in which he was created.
There are also similarities. There is a similarity between the Sabbath and the sabbat (as touched on previously). Further comparison can be made between other aspects, e.g., the substance from which man was made. Both were formed essentially from the same material ? dust of the ground, or clay, and in both cases an element of the divine was incorporated into man at his creation. The modes were different, but a similar purpose was served.
Both accounts emphasize the creation of woman at the same time as man’s creation. In both cases male and female were made from the same material, but in the biblical account the Creation of woman was mediated through a part taken from man. The Creation story in the Eridu Genesis is more fragmentary, but we can infer that the animals were created with man. General parallels can be drawn between Atra-hasis and Gen 1, Gen 2A, and Gen. 2B. Both tell the story of man’s creation in more than one segment. This parallelism extends to the smaller units of the story. In Atra-hasis the divine council decided to make man, and the way in which Enki and Nintu were to accomplish this task was outlined specifically. This was repeated almost verbatim in the story of their accomplishment of the task.
Such repetition in Atra-hasis is another example of the writing style that is also found in Gen. 1-2. It is very noticable in the Gen 1 account of the acts of Creation on the first six days.
The Flood
It is difficult to get a proper comparison, because the Atra-hasis and Eridu extant copies are limited. The easiest comparison to the Biblical flood story is that of the Gilgamesh Epic. On the following page is a flood comparison chart that should be useful.
Biblical Genesis Eridu Genesis Atra-hasis Epic
1. The Flood was brought upon mankind by a decision of the God/gods + + +
2. This information was relayed to the Flood hero by God/a god + + +
3. The Flood hero was selected because he was righteous or a devotee of the gods + + +
4. The purpose of the Flood was to destroy mankind in general + + +
5. The Flood hero was given instructions on how to build his boat for escape + ? +
6. After completing the boat, the hero took his family and animals aboard + + +
7. The boat was caulked with pitch + ? +
8. The boat was roofed over in such a way that it limited the amount of sunlight admitted to it + + +
9. A special period of 7 days occurred just before or right at the beginning of the Flood + + +
10. Upon exiting from the boat the hero sacrificed to God/gods and his sacrifice was accepted + + +
It is obvious from this comparison chart that there is an astounding number of similarities between these different Creation/Flood accounts. It is important also to realize that the majority of this paper has dealt with the similarities and not many of the contrasts of the narrative accounts. Also, while there may be differences, there is no reason to think each is speaking of a different flood, but rather of the same flood, interpreted through each group?s ?own theology and worldview? As we enter into our study of the Biblical Genesis account of the flood, this understanding of other literature at the time, helps us make sense of the authorial intent. I think it is clear after looking at the similarities that the author had a theological purpose rather than a scientific one. Many times we interpret this portion of Genesis haphazardly. If we spend a little time to get familiar with critical scholarship , our own hermaneutical method would prove more honest and compelling.
Bibliography
footnotes included