[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Andthis conclusion is further supported (a) by the occurrence throughoutthe text of the attested Sumerian equivalent of the Semitic word,employed in the Babylonian Versions, for the "Flood" or "Deluge", and(b) by the use of precisely the same term for the hero's "great boat",which is already familiar to us from an early Babylonian Version.(ii) The close correspondence in language between portions of theSumerian legend and the Gilgamesh Epic suggest that the one versionwas ultimately derived from the other.And this conclusion in its turnis confirmed (a) by the identity in meaning of the Sumerian andBabylonian names for the Deluge hero, which are actually found equatedin a late explanatory text, and (b) by small points of difference inthe Babylonian form of the story which correspond to later politicaland religious developments and suggest the work of Semitic redactors.The cumulative effect of such general and detailed evidence isoverwhelming, and we may dismiss all doubts as to the validity of Dr.Poebel's claim.We have indeed recovered a very early, and in some ofits features a very primitive, form of the Deluge narrative which tillnow has reached us only in Semitic and Greek renderings; and thestream of tradition has been tapped at a point far above any at whichwe have hitherto approached it.What evidence, we may ask, does thisearly Sumerian Version offer with regard to the origin and literaryhistory of the Hebrew Versions?The general dependence of the biblical Versions upon the Babylonianlegend as a whole has long been recognized, and needs no furtherdemonstration; and it has already been observed that the parallelismswith the version in the Gilgamesh Epic are on the whole more detailedand striking in the earlier than in the later Hebrew Version.[1] Inthe course of our analysis of the Sumerian text its more strikingGet any book for free on: www.Abika.com LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT76points of agreement or divergence, in relation to the Hebrew Versions,were noted under the different sections of its narrative.It was alsoobvious that, in many features in which the Hebrew Versions differfrom the Gilgamesh Epic, the latter finds Sumerian support.Thesefacts confirm the conclusion, which we should naturally base ongrounds of historical probability, that while the Semitic-BabylonianVersions were derived from Sumer, the Hebrew accounts were equallyclearly derived from Babylon.But there are one or two pieces ofevidence which are apparently at variance with this conclusion, andthese call for some explanation.[1] For details see especially Skinner, /Genesis/, pp.177 ff.Not too much significance should be attached to the apparent omissionof the episode of the birds from the Sumerian narrative, in which itwould agree with the later as against the earlier Hebrew Version; for,apart from its epitomized character, there is so much missing from thetext that the absence of this episode cannot be regarded asestablished with certainty.And in any case it could be balanced bythe Sumerian order of Creation of men before animals, which agreeswith the earlier Hebrew Version against the later.But there is onevery striking point in which our new Sumerian text agrees with boththe Hebrew Versions as against the Gilgamesh Epic and Berossus; andthat is in the character of Ziusudu, which presents so close aparallel to the piety of Noah.As we have already seen, the latter isdue to no Hebrew idealization of the story, but represents a genuinestrand of the original tradition, which is completely absent from theBabylonian Versions.But the Babylonian Versions are the media throughwhich it has generally been assumed that the tradition of the Delugereached the Hebrews.What explanation have we of this fact?This grouping of Sumerian and Hebrew authorities, against the extantsources from Babylon, is emphasized by the general framework of theSumerian story.For the literary connexion which we have in Genesisbetween the Creation and the Deluge narratives has hitherto found noparallel in the cuneiform texts.In Babylon and Assyria the myth ofCreation and the Deluge legend have been divorced.From the one acomplete epic has been evolved in accordance with the tenets ofBabylonian theology, the Creation myth being combined in the processwith other myths of a somewhat analogous character.The Deluge legendhas survived as an isolated story in more than one setting, theprincipal Semitic Version being recounted to the national heroGilgamesh, towards the close of the composite epic of his adventureswhich grew up around the nucleus of his name.It is one of the chiefsurprises of the newly discovered Sumerian Version that the Hebrewconnexion of the narratives is seen to be on the lines of veryprimitive tradition.Noah's reputation for piety does not stand alone.His line of descent from Adam, and the thread of narrative connectingthe creation of the world with its partial destruction by the Deluge,already appear in Sumerian form at a time when the city of Babylonitself had not secured its later power.How then are we to account forthis correspondence of Sumerian and Hebrew traditions, on pointscompletely wanting in our intermediate authorities, from which,however, other evidence suggests that the Hebrew narratives werederived?At the risk of anticipating some of the conclusions to be drawn in theGet any book for free on: www.Abika.com LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT77next lecture, it may be well to define an answer now.It is possiblethat those who still accept the traditional authorship of thePentateuch may be inclined to see in this correspondence of Hebrew andSumerian ideas a confirmation of their own hypothesis.But it shouldbe pointed out at once that this is not an inevitable deduction fromthe evidence [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.Andthis conclusion is further supported (a) by the occurrence throughoutthe text of the attested Sumerian equivalent of the Semitic word,employed in the Babylonian Versions, for the "Flood" or "Deluge", and(b) by the use of precisely the same term for the hero's "great boat",which is already familiar to us from an early Babylonian Version.(ii) The close correspondence in language between portions of theSumerian legend and the Gilgamesh Epic suggest that the one versionwas ultimately derived from the other.And this conclusion in its turnis confirmed (a) by the identity in meaning of the Sumerian andBabylonian names for the Deluge hero, which are actually found equatedin a late explanatory text, and (b) by small points of difference inthe Babylonian form of the story which correspond to later politicaland religious developments and suggest the work of Semitic redactors.The cumulative effect of such general and detailed evidence isoverwhelming, and we may dismiss all doubts as to the validity of Dr.Poebel's claim.We have indeed recovered a very early, and in some ofits features a very primitive, form of the Deluge narrative which tillnow has reached us only in Semitic and Greek renderings; and thestream of tradition has been tapped at a point far above any at whichwe have hitherto approached it.What evidence, we may ask, does thisearly Sumerian Version offer with regard to the origin and literaryhistory of the Hebrew Versions?The general dependence of the biblical Versions upon the Babylonianlegend as a whole has long been recognized, and needs no furtherdemonstration; and it has already been observed that the parallelismswith the version in the Gilgamesh Epic are on the whole more detailedand striking in the earlier than in the later Hebrew Version.[1] Inthe course of our analysis of the Sumerian text its more strikingGet any book for free on: www.Abika.com LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT76points of agreement or divergence, in relation to the Hebrew Versions,were noted under the different sections of its narrative.It was alsoobvious that, in many features in which the Hebrew Versions differfrom the Gilgamesh Epic, the latter finds Sumerian support.Thesefacts confirm the conclusion, which we should naturally base ongrounds of historical probability, that while the Semitic-BabylonianVersions were derived from Sumer, the Hebrew accounts were equallyclearly derived from Babylon.But there are one or two pieces ofevidence which are apparently at variance with this conclusion, andthese call for some explanation.[1] For details see especially Skinner, /Genesis/, pp.177 ff.Not too much significance should be attached to the apparent omissionof the episode of the birds from the Sumerian narrative, in which itwould agree with the later as against the earlier Hebrew Version; for,apart from its epitomized character, there is so much missing from thetext that the absence of this episode cannot be regarded asestablished with certainty.And in any case it could be balanced bythe Sumerian order of Creation of men before animals, which agreeswith the earlier Hebrew Version against the later.But there is onevery striking point in which our new Sumerian text agrees with boththe Hebrew Versions as against the Gilgamesh Epic and Berossus; andthat is in the character of Ziusudu, which presents so close aparallel to the piety of Noah.As we have already seen, the latter isdue to no Hebrew idealization of the story, but represents a genuinestrand of the original tradition, which is completely absent from theBabylonian Versions.But the Babylonian Versions are the media throughwhich it has generally been assumed that the tradition of the Delugereached the Hebrews.What explanation have we of this fact?This grouping of Sumerian and Hebrew authorities, against the extantsources from Babylon, is emphasized by the general framework of theSumerian story.For the literary connexion which we have in Genesisbetween the Creation and the Deluge narratives has hitherto found noparallel in the cuneiform texts.In Babylon and Assyria the myth ofCreation and the Deluge legend have been divorced.From the one acomplete epic has been evolved in accordance with the tenets ofBabylonian theology, the Creation myth being combined in the processwith other myths of a somewhat analogous character.The Deluge legendhas survived as an isolated story in more than one setting, theprincipal Semitic Version being recounted to the national heroGilgamesh, towards the close of the composite epic of his adventureswhich grew up around the nucleus of his name.It is one of the chiefsurprises of the newly discovered Sumerian Version that the Hebrewconnexion of the narratives is seen to be on the lines of veryprimitive tradition.Noah's reputation for piety does not stand alone.His line of descent from Adam, and the thread of narrative connectingthe creation of the world with its partial destruction by the Deluge,already appear in Sumerian form at a time when the city of Babylonitself had not secured its later power.How then are we to account forthis correspondence of Sumerian and Hebrew traditions, on pointscompletely wanting in our intermediate authorities, from which,however, other evidence suggests that the Hebrew narratives werederived?At the risk of anticipating some of the conclusions to be drawn in theGet any book for free on: www.Abika.com LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT77next lecture, it may be well to define an answer now.It is possiblethat those who still accept the traditional authorship of thePentateuch may be inclined to see in this correspondence of Hebrew andSumerian ideas a confirmation of their own hypothesis.But it shouldbe pointed out at once that this is not an inevitable deduction fromthe evidence [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]