Ea’s Duplicity in the Gilgamesh Flood Story

This volume opens up new perspectives on Babylonian and Assyrian literature, through the lens of a pivotal passage in the Gilgamesh Flood story. It shows how, using a nine-line message where not all was as it seemed, the god Ea inveigled humans into building the Ark. The volume argues that Ea used a ‘bitextual’ message: one which can be understood in different ways that sound the same. His message thus emerges as an ambivalent oracle in the tradition of ‘folktale prophecy’. The argument is supported by interlocking investigations of lexicography, divination, diet, figurines, social history, and religion. There are also extended discussions of Babylonian word play and ancient literary interpretation. Besides arguing for Ea’s duplicity, the book explores its implications – for narrative sophistication in Gilgamesh, for audiences and performance of the poem, and for the relation of the Gilgamesh Flood story to the versions in Atra-hasis, the Hellenistic historian Berossos, and the Biblical Book of Genesis.Ea’s Duplicity in the Gilgamesh Flood Story will interest Assyriologists, Hebrew Bible scholars and Classicists, but also students and researchers in all areas concerned with Gilgamesh, word-play, oracles, and traditions about the Flood.

Preface AcknowledgmentsAbbreviations PART 1 – Preliminaries1 Introduction1.1 Bitextuality1.2 The Gilgameš Flood story1.3 Other Mesopotamian Flood stories1.4 Ea’s message1.4.1 The manuscripts1.4.2 Synoptic transliteration1.4.3 Composite text and translation1.5 The problems1.6 Previous studies1.6.1 Recovering (most of) the text: George Smith (1872) to Paul Haupt (1883)1.6.2 An "infamous lie"? Peter Jensen (1890) and dissenters1.6.3 Glimmers of puns: Ungnad (1911) etc.1.6.4 The ‘bitextual’ pun of Frank (1925)1.6.5 Early reception of Frank’s idea1.6.6 Thompson (1930)’s reading ina še-er1.6.7 The golden age of Frank’s bitextual pun1.6.8 Exit puns: Von Soden (1955) to Millard (1987)1.6.9 Re-enter puns: Dalley (1989) and others1.6.10 Re-exit puns: George (2010) to the present1.6.11 Summary1.7 Outline of the argument1.7.1 Angles not pursued1.8 Audiences, internal and external2 ‘Interrogating’ Babylonian narrative poetry2.1 Is ‘interrogation’ appropriate?2.1.1 Is the poem too ‘naïve’?2.1.2 Is ‘interrogation’ precluded by accretion?2.2 Modelling ancient interpretations2.2.1 The elusiveness of native meta-discussions2.2.2 Did they simply ‘know it all’?2.2.3 Differences between ancient and modern interests2.2.4 Glimpses of ancient interpretation2.2.4.1 Commentaries on narrative poems2.2.4.2 Commentaries mentioning narrative poems2.2.4.3 Other commentaries2.2.4.4 The ‘Marduk Ordeal’2.2.4.5 Colophons2.2.4.6 Self-reflexive comments within poems2.2.4.7 Adaptation2.2.4.8 The ‘Catalogue of Texts and Authors’2.2.4.9 A personal response to the Flood story?2.2.5 Summary: modelling ancient interpretations2.3 Summary: ‘interrogating’ Babylonian narrative poetry3 ‘Identifying’ puns3.1 Are they ‘really there’? – author intention vs audience reception3.2 Disadvantages of the exclusive focus on authorial intention3.2.1 Cases where authorial intention is clear3.2.2 Obstacles to identifying authorial intention3.2.3 Rigidity3.3 Alternatives to the emphasis on authorial intention3.3.1 ‘Ironclad’ vs ‘potential’ puns3.3.2 A ‘high-potential’ bitextual pun in OB Atra–hasis3.4 Puns and pronunciation3.5 Summary4 The high concentration of puns in the Gilgameš Flood storyPART 2 – Dissecting Ea’s message5 The lines about the Flood hero6 Raining ‘plenty’: ušaznanakkunuši nuhšam-ma6.1 The positive sense6.2 The negative sense6.3 The subject of ušaznanakkunuši6.3.1 Enlil as instigator of the Flood6.3.2 Exit Šamaš7 The birds: [hi¿ib] i¿¿urati7.1 The restoration ‘hi-¿ib’7.2 The positive sense7.3 The negative sense7.3.1 The verb vs the noun7.3.2 ‘Cutting off’, literal and metaphorical7.3.3 The spheres of use attested for ha¿abu7.4 An Ur–Namma passage7.5 Summary8 The fish: puzur nuni8.1 What is puzur?8.2 The positive sense8.2.1 The associations of ‘covering’ 8.2.2 Fish as comestibles8.3 The negative sense8.3.1 Fish-like sages, Assyrian vs Babylonian 8.4 Summary9 The harvest: [...] mešrâ eburam-ma9.1 The positive sense9.2 The negative sense9.3 Summary10 ‘Cakes at dawn’: ina šer(-)kukki10.1 The positive sense10.1.1 kukku ‘bread, cake’10.2 The negative sense involving darkness10.2.1 kukkû ‘darkness’10.2.2 The relevance of darkness to Ea’s message10.3 The negative sense involving incantations10.3.1 The morphological problem10.3.1.1 Case endings on manuscript W10.3.1.2 Case endings on manuscript c10.3.1.3 Why is the genitive ending absent?10.3.2 šerkukku as a by-form of šerkugû10.3.3 The meanings of šerkugû / šerkukku10.4 Summary11 ‘In the evening’: ina lilâti11.1 The positive sense11.2 The negative sense involving darkness11.3 The negative sense involving líl-demonesses11.4 Summary12 The ‘rain of wheat’: šamût kibati12.1 An incantation-like rhyme?12.2 The positive sense12.3 The negative sense of ‘a wheat-like rain’12.4 Negative senses involving death12.4.1 Killing wheat12.4.2 Wheat stalks symbolising human lives12.5 Summary 13 Recapitulation13.1 The message’s various senses13.2 How alike were the different versions pronounced?13.3 Why multiple negative meanings?13.4 The change of meaning with repetition13.4.1 Did a rain of wheat actually happen?13.4.2 Who utters 87-88 and 91?13.4.3 How ‘fairly’ were the people of Šuruppak tricked?14 Issues of textual history14.1 When was the bitextual message created?14.1.1 An Assyrian creation?14.2 Questions of circulation and diffusion14.3 How easily would readers have realised the ambiguity?14.4 Questions of stability15 Meaning and performancePART 3 – Conspicuous silences in the Gilgameš Flood story16 Outlining the problems17 Does Atra–hasis ‘fill in the gaps’?17.1 Epistemic competition17.2 What does Gilgameš know about the Flood?17.2.1 From the outset to Tablet IX17.2.2 Tablet X17.2.3 Tablet XI17.3 Summary: does Atra–hasis ‘fill in the gaps’?18 Communications between Ea and the Flood hero18.1 The command to build the Ark18.1.1 Text of the command18.1.2 How did Ea choose the Flood Hero?18.1.3 The puzzle of multiple addressees18.1.4 Why demolish the house?18.1.5 A link to a Sumerian poem18.1.6 Summary18.2 The Flood hero’s reply18.2.1 What is he concerned about?18.2.2 Who are ‘the city, the ummanu and the elders’? 18.2.2.1 The alu 18.2.2.2 The ummanu (or ummânu) 18.2.2.3 The šibutu18.2.2.4 Mesopotamian ‘city assemblies’18.2.2.4.1 The third millennium18.2.2.4.2 The first half of the second millennium 18.2.2.4.3 The later second millennium18.2.2.4.4 The first millennium 18.2.2.4.5 The Assyrian ‘City Hall’18.2.2.5 Summary: ki lupul alu ummanu u šibutu18.2.3 Was a dream involved?18.3 Ea’s message – from Ea to the Flood hero19 Communication between the Flood hero and the people of Šuruppak 19.1 How and to whom did the Flood hero relay Ea’s message? 19.2 How did the people of Šuruppak react to Ea’s message? 19.2.1 Cross-checking divinatory information19.2.2 Scepticism about diviners19.2.3 Summary: how did the people of Šuruppak react to Ea’s message? 19.3 What about the other gods? 19.4 How easily might the people have realised the message’s ambivalence?19.5 What if they had understood?19.6 Summary: the ‘chain of communications20 Ea’s elusiveness20.1 Ea’s long shadow over Gilgameš’s adventure 20.2 Ea and the other gods20.2.1 Altruism or self-interest?20.2.2 Ninurta’s accusation and Ea’s defence20.2.3 The missing dream20.2.4 Was the defence viable?20.3 Ea and the people of Šuruppak20.3.1 Why use a duplicitous message?20.3.2 Did Ea intend for the message to be misunderstood?20.3.3 Does a hard-to-spot message argue for a deliberate trick?20.3.4 A trick to crown them all?20.3.5 ‘Golden ages’ in Cuneiform20.4 Summary: Ea’s elusiveness21 The enigma of Uta–napišti21.1 What was his status in Šuruppak?21.1.1 According to other versions of the Babylonian Flood story21.1.2 According to Gilgameš XI21.2 How honest was he to Gilgameš?21.3 Did he realise the message’s true import?21.4 Tricking the boatman?21.5 Summary: the enigma of Uta–napišti22 Why the ‘gaps’?22.1 Significant silences and performance22.2 Reasons for silences on the part of Uta–napišti22.3 Reasons for silences on the part of the Poet(s)PART 4 – Other interconnections23 Ea’s duplicity and Babylonian/Assyrian divination23.1 Which forms of divine communication feature in the story?23.2 Dreams and the importance of gender roles23.3 The kukku in divination23.3.1 In Šumma Izbu (malformed birth omens)23.3.2 In extispicy (liver omens)23.4 The gods, omens, and deceit23.4.1 The oracle trompant23.4.2 Characterisations of gods as mendacious 23.4.3 Characterisations of omens as ‘false’, etc.23.4.4 Omens which are ambivalent or deceptive23.4.5 Summary: Ea’s message and divine deceit23.5 Summary: Ea’s duplicity and Babylonian divination24 Beyond Cuneiform24.1 Genesis24.1.1 Issues of textual history24.1.2 The question of influence 24.1.3 Beyond influence24.1.3.1 Miscellaneous differences24.1.3.2 Morality24.2 Berossus25 ConclusionsReferencesIndex

Martin Worthington is Associate Professor in Middle Eastern Studies in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Studies, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.