The story of the great flood was made famous in the Western world by the account of Noah and the ark found in the book of Genesis in the Christian Bible. In December of 1872 it received dramatic confirmation by way of a closely parallel account from a much older source. This was when George Smith read a paper before the Society of Biblical Archaeology titled, “The Chaldean Account of the Deluge.”1 He had deciphered ancient inscribed clay tablets written in Babylonian. The story was the same; only the name of the ark-builder was different. In those early days of decipherment George Smith took the name as Hasisadra, later determined as Uta-napishti or Utnapishtim, and he tentatively took the name of the epic it is found in as Izdubar.2 Today the old Babylonian story of the great flood has become widely known as part of the epic of Gilgamesh.
This story was brought out to the public in George Smith’s 1876 book, The Chaldean Account of Genesis. It caused a sensation, and gave new impetus to the field of Assyriology, the study of all of ancient Mesopotamia. New pieces of the epic were found, editions of the cuneiform text were published, and new translations were made. What George Smith had called the Izdubar legends emerged as the epic of Gilgamesh.3 The story of the great flood is found in the eleventh of its twelve tablets. Another and even older Babylonian epic was found, the Atra-hasis, that included the same flood story.4 Here, however, the ark-builder is named Atra-hasis rather than Uta-napishti/Utnapishtim or Noah. The flood story is found in the third of its three tablets. A fragmentary flood story was also found written in the very different and more ancient Sumerian language.5 The Sumerian flood story is sometimes called the Eridu Genesis. The ark-builder in this flood story is named Ziusudra, which Berossos wrote in Greek as Xisuthros. These three accounts from Mesopotamia are thought to be the oldest flood stories known.
So what great flood do these stories tell about? The Biblical and Babylonian and Sumerian texts do not say. Only the flood story told to the Greek sage Solon by the Egyptian priests as preserved in their records tells this.6 It was the great flood that sunk the land beyond the Pillars of Hercules, nine thousand years before the time of Solon (circa 600 BCE). As reported by Plato from Critias, to whom were passed down Solon’s writings about this,7 the land beyond the Pillars of Hercules was the land of Atlantis. The Theosophical Mahatmas, too, claim to have preserved records of this. In the year 1882, the specific time for the submersion was given as 11,446 years ago.8 However, this was stated to be the submersion of the last remnant or remaining island of the lost continent of Atlantis, not the continent itself. The submersion of the main continent was said to have occurred approximately 850,000 years ago.9 The widespread traditions of the great flood, then, are here regarded as primarily recalling the sinking of the main continent of Atlantis, and only secondarily the sinking of its last remnant.
Plato’s account, found at the beginning of his Timaeus, and then continued in his Critias, has been widely understood as fictional rather than historical, especially in modern times when the existence of Atlantis is almost universally doubted. Although Plato twice says that what he wrote is true,10 interpreters have seen it as a fable made up by him to in order to present his teachings on proper statehood. Proclus, however, in his commentary on the Timaeus, drew from a now lost historical work by Marcellus to show how it could be true. Commenting on this statement by Plato (24e4-25a2),
“For at that time the sea there was navigable; for it had an island in front of the mouth that you call, as you say, the ‘Pillars of Heracles’. The island was bigger than Libya and Asia together, and from this it was possible for travellers at that time to cross over to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole mainland on the far side which rings that genuine sea.”11
Proclus wrote:
“That there was such an island, and of this size, is shown by some of those who give the story of the region of the outside sea. For they say that there were even in their own time seven islands in that sea sacred to Persephone, and three other huge ones, that of Pluto, that of Ammon, and in the middle of these another belonging to Poseidon, two hundred kilometres in length. Those living on it have kept alive the memory from their ancestors of the Atlantis that actually came into being, the hugest island there, which over many cycles of time was the overlord of all the islands in the Atlantic Ocean, and was itself Poseidon’s sacred island. This is what Marcellus has written in his Aethiopica.”12
There is also in Greek tradition the story of the great flood and an ark-builder, there named Deucalion.13 Its setting is much earlier than the setting of Plato’s account. Deucalion was the son of Prometheus, who created the first humans out of clay. His wife Pyrrha was the daughter of Pandora, the first woman, fashioned by the gods. The great flood was sent by Zeus at the end of the Bronze Age, the third of the four ages in Greek mythology. Prometheus warned Deucalion, and Deucalion built an ark. When the great flood came, Deucalion and Pyrrha floated in the ark for nine days. Then they found a landing place on the top of Mount Parnassus. Afterward, Deucalion and Pyrhha re-populated the land by throwing stones behind them that became humans.
The story of the great flood preserved in India, like the ones preserved in Mesopotamia and Greece, also involves the building of an ark, although other parts of it differ from the Mesopotamian accounts. It is regarded as being much later, although it is written in the ancient Sanskrit language. However, the fact that it occurs only much later may be due merely to the circumstance of the materials they were written on, the Mesopotamian accounts having been preserved on long-lasting clay tablets. The Indian account is regarded by Indian tradition as having been transmitted orally for long ages prior to being written down. The oldest written source for it is the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa, and then it is found in fuller form in the Mahābhārata epic and in several of the purāṇas.14
In the Indian account the ark-builder is called Manu. He is approached by a small fish, who tells Manu that a flood is coming. The fish asks for his protection from larger fish. So Manu puts the small fish in a jar. The fish soon grows to enormous size and must be transferred to the ocean. The fish tells Manu to build an ark, and promises to save him when the flood comes. When it comes, the fish swims near to the ark, and Manu places a rope over the fish’s horn. The fish then tows the ark for quite some time, and at last brings the ark to a mountaintop showing above the waters. After the waters subside, Manu and his progeny re-populate the land.
The Indian story of the great flood brings in some symbolism in the name of the ark-builder. Manu is not only an individual name, it is also the name of the collective humanity of his period, the period between two manus, called a manvantara. The ark-builder Manu is Vaivasvata Manu, the manu of our present time period. His predecessor is Cākṣuṣa Manu, the manu of the previous time period. The great flood occurred at the end of that time period. As the Matsya-purāṇa says, “The world having thus become one ocean at the end of the Chākshusha manvantara, . . .”15 The time period of a manu, a manvantara, is traditionally said to be 852,000 divine years, or 360,720,000 human years. The Vaivasvata manvantara is traditionally said to have started about 335,000 divine years or 120,600,000 human years ago. Even if we take divine years as human years, the Indian story of the great flood projects it much farther back in time than the sinking of the last remnant of Atlantis described by Plato. Lengths of the time periods aside, the Indian account shows the great flood as a major transition, the transition between the Cākṣuṣa manvantara and the present Vaivasvata manvantara.
As in India, so in Mesopotamia, the great flood marked a major transition. Besides the three Mesopotamian accounts referred to above that describe the building of an ark, there is another important account that merely mentions the great flood: the Sumerian king list.16 In the Sumerian king list the great flood separates the antediluvian kings who have fabulously long reigns, such as 36,000 years, from the post-diluvian kings who usually have more expected human reigns. The fabulously long reigns of the antediluvian kings are reminiscent of the fabulously long time periods in Indian tradition. Although there is no unanimity among the total lengths of reigns for the antediluvian kings given in the Sumerian sources, they range between 222,600 and 456,000 years. The Babylonian priest Berossos gave 432,000 years for them. After the great flood, the first kings are given reigns of around 1,000 years each, reminiscent of the Biblical patriarchs in Genesis. Soon thereafter the reigns became the usually expected human ones.
The sources on the great flood surveyed above, which are only some sources among others found around the world, indicate that the great flood was a major event in the history of humanity. After the great flood, the land had to be re-populated anew. This major event in the history of humanity was also a major transition. In Mesopotamia it was a major transition from the long-reigning antediluvian kings to the more expected reigns of the post-diluvian kings. In India it was a major transition from the Cākṣuṣa humanity to our present Vaivasvata humanity. In Theosophical sources it was a major transition from the Atlantean fourth root-race humanity with its spirit-kings to our present fifth root-race humanity.17 To conclude, in the brief verses from the Book of Dzyan, the great flood is referred to as follows:18
44. They (the Atlanteans) built great images, nine yatis high (27 feet )—the size of their bodies. Inner fires had destroyed the land of their fathers (the Lemurians). Water threatened the Fourth (Race).
45. The first great waters came. They swallowed the seven great islands.
Notes
1. “The Chaldean Account of the Deluge,” by George Smith, Read 3rd December, 1872. Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol. II, 1873, pp. 213–234.
2. George Smith wrote in his 1872 paper, p. 214: “The text itself professes to belong to the time of a monarch whose name, written in monograms, I am unable to read phonetically, I therefore provisionally call him by the ordinary values of the signs of his name, Izdubar.” Again in his 1876 book, The Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 167-168: “The Izdubar legends give, I believe, the history of the Biblical hero Nimrod. They record the adventures of a famous sovereign of Babylonia whom I provisionally call Izdubar, but whose name cannot at present be phonetically rendered.” The name Izdubar was later ascertained as Gilgamesh. Regarding his connection to Nimrod, George Smith continues: “He appears to me to be the monarch who bears the closest resemblance in his fame and actions to the Nimrod of the Bible.” Later scholaship has not accepted this parallel of Gilgamesh to Nimrod.
There are only two references to Izdubar in The Secret Doctrine, the first in vol. 2, p. 336:
“Traditions about a race of giants in days of old are universal; they exist in oral and written lore. India had her Danavas and Daityas; Ceylon had her Râkshasas; Greece, her Titans; Egypt, her colossal Heroes; Chaldea, her Izdubars (Nimrod); and the Jews their Emims of the land of Moab, with the famous giants, Anakim (Numbers xiii. 33).” The second in vol. 2, p. 531, where the name was misspelled Isdubar, corrected only in the 1978 ed. (not corrected in the 1893 or 1938 eds.): “Elijah is also taken up into Heaven alive ; and the astrologer, at the court of Isdubar, the Chaldean Hea-bani, is likewise raised to heaven by the god Hea, who was his patron, as Jehovah was of Elijah . . . .”
3. See: The Sources, below.
4. See: The Sources, below.
5. See: The Sources, below.
6. In the Timaeus, at 23a, a very elderly Egyptian priest is speaking to Solon: “. . . all such things have been written down from olden times and preserved here in our temples.” (Timaeus / Plato, trans. Peter Kalkavage, p. 8. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Second edition, 2016.)
Commenting on Plato’s Timaeus 20d-e, where Critias is speaking: “Hear, then, O Socrates, a narration surprising indeed in the extreme, yet in every respect true, as it was once delivered by Solon, the wisest of the seven wise men.” Proclus wrote, as translated by Thomas Taylor, 1820:
“With respect to the whole of this narration about the Atlantics, some say, that it is a mere history, which was the opinion of Crantor, the first interpreter of Plato, . . . Crantor adds, that this is testified by the prophets of the Egyptians, who assert that these particulars [which are narrated by Plato] are written on pillars which are still preserved.” (The Commentaries of Proclus on the Timaeus of Plato, trans. Thomas Taylor, Vol. 1, 1820, pp. 63-64; p. 77 in the Prometheus Trust reprint, 1998, second edition, 2023.)
The same passage, as translated by Harold Tarrant, 2006:
Commenting on Plato’s Timaeus 20d-e, where Critias is speaking: “Hear then, Socrates, an account that is very unusual, yet certainly true in all respects, as Solon, the wisest of the Seven, once used to claim.” Proclus wrote:
“Some say that all this tale about the Atlantines is straightforward narrative, like the first of Plato’s interpreters, Crantor. . . . He says* that the prophets of the Egyptians also give evidence, saying that these things are inscribed on pillars that still survive.”
* This appears again to be what Crantor says, because of the indicative mood of the verb. Cameron (1983) takes it rather as what Plato says, but the earlier parenthetic ‘he says’ at 76.1 counts against this.
(Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Volume I, Book I: Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis, trans. Harold Tarrant, pp. 168-169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.)
Tarrant’s note refers to Alan Cameron’s view that this is what Plato rather than Crantor says. This is stated in Cameron’s article, p. 82: “More important, there is no indication in Proclus that it is Crantor rather than Plato who is the subject of the sentence. Now it is theoretically possible to take Crantor as the subject, on the ground that the second phesi, like the first (quoted above), introduces a statement from Crantor’s commentary. Yet the run of the passage points more naturally to Plato.” (“Crantor and Posidonius on Atlantis,” by Alan Cameron, The Classical Quarterly , Vol. 33, 1983, pp. 81-91.)
Whether Crantor or Plato said it, the reference is still to Egyptian pillars on which these things about the history of Atlantis are said to have been inscribed. These pillars would have been in the Temple of Neith at Sais, which no longer survives.
7. In the Timaeus, at 20d-e, 21a-b, Critias speaks: “Let me tell you this story then, Socrates. It’s a very strange one, but even so, every word of it is true. It’s a story that Solon, the wisest of the seven sages once vouched for. He was a kinsman and a very close friend of my great-grandfather Dropides. Solon himself says as much in many places in his poetry. Well, Dropides told the story to my grandfather Critias, and the old man in his turn would tell it to us from memory.” “It’s an ancient story I heard from a man who was no youngster himself. In fact, at the time Critias was pretty close to ninety years old already—so he said—and I was around ten or so.” (Translated by Donald J. Zeyl, in Plato Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper, pp. 1228-1229. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.)
In the Critias, 113b, Critias speaks: “These very manuscripts were in the possession of my grandfather and they now remain in my possession. When I was a boy, I studied them carefully.” (Translated by Diskin Clay, in Plato Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper, p. 1299. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.)
8. Mahatma Letter 23b, written in 1882, The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, 2nd edition, p. 151; 3rd edition, p. 147: “In the Eocene Age—even in its ‘very first part—’ the great cycle of the fourth Race men, the Atlanteans, had already reached its highest point, and the great continent, the father of nearly all the present continents, showed the first symptoms of sinking—a process that occupied it down to 11,446 years ago, when its last island, that, translating its vernacular name, we may call with propriety Poseidonis, went down with a crash.” Ibid., p. 155; p. 152: “The great event—the triumph of our ‘Sons of the Fire Mist,’ the inhabitants of “Shamballah” (when yet an island in the Central Asian Sea) over the selfish but not entirely wicked magicians of Poseidonis occurred just 11,446 ago.”
9. The time 850,000 years ago is stated several times in The Secret Doctrine. See Volume 1, pages 439 fn., 650-651; Volume 2, pages 10, 147, 250, 313-314, 332, 352, 371-372, 395, 433.
10. Plato’s first statement that what he wrote is true is at Timaeus 20d-e, in various translations:
Critias speaks: “Hear, then, O Socrates, a narration surprising indeed in the extreme, yet in every respect true, as it was once related by Solon, the most wise of the seven wise men.” Translated by Thomas Taylor, The Works of Plato, Volume II, p. 422. London, 1804; Prometheus Trust reprint, 1996.
Critias speaks: “Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages.” Translated by Benjamin Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato, Vol. III, p. 441. Oxford University Press, Third Revised Edition, 1892.
Critias speaks: “Listen then, Socrates, to a tale which, though passing strange, is yet wholly true, as Solon, the wisest of the Seven, once upon a time declared.” Translated by R. G. Bury, Plato: Timaeus, Critias, . . . , p. 29. Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1929.
Critias speaks: “Listen then, Socrates, to a story which, though strange, is entirely true, as Solon, wisest of the Seven, once affirmed.” Translated by Francis MacDonald Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato, p. 13. London and New York, 1937.
Critias speaks: “Let me tell you this story then, Socrates. It’s a very strange one, but even so, every word of it is true. It’s a story that Solon, the wisest of the seven sages once vouched for.” Translated by Donald J. Zeyl, in Plato Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper, p. 1228. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.
Critias speaks: “Hear, then, Socrates, an account most strange—and yet altogether true, as Solon, the wisest of the Seven, once claimed.” Translated by Peter Kalkavage, Timaeus / Plato, p. 5. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Second edition, 2016.
Plato’s second statement that what he wrote is true is at Timaeus 26e, in various translations:
Socrates speaks to Critias: “And besides this, we should consider, as a thing of the greatest moment, that your relation is not a mere fable, but a true history.” Translated by Thomas Taylor, The Works of Plato, Volume II, p. 429. London, 1804; Prometheus Trust reprint, 1996.
Socrates speaks to Critias: “And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?” Translated by Benjamin Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato, Vol. III, p. 447. Oxford University Press, Third Revised Edition, 1892.
Socrates speaks to Critias: “For this story will be admirably suited to the festival of the Goddess which is now being held, because of its connexion with her; and the fact that it is no invented fable but genuine history is all-important.” Translated by R. G. Bury, Plato: Timaeus, Critias, . . . , p. 47. Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1929.
Socrates speaks to Critias: “Its connection with the goddess makes it specially appropriate to her festival to-day; and it is surely a great point that it is no fiction, but genuine history.” Translated by Francis MacDonald Cornford, p. 19. Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato. London and New York, 1937.
Socrates speaks to Critias: “Well, Critias, what other speech could we possibly prefer to this one? We’re in the midst of celebrating the festival of the goddess, and this speech really fits the occasion. So it couldn’t be more appropriate. And of course the fact that it’s no made-up story but a true account is no small matter.” Translated by Donald J. Zeyl, in Plato Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper, pp. 1233-1234. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.
Socrates speaks to Critias: “And what account, Critias, might we get hold of instead of this one, which fits the current sacrifices to the goddess because of its close connection with her, and is no doubt of the utmost importance in being no fabricated story but a truthful account?” Translated by Peter Kalkavage, Timaeus / Plato, p. 12. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Second edition, 2016.
11-12. Translated by Harold Tarrant, Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Volume I, Book I: Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis, p. 277. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. This is the first new translation of Proclus’ commentary on the Timaeus since Thomas Taylor’s in 1820. For comparison, here is Thomas Taylor’s translation of these passages:
Commenting on this statement by Plato,
“For at that time the Atlantic sea was navigable, and had an island before that mouth which is called by you the Pillars of Hercules. But this island was greater than both Libya and Asia together, and afforded an easy passage to other neighbouring islands; as it was likewise easy to pass from those islands to all the opposite continent which surrounded that true sea.”
Proclus wrote:
“That such and so great an island once existed, is evident from what is said by certain historians respecting what pertains to the external sea. For according to them, there were seven islands in that sea, in their times, sacred to Proserpine, and also three others of an immense extent, one of which was sacred to Pluto, another to Ammon, and the middle [or second] of these to Neptune, the magnitude of which was a thousand stadia. They also add, that the inhabitants of it preserved the remembrance from their ancestors, of the Atlantic island which existed there, and was truly prodigiously great; which for many periods had dominion over all the islands in the Atlantic sea, and was itself likewise sacred to Neptune. These things, therefore, Marcellus writes in his Ethiopic History.”
(The Commentaries of Proclus on the Timaeus of Plato, trans. Thomas Taylor, Vol. 1, 1820, p. 148, from book 1 of 5; pp. 166-167 in the Prometheus Trust reprint, 1998, and second edition, 2023).
Blavatsky had quoted an earlier translation of this from an 1812 article, “An Essay on the Sacred Isles in the West,” by Major F. Wilford, Asiatick Researches, vol. 11, Calcutta, 1810; London, 1812, p. 26. Wilford had quoted it from “Clarke’s Maritime Discoveries.” This is The Progress of Maritime Discovery, by James Stanier Clarke, Vol. I, London: 1803. Clarke, p. liii fn., had quoted it from Thomas Taylor’s Introduction to the Timaeus, p. 397. This is Taylor’s 1793 book, The Cratylus, Phaedo, Parmenides and Timaeus of Plato. Blavatsky’s quotation from Wilford was slightly modified and with added italics in The Secret Doctrine, Volume 2, pp. 408-409:
“The famous Atlantis exists no longer, but we can hardly doubt that it did once,” says Proclus, “for Marcellus, who wrote a history of Ethiopian affairs, says that such, and so great an island once existed, and this is evidenced by those who composed histories relative to the external sea. For they relate that in this time there were seven islands in the Atlantic sea sacred to Proserpine; and besides these, three of immense magnitude, sacred to Pluto . . . Jupiter . . . and Neptune. And, besides this, the inhabitants of the last island (Poseidonis) preserved the memory of the prodigious magnitude of the Atlantic island as related by their ancestors, and of its governing for many periods all the islands beyond, which are not far from the firm land, near which is the true sea.”
13. The story of Deucalion is here summarized from Apollodorus, The Library, section 1.7.2, translated by James George Frazer, Loeb Classical Library, 1921, Vol. 1, pp. 52-55. A longer account, written in Latin, is found in Ovid, Metamorphoses, in Book 1. For the four ages in Greek mythology, Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Iron, see Hesiod, Works and Days, 109-201 (actually giving five ages by adding a Heroic Age).
14. The Indian account is found in Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa 1.8.1, verses 1-10. It is summarized in the next paragraph from Julius Eggeling’s translation, Part I, published in The Sacred Books of the East series, Volume 12, 1882. It is found in fuller form in the Mahābhārata, Book 3, called the Āraṇyaka-parva in the critical edition published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, chapter or adhyāya 185 (having 54 verses). A translation of the critical edition was begun by the late J. A. B. van Buitenen, who was able to complete his translation of its first five Books. This book is called the Vana-parva in the Bombay edition with Nīlakaṇṭha’s commentary, chapter or adhyāya 187 (having 58 verses). It is chapter or section 186 in the early English translation by Kisari Mohan Ganguli. It is called the Matsyopākhyāna, the story of the fish (matsya). The story of the fish and the flood is also found in the first two chapters of the Matsya-purāṇa, the purāṇa spoken by the fish avatāra of Viṣṇu.
15. Translated by John Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, Volume First, Second Edition, 1868, p. 207. This is Matsya-purāṇa, chapter 2, verse 14cd: evam ekārṇave jāte cākṣuṣāntara-saṃkṣaye. It was translated almost identically by Suryakanta Shastri in his book, The Flood Legend in Sanskrit Literature, p. 27 (Delhi: S. Chand & Co., 1950): “The world, having thus become one ocean at the end of the Cakshusha manvantara . . . .” As the title implies, this book collects the various Sanskrit versions of the flood legend and gives them in English translation.
16. The Sumerian king list in some versions includes the antediluvian kings, and a listing of these antediluvian kings is also found separately as an independent text. As said by Andrew George: “The antediluvian king list is an Old Babylonian text, composed in Sumerian, that purports to document the reigns of successive kings of remote antiquity, from the time when the gods first transmitted to mankind the institution of kingship until the interruption of human history by the great Flood.” (“Sumero-Babylonian King Lists and Date Lists,” by A. R. George, Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection, CUSAS Vol. 17, 2011, p. 199.) The sources for the Sumerian king list will be given in “The Antediluvian Kings,” forthcoming.
17. On the dynasties of spirit-kings in Atlantis, see: The Secret Doctrine, Volume 2, p. 222:
“In other words, they were the Lemuro-Atlanteans, the first who had a dynasty of Spirit-Kings, not of Manes, or “ghosts,” as some believe, but of actual living Devas (or demigods or Angels, again) who had assumed bodies to rule over them, and who, in their turn, instructed them in arts and sciences. Only, as they were rūpas or material Spirits, these Dhyānis were not always good. Their King Thevetat was one of the latter, and it is under the evil influence of this King-Demon that the Atlantis-race became a nation of wicked magicians.“
Also on dynasties of lower, material spirits in Atlantis, see The Secret Doctrine, Volume 2, p. 350: “Speaking of the subsequent race (our Fifth Humanity), the Commentary says:
“Alone the handful of those Elect, whose divine instructors had gone to inhabit that Sacred Island — ‘from whence the last Saviour will come ’— now kept mankind from becoming one-half the exterminator of the other [as mankind does now — H.P.B.]. It (mankind) became divided. Two-thirds of it were ruled by Dynasties of lower, material Spirits of the earth, who took possession of the easily accessible bodies; one-third remained faithful, and joined with the nascent Fifth Race — the divine Incarnates. When the Poles moved [for the fourth time] this did not affect those who were protected, and who had separated from the Fourth Race. Like the Lemurians — alone the ungodly Atlanteans perished, and ‘were seen no more.’ . . . .”
18. The Secret Doctrine, H. P. Blavatsky, 1888, Volume 2, pp. 21, 331, 349. Regarding “Inner fires had destroyed the land of their fathers,” this refers to subterranean fires through volcanic eruptions. The Secret Doctrine postulates alternate destructions by fire and by water.
The Sources
The Gilgamesh Epic
The Epic of Gilgamesh from ancient Mesopotamia exists in more than one version. The most complete version now available was written in the Akkadian language called Standard Babylonian. It is dated to circa 1300-1000 BCE, although it was compiled from much earlier sources. It became famous in Christian countries because of its account of the great flood, which long preceded the Biblical account of the great flood. Its account of the great flood is found in the eleventh of its twelve tablets. The character Uta-napishti or Utnapishtim is like the Biblical Noah. Both built an ark to survive the great flood. Its chapter on the great flood was introduced to the western world in 1872 by George Smith. The whole epic as then partially available was tentatively translated in his 1876 book, The Chaldean Account of Genesis, as the Izdubar legends.
Other translations of the Gilgamesh epic followed in the ensuing years, and two editions of the Akkadian text, but not until 1999 did a really reliable English translation become available. By then, Andrew George had already been working on his critical edition of the Akkadian texts of the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic for twelve years. So he allowed his translation of it to be published in 1999. In 2003 his critical edition of the Akkadian texts was published in two volumes by Oxford University Press. It included an English translation on facing pages. His 1999 English translation was then reprinted by Penguin Books with minor revisions. After 2003, as he had written in his 1999 Preface: “New pieces of Gilgamesh continue to appear.” Thus, a fully revised second edition of his translation became necessary and was published in 2020 by Penguin Books. Note that this 2020 revised edition added many more fragments, but none for Tablet 11.
Another reliable translation is by Benjamin Foster, published in 2001, and updated in 2019. Andrew George kindly allowed Benjamin Foster to use his still unpublished critical edition of the Akkadian text for this 2001 translation. New Gilgamesh fragments became available after 2001. So Foster prepared a 2019 revised edition, like George prepared a 2020 revised edition.
There is also a reliable translation of just the flood portion, Tablet 11, by Nathan Wasserman in The Flood: The Akkadian Sources, 2020. It was made from Andrew George’s 2003 critical edition of the Akkadian texts. It was published open access, so it is available for free download.
George, Andrew R. The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. London: Penguin Press, 1999; Reprinted: London: Penguin Books, 2000; Reprinted with minor revisions, 2003; Second edition, 2020.
Foster, Benjamin R. The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Analogues, Criticism. A Norton Critical Edition. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001; Second edition, 2019.
George, A. R. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 2 Volumes. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Wasserman, Nathan. “Gilgameš Tablet XI.” In The Flood: The Akkadian Sources, A New Edition, Commentary, and a Literary Discussion, pp. 103-129. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 290. Leuven: Peeters, 2020.
The Atra-hasis Epic
The Epic of Atra-hasis is older than the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was written in the Akkadian language called Old Babylonian, and is dated to circa 1700 BCE. Its account of the great flood is its central theme, found in the third of its three tablets. Its central character Atra-hasis is like the Gilgamesh Uta-napishti/Utnapishtim or the Biblical Noah. He built an ark to survive the great flood. George Smith by 1876 could find only a small fragment of the Atra-hasis. He translated this fragment as “Atarpi” in The Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 153-156; revised edition by A. H. Sayce, 1880, pp. 155-158.
Not until 1969 did a reliable edition of the Akkadian text and English translation become available. Wilfred Lambert and Alan Millard had located and gathered all available fragments of the Akkadian text of the Atra-hasis, and these were published in Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, no. 46, 1965. They then transcribed and edited these cuneiform texts, and translated them into English. This book was published in 1969. It still remains the standard edition. It includes the fullest and most definitive edition of the available Old Babylonian text that could then be made. Variant readings from the later recensions of the Atra-hasis are given in the critical apparatus.
Stephanie Dalley included a translation of the Atra-hasis in her book, Myths from Mesopotamia, 1989, revised edition 2000. It was made from the text edited by Lambert and Millard. It incorporates material from the later Standard Babylonian version into the Old Babylonian version, where there are gaps in the latter that can be filled by the former. There are no gaps in tablet 3 that could be filled in, which has the flood story.
Benjamin Foster prepared a comprehensive study of the Atra-hasis, translating all four known versions of it in his book, Before the Muses, as described on p. 238 (3rd ed., 2005). He first translated the Old Babylonian version, pp. 229-253; then the Middle Babylonian versions, pp. 254-255; then the Late Bablylonian version, pp. 256-267; then the Late Assyrian version, pp. 268-277. The translations were made from the text edited by Lambert and Millard in 1965 and 1969, with a few corrections suggested by other scholars (see p. 278).
Two fragments of the Atra-hasis from the Schøyen Collection, transcribed and translated by Andrew George, were published in 2009. The first one provides the text of a newly available tablet having many different readings from the text as established by Lambert and Millard in 1969. It is from the latter part of tablet 2 and the opening of tablet 3. The second one is just a small fragment.
A book by Irving Finkel was published in 2014 about a newly discovered “Ark Tablet” written in Old Babylonian. It gives many previously unknown and unexpected details about the construction of the ark that were missing in the available Atra-hasis. The ark was to be circular, with equal length and breadth. A transcription and translation of the ark tablet is included.
The Old Babylonian text of the Atra-hasis and a new English translation with philological notes are given by Nathan Wasserman in The Flood: The Akkadian Sources, 2020. It is based on the text edited by Lambert and Millard. It was published open access, so it is available for free download.
Lambert, W. G., and A. R. Millard, Atra-ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood, with The Sumerian Flood Story, by M. Civil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.
Dalley, Stephanie. “Atrahasis.” In her Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, pp. 1-38. Oxford World Classics. Oxford University Press,1989; Revised edition 2000.
Foster, Benjamin R. “Atrahasis.” In Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press,1993; 2nd ed. 1996; 3rd ed. 2005, pp. 227-280.
George, A. R. “A Tablet of Atram-ḫasīs in Four Columns,” pp. 16-25; and “A Short Excerpt from Atram-ḫasīs,” pp. 26-27. In Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection, ed. A. R. George. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology (CUSAS), Volume 10. Bethesda, Marland: CDL Press, 2009.
Finkel, Irving. The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2014.
Wasserman, Nathan. “The Old Babylonian Recensions,” pp. 16-60; and “The Later Recensions,” pp. 60-103. In The Flood: The Akkadian Sources, A New Edition, Commentary, and a Literary Discussion. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 290. Leuven: Peeters, 2020.
The Sumerian Flood Story or Eridu Genesis
The Sumerian flood story or Eridu Genesis was written in the Sumerian language, which is different from and older than the Akkadian language. The main fragment on which this story is based, the lower third of a clay tablet, was discovered by Arno Poebel in 1912. He published the Sumerian text in transcription, an English translation, and extensive commentary on it in 1914. The particular tablet fragment it was found on is thought to date from circa 1600 BCE, so it is not judged to be older than the Atra-hasis epic written in the Old Babylonian form of Akkadian, circa 1700 BCE, even though the Sumerian language itself is older than Akkadian.
Samuel Noah Kramer translated this fragment again in 1950. He followed this with a major revision in 1983, giving a new translation and interpretation taking account of the two papers published in 1969 and 1981, listed next.
Miguel Civil re-studied the Sumerian text of this fragment and gave a new transcription and translation of it in 1969, included in Lambert and Millard’s edition of the Atra-ḫasīs.
Thorkild Jacobsen published a major study of this story, which he termed the Eridu Genesis, in 1981. Utilizing two more fragments, he gave a new transliteration, translation, and interpretation of it. The bare text of his translation, without his extensive commentary, was included in his 1987 book, The Harps that Once . . . .
The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature published a translation of it online in 1998.
Jeremiah Peterson discovered three more fragments of this story, and gave a transcription and translation of them along with his commentary in 2018. Peterson (p. 37) noted that a new fragment from the Schøyen collection, MS 3026, will be published by Konrad Volk, but it has not yet appeared.
Poebel, Arno. “A New Creation and Deluge Text.” In Publications of the Babylonian Section, The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Vol. IV, No. 1: Historical Texts, pp. 9-70. Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1914. Includes Introduction, Transcription, Translation, Commentary. “The tablet, as published here, represents only the lower portion of the original.”
Kramer, Samuel Noah. “The Deluge.” In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James Pritchard, 1950, pp. 42-44; 2nd ed. 1955; 3rd ed. 1969, pp. 42-44. Gives a new translation of the fragment published by Poebel. Revised in 1983, see below.
Civil, M. [Miguel]. “The Sumerian Flood Story.” In Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood, by W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, pp. 138-145, with philological notes on pp. 167-172. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. Gives a new transcription and translation of the fragment published by Poebel, now called CBS 10673.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. “The Eridu Genesis,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 100, No. 4, Dec. 1981, pp. 513-529. The English translation is also found separately in his The Harps that Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation, pp. 145-150. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Gives a new transcription and translation of the fragment published by Poebel, supplemented by two additional fragments.
Kramer, Samuel Noah. “The Sumerian Deluge Myth: Reviewed and Revised,” Anatolian Studies, Vol. 33, 1983, pp. 115-121. This is a major revision of his 1950 translation. It gives a new translation and interpretation of the fragment published by Poebel, taking account of Civil’s 1969 and Jacobsen’s 1981 studies.
Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL), 1998.
Peterson, Jeremiah. “Divine Appointment of the First Antediluvian King, Newly Recovered Content from the Ur Version of the Sumerian Flood Story,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 70, 2018, pp. 37-51. Adds three fragments to the text given in Jacobsen, 1981.