Epic of Gilgamesh

[jimkhong]

I am interested to hear different views of whether and how Epic of Gilgamesh has on faith in Holy Scriptures. This question is not limited to Christians but anyone of Abrahamic religions.

For those who require any reminder, the Epic of Gilgamesh is a poem from ancient Mesopotamia dating back to 18th century BC. It therefore predates Moses, whom tradition states wrote the first five books of OT (in 13the century BC). While there are versions from various ancient sources, there are a number of parallel with the Bible in having stories remarkably similar to the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Flood. As it predates the Bible, archealogical evidence may suggest that the Bible draws on stories current in the Near East at that time, if not from the Epic poem itself.

In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: “The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling.”

 

[the]

I’m pretty sure the response people try to use is that apparently the bible’s account was passed down orally before being written down.

 

[jimkhong]

I’m pretty sure the response people try to use is that apparently the bible’s account was passed down orally before being written down.

Thanks, I am not trying to start an argument, but do people reject the evidence from the scholars’ community. If they accept it, how does it affect their relationship with the Bible?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Disclaimer: I am not a Young Earth Creationist, and I do not agree with the central claims and agenda of the site I am about to source, especially as concerns cosmology and biology.

However, I found this article (on creation.com) to be very helpful, reasonable and enlightening in regards to this particular question:

creation.com/noahs-flood-and-the-gilgamesh-epic

Among the most interesting points noted (and discussed in great detail) is the difference between the “arks” in the two stories: one turns out to have very realistic dimensions which would have made it a very nautically sound and seaworthy vessel; the other is of such absurd design that it would have been flipped by the slightest waves. I’ll let you guess which is which.

There’s plenty of other food for thought there, too, so I highly recommend reading the whole article. Cheers!

 

[fhansen]

I am interested to hear different views of whether and how Epic of Gilgamesh has on faith in Holy Scriptures. This question is not limited to Christians but anyone of Abrahamic religions.

For those who require any reminder, the Epic of Gilgamesh is a poem from ancient Mesopotamia dating back to 18th century BC. It therefore predates Moses, whom tradition states wrote the first five books of OT (in 13the century BC). While there are versions from various ancient sources, there are a number of parallel with the Bible in having stories remarkably similar to the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Flood. As it predates the Bible, archealogical evidence may suggest that the Bible draws on stories current in the Near East at that time, if not from the Epic poem itself.

In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: “The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling.”

I agree with Wexler; aspects of both are based on historical fact. But from there the Epic of Gilgamesh takes off on a pretty fanciful mythological trip, while the OT sounds much more reasonable.

 

[Dorothy]

Thanks, I am not trying to start an argument, but do people reject the evidence from the scholars’ community. If they accept it, how does it affect their relationship with the Bible?

I am not a scholar, but I remember reading that any stories that pre-dated Scripture were most likely borrowed from by the inspired writer of Genesis…But… what was used by the writer of Genesis was corrected and clarified by the Holy Spirit, so as to portray salvation history truthfully.

In other words, those who wrote prior to Genesis got some of it correct, but not the exact point of what God was saying in the bible.

 

[jimkhong]

I am not a scholar, but I remember reading that any stories that pre-dated Scripture were most likely borrowed from by the inspired writer of Genesis…But… what was used by the writer of Genesis was corrected and clarified by the Holy Spirit, so as to portray salvation history truthfully.

In other words, those who wrote prior to Genesis got some of it correct, but not the exact point of what God was saying in the bible.

Thanks Dorothy, that is a very interesting point. I guess that preserves the integrity of the faith!

 

[Dorothy]

Thanks Dorothy, that is a very interesting point. I guess that preserves the integrity of the faith!

Yes! Thanks be to the Holy Spirit.

 

[jimkhong]

Disclaimer: I am not a Young Earth Creationist, and I do not agree with the central claims and agenda of the site I am about to source, especially as concerns cosmology and biology.

However, I found this article (on creation.com) to be very helpful, reasonable and enlightening in regards to this particular question:

creation.com/noahs-flood-and-the-gilgamesh-epic

Among the most interesting points noted (and discussed in great detail) is the difference between the “arks” in the two stories: one turns out to have very realistic dimensions which would have made it a very nautically sound and seaworthy vessel; the other is of such absurd design that it would have been flipped by the slightest waves. I’ll let you guess which is which.

There’s plenty of other food for thought there, too, so I highly recommend reading the whole article. Cheers!

Thanks prodigalson, it is good to see people aruging their case with a basis and calmly, although the labels used on opponents seem rather loaded. I note the points raised.

My question is more personal. Do you accept non-Christian origins of Biblical stories and if so, how would you reconcile it with your understanding of the role of Scriptures? I think Dorothy gave a basis for not accepting it, which the reference site you supplied alluded to.

 

[CalCatholic]

This is (just s little bit) from the reading guide of ‘The Catholic Bible, Personal Study Edition’ entitled ‘Are some Genesis stories just rewrites of ancient myths?’

**Sometimes readers point to the similarities between the biblical creation stories and myths of ancient Near Eastern people as a way of discrediting the Bible texts. Since they are derived from pagan myths, they argue, the Bible stories have no more than literary value. But the fact that the biblical writer may have borrowed legends from neighboring cultures in no way diminishes the theological value of the writing.

It is the biblical author’s final product, not the original myth, that the Church believes is inspired and has canonized into the body of scripture. And this final form differs significantly in purpose and theology from the myths the inspired writer not only may have borrowed, but perhaps was also trying to debunk.

It is important to remember that being related to and derived from similar stories of the ancient Near East in no way compromises the religious truth or value of the stories we find in Genesis. **

 

[Dorothy]

This is (just s little bit) from the reading guide of ‘The Catholic Bible, Personal Study Edition’ entitled ‘Are some Genesis stories just rewrites of ancient myths?’

**Sometimes readers point to the similarities between the biblical creation stories and myths of ancient Near Eastern people as a way of discrediting the Bible texts. Since they are derived from pagan myths, they argue, the Bible stories have no more than literary value. But the fact that the biblical writer may have borrowed legends from neighboring cultures in no way diminishes the theological value of the writing.

It is the biblical author’s final product, not the original myth, that the Church believes is inspired and has canonized into the body of scripture. And this final form differs significantly in purpose and theology from the myths the inspired writer not only may have borrowed, but perhaps was also trying to debunk.

It is important to remember that being related to and derived from similar stories of the ancient Near East in no way compromises the religious truth or value of the stories we find in Genesis. **

Well said! That is what I was taught. In fact, if the pagans read the inspired biblical account, hopefully it made more sense to them!

 

[irenaeuslyons]

I am interested to hear different views of whether and how Epic of Gilgamesh has on faith in Holy Scriptures. This question is not limited to Christians but anyone of Abrahamic religions.

For those who require any reminder, the Epic of Gilgamesh is a poem from ancient Mesopotamia dating back to 18th century BC. It therefore predates Moses, whom tradition states wrote the first five books of OT (in 13the century BC). While there are versions from various ancient sources, there are a number of parallel with the Bible in having stories remarkably similar to the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Flood. As it predates the Bible, archealogical evidence may suggest that the Bible draws on stories current in the Near East at that time, if not from the Epic poem itself.

In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: “The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling.”

Scientists have now proved that the Black Sea used to be a dry plain. If you look at the google satellite map, you can make out that this particular flood was more massive than its current boundaries and goes straight through to the Caspian Sea. by looking at the geological features between them.

 

[the]

Scientists have now proved that the Black Sea used to be a dry plain. If you look at the google satellite map, you can make out that this particular flood was more massive than its current boundaries and goes straight through to the Caspian Sea. by looking at the geological features between them.

No chance of that, that would have meant that global sea levels would have to have been hundreds of feet higher then they are today, which they weren’t.

 

[ColdComfort]

I am not a scholar, but I remember reading that any stories that pre-dated Scripture were most likely borrowed from by the inspired writer of Genesis…But… what was used by the writer of Genesis was corrected and clarified by the Holy Spirit, so as to portray salvation history truthfully.

In other words, those who wrote prior to Genesis got some of it correct, but not the exact point of what God was saying in the bible.

Specifically God floods the world because humans are evil. He has a reason. Not so, as I recall, in Gilgamesh. The gods there are arbitrary like the gods in Homer. The covenant with Noah is also unique.

 

[jimkhong]

Scientists have now proved that the Black Sea used to be a dry plain. If you look at the google satellite map, you can make out that this particular flood was more massive than its current boundaries and goes straight through to the Caspian Sea. by looking at the geological features between them.

Understood, but how does it affect the way you use the Bible?

 

[jimkhong]

This is (just s little bit) from the reading guide of ‘The Catholic Bible, Personal Study Edition’ entitled ‘Are some Genesis stories just rewrites of ancient myths?’

**Sometimes readers point to the similarities between the biblical creation stories and myths of ancient Near Eastern people as a way of discrediting the Bible texts. Since they are derived from pagan myths, they argue, the Bible stories have no more than literary value. But the fact that the biblical writer may have borrowed legends from neighboring cultures in no way diminishes the theological value of the writing.

It is the biblical author’s final product, not the original myth, that the Church believes is inspired and has canonized into the body of scripture. And this final form differs significantly in purpose and theology from the myths the inspired writer not only may have borrowed, but perhaps was also trying to debunk.

It is important to remember that being related to and derived from similar stories of the ancient Near East in no way compromises the religious truth or value of the stories we find in Genesis. **

Good reference. Does this mean that the truth in the Biblical stories is independent of the

• originator of the stories? If the Devil tells the truth, it remains a truth.
• factual content of those stories? God’s message can be received in a lie.

 

[The_Serpent]

Great, I read the Epic. I think there is a need to stretch back the Biblical history, especially from the time around the Flood and Tower of Babel. There will always be a group of people in history following God, but finding them in archaeology may not be easy. The flood in Gilgamesh was probably the same flood of Noah.

Some interesting insights from Gilgamesh; he rebuilt the Temples of Inanna (Ishtar) that were destroyed by the flood. So I wonder if some archaeology is from before or after the flood? Also he kills Humbaba the monster that sounds like some sort of talking dinosaur, perhaps the Behemoth in the Book of Job?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Thanks prodigalson, it is good to see people aruging their case with a basis and calmly, although the labels used on opponents seem rather loaded. I note the points raised.

My question is more personal. Do you accept non-Christian origins of Biblical stories and if so, how would you reconcile it with your understanding of the role of Scriptures? I think Dorothy gave a basis for not accepting it, which the reference site you supplied alluded to.

Well, to my knowledge, the Flood is the only example of a Biblical story with a seemingly non-Jewish/Christian origin. And in the case of that story, the most likely explanation seems to be this: all versions of the story originated from a single oral tradition. However, one was meticulously preserved (Genesis) while the others became corrupted and mythologized as humanity dispersed into separate nations and cultures. As is noted in the article I provided, history is often turned into mythology, but mythology doesn’t often get turned into history. The rather straightforward historical structure of the Genesis narrative, along with its realistic details re: the ark, suggests that it is truer to the original story than the outlandish absurdities of Gilgamesh and other ancient flood narratives.

So, no, I don’t really accept non-Judeo-Christian origins to Biblical stories, in the sense that they would have been borrowed from the myths of other cultures. I do, however, accept the fact that many of the stories in Genesis originated in a pre-Judaic culture which was nevertheless monotheistic and faithfully preserved those narratives until they were finally written down in the time of Moses.

 

[jimkhong]

Well, to my knowledge, the Flood is the only example of a Biblical story with a seemingly non-Jewish/Christian origin. And in the case of that story, the most likely explanation seems to be this: all versions of the story originated from a single oral tradition. However, one was meticulously preserved (Genesis) while the others became corrupted and mythologized as humanity dispersed into separate nations and cultures. As is noted in the article I provided, history is often turned into mythology, but mythology doesn’t often get turned into history. The rather straightforward historical structure of the Genesis narrative, along with its realistic details re: the ark, suggests that it is truer to the original story than the outlandish absurdities of Gilgamesh and other ancient flood narratives.

So, no, I don’t really accept non-Judeo-Christian origins to Biblical stories, in the sense that they would have been borrowed from the myths of other cultures. I do, however, accept the fact that many of the stories in Genesis originated in a pre-Judaic culture which was nevertheless monotheistic and faithfully preserved those narratives until they were finally written down in the time of Moses.

Thanks, I understand the position. I guess that one can say the patriarchs of old are all of a pre-Judiac montheistic culture.

By the way, the story of Adam and Eve is also paralleled in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

 

[steve53]

Documented Egyptian history goes back 10,000 years. No reason why middle eastern civilization doesn’t extend that far back as well.