Is Genesis a Rehash of The Epic of Gilgamesh?

[lynnvinc]

Archaeology says otherwise. A global flood never happened. So having multiple flood myths shows the passing along/borrowing/rehashing of such stories are the only logical explanations, since there is no such thing as this “collective memory” to an event that never happened.

As an anthropologist, I can say I have read that there was a terrible flood in the Middle East in ancient times before the myths would have been created, related to climate change. Perhaps people found sea shells up mountainsides (the way I used to in California). See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

As for the other flood myths around the world, well, there have been floods throughout history all over the place, from various causes. IOW, there is a basis for flood myths in reality.

On the symbolic side there is the idea of amniotic fluid and life coming from that, and the idea of water cleansing the world (of sin, etc); there is a need to explain sin and evil in the myths, and sometimes a flood myth serves to show that another myth is wrong – like untouchable flood myth in India showing that the caste origin myth (that each caste is different in essential ways) may have been true then, but that was all wiped out with the flood, and we are all the same in essentials today (as the only survivors were a father and his daughter, whom God made into his wife). I could get into this more, but don’t have time now…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thanks! Wow! I spend way too much time here, don’t I?

No such thing

 

[Della]

As an anthropologist, I can say I have read that there was a terrible flood in the Middle East in ancient times before the myths would have been created, related to climate change. Perhaps people found sea shells up mountainsides (the way I used to in California). See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

As for the other flood myths around the world, well, there have been floods throughout history all over the place, from various causes. IOW, there is a basis for flood myths in reality.

On the symbolic side there is the idea of amniotic fluid and life coming from that, and the idea of water cleansing the world (of sin, etc); there is a need to explain sin and evil in the myths, and sometimes a flood myth serves to show that another myth is wrong – like untouchable flood myth in India showing that the caste origin myth (that each caste is different in essential ways) may have been true then, but that was all wiped out with the flood, and we are all the same in essentials today (as the only survivors were a father and his daughter, whom God made into his wife). I could get into this more, but don’t have time now…

And like many pagan myths they are fractured mirrors of some real event which were completed in Christ. Men love to recast mythologies into new ones but many bear striking a resemblance to each other in their essentials, yes?

 

[Thorolfr]

Mankind subsisted in the Middle Eastern area long before humans moved out into the rest of the world. The flood was not a world-wide event that overtook Europe and China, but a local event that the poeple affected wrote about. Many peoples around the world have flood accounts because their ancestors carried the story with them as they migrated to inhabit the whole planet.

All the oldest human remains have been found in Africa, not in the Middle East and most scientists believe that humans originated in Africa.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

All the oldest human remains have been found in Africa, not in the Middle East and most scientists believe that humans originated in Africa.

Yes, but I believe the general consensus is still that “modern” civilization developed in the Middle East. As such, that is where the greatest concentration of people would have been.

 

[Tim_D]

As Christians, we hold that Genesis teaches real history, even if it does so through allegory, and therefore believe that the Genesis account would predate Gilgamesh.

Since when? The Church does not teach that. Genesis is not a history book, nor a biology book. It is a book of spiritual truths told to expound upon the fact that all creation was created and ordained by God and that mankind, through some act of free will, is born in a fractured state that required the perfect sacrifice of Christ to restore us to God’s grace. The snake, the fruit, the ark and so on are only elements used to highlight the plight of the human spirit. Real history it is not.

 

[Zadeth]

Thank you all for your answers… I worry a lot about this, it makes me think - how can we be sure the rest of the stuff in the Bible is correct if this was adapted from Gilgamesh? A few comments I’ve seen on the likes of Reddit say:

“The Gilgamesh flood story and that told in Genesis are not simply similarly told but near identical tellings with details seemingly only changed to suit contemporary usefulness, and Gilgamesh is nearly 2,000 years older. For those that believe in the literal and absolute truth of the Bible this fact alone should be enough to cast major doubt on the “truth” of their faith. Anyone willing to read this sub will have their faith similarly weakened, but historical facts tend to do that to mythology.” and

“The details are near exactly the same between the stories and we know, from the Bible itself and archaeology, that Genesis was primarily composed during the exile. If these weren’t true it might be more reasonable to assume they’re either separate stories or have a more complicated history between them, but there’s a reason why Babylonian influence is assumed rather than the other direction.
These aren’t trivial similarities. The only differences are the number of gods and the names. Actually read Gilgamesh and take note of the dove that gets sent to find land in that story. If this were just a generic flood story, nobody would be proposing they’re the same. But when you also have the details in the story being the same, you need to consider other possibilities.”

I’m really distressing about this.

 

[Wesrock]

It’s not definitive that Genesis was written entirely after the Exile, though it does seem probable there was some editing (cities being renamed to modern names), at least.

A lot of modern Biblical scholarship presupposes that religion isn’t real. I’ve seen scholars say that because the account shows Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple in a Gospel, the Gospel couldn’t have been written before 70 AD. Because “obviously” Jesus couldn’t have really predicted it and the Holy Spirit couldn’t have inspired the authors to write those words.

That’s not to throw out the historical critical method entirely, but we shouldn’t let secularists dominate the conversation with their own assumptions.

The Church doesn’t mandate that we believe Moses literally penned Genesis. We’re allowed to believe it was written down mostly after the Exile, but it also doesn’t hold that the evidence is strong enough to completely throw out the tradition of Mosaic authorship altogether, nor does a late written account prove that the oral tradition didn’t exist for much longer. Perhaps there were written accounts before the Exile that were lost and the Israelites and Judeans had to remember through oral tradition and write it down again afterwards (speculation).

Anyway, see my first post. I don’t think there’s any reason to believe, that even if what you’re finding on Reddit is true, that it should shake our faith.

Also, the details probably don’t agree nearly as much as those posters say. I hear the same thing about Mithras and Egyptian parallels all the time and after researching it just isn’t true. Admittedly, I haven’t read Gilgamesh yet.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Since when? The Church does not teach that. Genesis is not a history book, nor a biology book. It is a book of spiritual truths told to expound upon the fact that all creation was created and ordained by God and that mankind, through some act of free will, is born in a fractured state that required the perfect sacrifice of Christ to restore us to God’s grace. The snake, the fruit, the ark and so on are only elements used to highlight the plight of the human spirit. Real history it is not.

When I say real history, I mean the truths of the genesis of humanity. This does not necessarily mean the physical mode of our creation or a specific timeline of events, but rather, as you said, the fact that we were created by God, sinned against him, and basically let the world go to Hell. These are all real, historical truths presented through a mixture of allegory and factual history.

I think we’re saying the same thing, just with different language.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thank you all for your answers… I worry a lot about this, it makes me think - how can we be sure the rest of the stuff in the Bible is correct if this was adapted from Gilgamesh? A few comments I’ve seen on the likes of Reddit say:

“The Gilgamesh flood story and that told in Genesis are not simply similarly told but near identical tellings with details seemingly only changed to suit contemporary usefulness, and Gilgamesh is nearly 2,000 years older. For those that believe in the literal and absolute truth of the Bible this fact alone should be enough to cast major doubt on the “truth” of their faith. Anyone willing to read this sub will have their faith similarly weakened, but historical facts tend to do that to mythology.” and

“The details are near exactly the same between the stories and we know, from the Bible itself and archaeology, that Genesis was primarily composed during the exile. If these weren’t true it might be more reasonable to assume they’re either separate stories or have a more complicated history between them, but there’s a reason why Babylonian influence is assumed rather than the other direction.
These aren’t trivial similarities. The only differences are the number of gods and the names. Actually read Gilgamesh and take note of the dove that gets sent to find land in that story. If this were just a generic flood story, nobody would be proposing they’re the same. But when you also have the details in the story being the same, you need to consider other possibilities.”

I’m really distressing about this.

Have you actually read Gilgamesh? I’ll admit that I haven’t, so I don’t know for sure; but whenever people make claims like this it’s important that they provide evidence for it. I’d be willing to be a bit of money that the “similarities” they’re claiming aren’t actually present.

Another poster posted this link earlier, allow me to re-link to it and give you a short except related to this issue, which is very common in these types of comparisons:
Is Catholicism Pagan

Whenever one encounters a proposed example of pagan influence, one should demand that its existence be properly documented, not just asserted. The danger of accepting an inaccurate claim is too great. The amount of misinformation in this area is great enough that it is advisable never to accept a reported parallel as true unless it can be demonstrated from primary source documents or through reliable, scholarly secondary sources. After receiving documentation supporting the claim of a pagan parallel, one should ask a number of questions:

1. Is there a parallel? Frequently, there is not. The claim of a parallel may be erroneous, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source.

For example: “The Egyptians had a trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis, and Horus, thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known” (Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am an Agnostic). This is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood (not surprising, since the Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being (the Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim of an Egyptian trinity is simply wrong. There is no parallel.

Much like the example of the Egyptian Pantheon, I expect that these “similarities” are due more to a flawed interpretation (or downright lying) than to actual similarities in the stories.

A bit of advice, going to Reddit to look for accurate historical fact, fair debate, or intelligent discussion on the topic of religion is a flawed pursuit and won’t help you any. If you’re really interested in Biblical history, there have been tons of books written on the subject, many of which can be purchased from the Catholic.com shop, which is having a month long sale that ends today. Instead of listening to people who’s historical knowledge and research usually amounts to little more than reading about something online, you should really read true historians and analysts who have devoted their life to the study of these subject.

Also, read the link I posted. I don’t know if you already have, but if you haven’t then read it. Pagan parallels are the result of actively-malicious efforts to undermine the Church and Christianity in generate, and have been all but debunked by actual historians. The only people who still believe in nonsense like this are people that aren’t open to the Truth to begin with, and will latch on to anything that supports their preconceived notion that Christianity is a false religion, no matter how thoroughly that “evidence” has been debunked.

 

[Wesrock]

I just wanted to quote this part from the introduction to Genesis in the Ignatius Study Bible (I can’t seem to edit my last post anymore):

The historicity of such things as the creation of the cosmos by God, the creation of man and woman, the unity of the human race, the testing and fall of man from a state of grace and original innocence, etc., cannot be compromised, for these constitute the essential pillars of the biblical world view and remain basic presuppositions of the Christian faith.

On the other hand, the first eleven chapters of Genesis exhibit notable parallels with the mythological traditions of the ancient Near East. These ancient myths of origin abound with poetic imagery and symbolic representations of the mysteries that pertain to divine and human realities. Of course, Genesis differs from the myths of Israel’s neighbors in having an objective grounding in history, and at several points Genesis is anti-mythological in intention (see note on 1:1—2:4).

Nevertheless, this did not prevent the sacred writer from utilizing common cultural forms of expression, also used by the mythmakers of the ancient world, in order to make his description of primeval history understandable to his contemporaries.

All things considered, then, Gen 1-11 may be regarded as historical in substance but mythopoeic in expression. Its narrative is anchored in realities and events of the past, and yet its description of those events makes use of the poetic symbolism and figurative modes of speech that once had a broad currency in biblical times.

The introduction and other commentary also
specifically refers to Gilgamesh. What you are seeing on Reddit isn’t anything new.

 

[lynnvinc]

All the oldest human remains have been found in Africa, not in the Middle East and most scientists believe that humans originated in Africa.

That’s true, and it is also true that they have the Adam & Eve creation narrative there, with the snake and all…

However, the idea about the Garden of Eden may have been in the Middle East, since that is where agriculture began. And the Bible was right on spot re “working by the sweat of the brow,” bec it was those who were pushed out of the valley where they could no longer engage in food foraging into the hilly areas where the had to start engaging in agriculture to survive – that agriculture being brutally more difficult at that time (without plows or draft animals) than food foraging.

Maybe we can think of Genesis as a very condensed version of what really happened.

The main point is that God created us and all of creation in ways that were incomprehensible and quite beyond any human imagination long ago, until we read God’s other book carefully, creation itself, over 1000s of years. And God has always been with us from the beginning, guiding us…even tho sometimes we go astray and don’t follow His precepts, which then puts us into trouble.

 

[edwest2]

Since when? The Church does not teach that. Genesis is not a history book, nor a biology book. It is a book of spiritual truths told to expound upon the fact that all creation was created and ordained by God and that mankind, through some act of free will, is born in a fractured state that required the perfect sacrifice of Christ to restore us to God’s grace. The snake, the fruit, the ark and so on are only elements used to highlight the plight of the human spirit. Real history it is not.

This is a reoccurring theme here. God can do things only God can do. Genesis records things God actually did, even though another message can be conveyed by an event. Science cannot study God and is not competent to explain miraculous events. Jesus Christ was sent by the Father for a specific sin committed by our first parents, who were two specific people. All the miracles Jesus did, like raising the dead? God is indeed God. We are all born with Original Sin.

Best,
Ed

 

[Della]

All the oldest human remains have been found in Africa, not in the Middle East and most scientists believe that humans originated in Africa.

I didn’t say anything about the earliest human origins. Humans migrated out of Africa to the Middle East where most of the higher ancient cultures (except for Egypt) formed. These were the ones that related such stories via their mythologies.

 

[thistle]

Biblical interpretation has defined rules. But back to Genesis:

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend.** They are accounts of real history**, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

“It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction.”

Ed

Not necessarily. For example, we are not required to believe the story of the flood is literally true.

 

[lynnvinc]

Since when? The Church does not teach that. Genesis is not a history book, nor a biology book. It is a book of spiritual truths told to expound upon the fact that all creation was created and ordained by God and that mankind, through some act of free will, is born in a fractured state that required the perfect sacrifice of Christ to restore us to God’s grace. The snake, the fruit, the ark and so on are only elements used to highlight the plight of the human spirit. Real history it is not.

Creation narratives are ultimate truth for the people who held them – religious/spiritual, and scientific (for their day & understanding), and morals/ethics/laws, and history, and the entertainment system of their day. They were sort of all in all for the people.

It was only later that we separated the fields of religion, science, history, ethics/morals/laws, and entertainment…so in a way we moderns are missing out on the true riches of Genesis, which would have been like everything to the people then.

I’m thinking those who take Genesis literally are missing out, and those who take it only symbolically (but not literally) are missing out. Perhaps getting into contemplation and mystical experience we might recover what we have lost or understand what we have always had.

 

[catholic1seeks]

That (if) the account in Genesis adapted the Epic of Gilgamesh should not shake your faith. The Catholic understanding of Scripture does not require (nor does it endorse) a belief that the Bible was divinely dictated, word-for-word document. Anyone who is open to this can easily see that each biblical book shows hints of differences in their writing methods, tones, theological approach, etc. So obviously, the individual author was dependent on historical circumstances and his own personality, factors which influenced how that author would communicate the truth. A biblical author’s borrowing from an earlier account to write his own message with is own purposes is a perfectly reasonable result following this principle of inspiration of Scripture. The Bible is 100% divine… but it is also 100% human (in terms of origin). Just like Christ appeared to be a man but was also God, and just as the Eucharist appears to be bread and wine but is God’s presence, so the Scriptures are cloaked in fully human words, even if inspired by God and therefore free from error. Remember that the Gospel writers borrowed from other, earlier Christian documents.

Also remember that the Genesis account is not a literal (scientific and historical) depiction of what happened. There are several things in Scripture that are not historical, when read in a literal word-for-word fashion. One has to take into account the human element of the stories.

 

[JThomasAlden]

When I say real history, I mean the truths of the genesis of humanity. This does not necessarily mean the physical mode of our creation or a specific timeline of events, but rather, as you said, the fact that we were created by God, sinned against him, and basically let the world go to Hell. These are all real, historical truths presented through a mixture of allegory and factual history.

Why would we assume these are real, historical truths?

It seems everyone here agrees that Genesis is a myth, though people differ in how much they think it was inspired by some historical occurrence, some other myth, or some moral lesson intended by the authors.

You claim that the stories of Genesis are based on truths (Yahweh created the universe, Yahweh created the animals, Yahweh created the first man, the first man disobeyed Yahweh at the urging of the first woman and was cursed with Original Sin as a result, etc.), but it seems that Genesis is being used to explain some pre-supposed assumptions through parables, rather than being an account of where these beliefs come from.

How is this different than any other myth (creation or otherwise) where the author has certain lessons to teach and comes up with a colorful and memorable tale in order to teach them?

Perhaps the tales from Genesis existed before Gilgamesh and were orally transmitted for two thousand years… we have no historical evidence for that position and it is less likely than the position that Genesis was inspired by Gilgamesh. For that matter, we have no historical evidence that Moses wrote any of the books of the Old Testament, nor do we have any historical evidence that Moses (or for that matter, Abraham, Isaac, Noah, Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain, Nephilim, or other characters from Genesis) even existed.

 

[lynnvinc]

That (if) the account in Genesis adapted the Epic of Gilgamesh should not shake your faith. The Catholic understanding of Scripture does not require (nor does it endorse) a belief that the Bible was divinely dictated, word-for-word document…

I think there might be a possibility that God did dictate it word for word, but the people just couldn’t comprehend it, and since it wasn’t written down at first, but passed on orally, it took shape that made sense to the people by the time it was written down.

So God (in booming voice from the clouds) said, “I caused a great big bang…”

Person receiving the revelation: “Say what ?”

God: “And from that atoms came into being…”

Person: “Adam…the first man…got that”

God: “And from that came the evolution of life…”

Person: “Ev-what…Eve…the first women…got that”

 

[MrSnaith]

Why would we assume these are real, historical truths?

It seems everyone here agrees that Genesis is a myth, though people differ in how much they think it was inspired by some historical occurrence, some other myth, or some moral lesson intended by the authors.

Which is why, ultimately, as Catholics we rely on the testimony of the Church, which recognizes that a primeval event is being portrayed in Genesis through the use of allegory.

You claim that the stories of Genesis are based on truths (Yahweh created the universe, Yahweh created the animals, Yahweh created the first man, the first man disobeyed Yahweh at the urging of the first woman and was cursed with Original Sin as a result, etc.), but it seems that Genesis is being used to explain some pre-supposed assumptions through parables, rather than being an account of where these beliefs come from.

Sure, people may use it to explain assumptions, but that’s an entirely different question than that of its authorship.

How is this different than any other myth (creation or otherwise) where the author has certain lessons to teach and comes up with a colorful and memorable tale in order to teach them?

The difference is that, historically speaking, this account has always been understood to be speaking about a historical event, and has never been purported to be a “moral lesson.” Myth isn’t just colorful storytelling. Instead, myth is the kind of story that was intended to be passed on orally, coming out of a time before written chronologies. As such, the stories had to be easily memorable, in order to maintain accuracy. This means allegory, because it is easiest to remember imagery. So, symbolic systems were created, maybe systematically, maybe not, but they were created nonetheless, such that the symbolic imagery used conveyed specific meaning to the hearer.

The implication here is that the various mythic stories that we see around the world, though quite different, but still bearing basic structural similarities, may vary more in the imagery that is used, and less in the meaning behind the imagery. This is because each culture would have developed different symbolic systems. And given the basic structural similarities, this actually points to a real primeval event, rather than away from it.

Perhaps the tales from Genesis existed before Gilgamesh and were orally transmitted for two thousand years… we have no historical evidence for that position and it is less likely than the position that Genesis was inspired by Gilgamesh. For that matter, we have no historical evidence that Moses wrote any of the books of the Old Testament, nor do we have any historical evidence that Moses (or for that matter, Abraham, Isaac, Noah, Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain, Nephilim, or other characters from Genesis) even existed.

Actually, what we have is no historical evidence for the position that Gilgamesh is derived from Genesis. We DO have historical that Gilgamesh is not the original story. It is actually more likely that both the Genesis account and the Gilgamish Epic are descendants of an older oral tradition. It is not likely, however, that the Genesis account is derived from the Gilgamesh Epic, given what we know about how lore like this was used back then.