Noah and Gilgamesh

  • Thread starter Thread starter utunumsint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

utunumsint

Guest
Hi,

I’ve recently seen a comparison of the Biblical flood text and the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It seems as though the Biblical story was taken from the Summerian flood account, which is almost the same. The names are different, and references to “the Gods” is changed to “God”, removing any polytheistic sense.

If this scenario is true, it would seem that the Biblical author believed that God was truly acting in the context of a Polytheistic culture. He just changed the names around and made it monotheistic. If this is true, should we not be able to do the same for other religions (e.g. believe that God is acting in their culture and religion)?

Ut
 
The story of Noah was most likely composed during the Babylonian Exile during which the Jews were dangerously close to a pagan religion, a polytheistic religion, which could have potentially corrupted their own faith and culture. In order to combat this threat, the Jews likely adopted the story for themselves and made it their own, teaching it to their children so that they could say “No, we have our own flood story. Yours is wrong.”

The Jews hardly believed that God would work through any other cultures since they believed that God and Israel were intrinsically linked. If God worked through other cultures, in a sense, he would be comitting adultery, or, breaking the covenant which was made with Abraham.

God does work through all circumstances. Of course he does. But this does not mean “every religion is just as good as another.”
 
Hi,

I’ve recently seen a comparison of the Biblical flood text and the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It seems as though the Biblical story was taken from the Summerian flood account, which is almost the same. The names are different, and references to “the Gods” is changed to “God”, removing any polytheistic sense.

If this scenario is true, it would seem that the Biblical author believed that God was truly acting in the context of a Polytheistic culture. He just changed the names around and made it monotheistic. If this is true, should we not be able to do the same for other religions (e.g. believe that God is acting in their culture and religion)?

Ut
Although I do not take everything in Genesis literally, I think that the fact that many cultures have flood stories indicates that some catastrophe must have happened.

Early stories were often passed down and changed to suit the audience that was listening.If a horrible event occurred then societies would all tell their own version of that event with their own explanations.

But simply because one culture wrote down its stories before another did does not indicate that its stories are older, or even that they originated the tale. It just means that the culture recorded their tale in writing before anyone else.
 
Hi,

. If this is true, should we not be able to do the same for other religions (e.g. believe that God is acting in their culture and religion)?

Ut
I would need to understand better what you are asking to answer your question. God put his laws on all men’s hearts, so it is possible that other faiths have some truth in them. They do not have the fullness of truth though. I’m not certain if that is what you are looking for.
 
I’ve recently seen a comparison of the Biblical flood text and the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It seems as though the Biblical story was taken from the Summerian flood account, which is almost the same.
Read Gilgamesh and the story of Noah. They’re not almost the same. Gil is saved not because any special virtue, but because he’s buddy to the gods. Noah is saved because is a virtuous man. The gods decide to destroy Gil’s world with a flood because people are noisy and wake the gods up from their nap. The True God punishes evil. Further differences abound, but these rather obvious ones are sufficient to demolish the idea that the two stories are “almost the same.”

– Mark L. Chance.
 
God does work through all circumstances. Of course he does. But this does not mean “every religion is just as good as another.”
I 100 % agree. But there are elements of truth that can be found in other religions.
But simply because one culture wrote down its stories before another did does not indicate that its stories are older, or even that they originated the tale. It just means that the culture recorded their tale in writing before anyone else.
Makes sense.
I would need to understand better what you are asking to answer your question. God put his laws on all men’s hearts, so it is possible that other faiths have some truth in them. They do not have the fullness of truth though. I’m not certain if that is what you are looking for.
Just this. That God worked miracles in a pagan culture e.g. warning the polytheistic version of Noah to build the Arc.

This could be an example of God’s providential and miraculous care of every culture, regardless of their religion.
The True God punishes evil. Further differences abound, but these rather obvious ones are sufficient to demolish the idea that the two stories are “almost the same.”
Agreed. But our Noah story could be a cleaned up monotheistic version of the pagan story, could it not?

Ut
 
God does work through all circumstances. Of course he does. But this does not mean “every religion is just as good as another.”
I 100 % agree. But there are elements of truth that can be found in other religions.
But simply because one culture wrote down its stories before another did does not indicate that its stories are older, or even that they originated the tale. It just means that the culture recorded their tale in writing before anyone else.
Makes sense.
I would need to understand better what you are asking to answer your question. God put his laws on all men’s hearts, so it is possible that other faiths have some truth in them. They do not have the fullness of truth though. I’m not certain if that is what you are looking for.
Just this. That God worked miracles in a pagan culture e.g. warning the polytheistic version of Noah to build the Arc.

This could be an example of God’s providential and miraculous care of every culture, regardless of their religion.
The True God punishes evil. Further differences abound, but these rather obvious ones are sufficient to demolish the idea that the two stories are “almost the same.”
Agreed. But our Noah story could be a cleaned up monotheistic version of the pagan story, could it not?

Ut
 
Read Gilgamesh and the story of Noah. They’re not almost the same. Gil is saved not because any special virtue, but because he’s buddy to the gods. Noah is saved because is a virtuous man. The gods decide to destroy Gil’s world with a flood because people are noisy and wake the gods up from their nap. The True God punishes evil. Further differences abound, but these rather obvious ones are sufficient to demolish the idea that the two stories are “almost the same.”
I suggest you reread the eleventh tablet yourself (online here). Gilgamesh himself does not appear at all in the Flood tale; the Noah figure is Utnapishtim, who is granted immortality after the fact and much later recounts the story to Gilgamesh. Utnapishtim, much like Noah, is a man who is by himself nobody special, but who listens when gods talk. The similarities are tremendous, even down to the use of birds to discover whether the waters had receded.
 
The fact that the story of Noah is likely a cleaned up monotheistic version of a polytheistic story does not undermine the other fact that when they changed it, Truth became realized. In the details of the story that they changed (sorry I don’t remember all of them right now) it became apparent that what Israel’s God has in store for his people is uniquely different from any other gods that people believed in at that time. If you do a critical analysis of the two stories, I think you’ll be able to find very glaring differences and, most especailly, you’ll find how the Jews saw their God - a very demanding God, but also a very loving and merciful God.

What you see, then, is not God working through other cultures necessarily, but God working through His Providence and through the inspriation of the Holy Spirit to deliver Truth, of which the Catholic Church is in full possession.

Some others have bits and pieces of that Truth (as Truth can be reasoned to this only makes sense) but it is the Catholic Church that holds the fullness of Truth.
 
Toledoths of Genesis

This article is all about the true structure of the Book of Genesis; a structure that is so simple and straightforward - as the reader is going to discover - that even a child would have no trouble understanding it in its basic form. The chief credit for having laid bare this structure in all its profound simplicity belongs to the British scholar, P. J. Wiseman(1), upon whose thesis the following article will be based.

more…
 
So Buffalo, what do you really think about this issue? 😃

Thanks for these posts. I’ll take a couple of hours to read them when I get off work.

Ut
 
I see some assumptions here that no one has commented on. Perhaps it is because I do not know the correct answer and one of you kind people can steer me to the correct answer.

The assumption is that the Genesis account of Noah was derived from the Epic of Gilgamesh. How do we know the reverse is not true?

Also, I have never ever heard that Genesis was written during the Babylonian exile. That seems unlikely and quite inconsistent with everything else I have learned. I have heard that the writing of Genesis was contemporary with the writing of Exodus.
 
The assumption is that the Genesis account of Noah was derived from the Epic of Gilgamesh. How do we know the reverse is not true?

.
Spend some time on the Toledoths article.
 
The assumption is that the Genesis account of Noah was derived from the Epic of Gilgamesh. How do we know the reverse is not true?
I don’t see that one has to be stolen from the other. It could easily be two retellings of the same story – and whether one or the other came first is immaterial.
Also, I have never ever heard that Genesis was written during the Babylonian exile. That seems unlikely and quite inconsistent with everything else I have learned. I have heard that the writing of Genesis was contemporary with the writing of Exodus.
Traditionally it’s supposed to have been written about that time, yes; however, tradition is not always fact. I believe now it’s held to be an amalgam of texts composed after the death of Solomon but before the Captivity. That doesn’t say anything about the possibility of an oral tradition, though, and there isn’t really any way to find out how far back that stretches.
 
Spend some time on the Toledoths article.
When I tried to go to that site, my firewall came alive and said the site was trying to plant 2 different trojan-horse programs as well as a key-logger. :eek:
 
You can say these two stories have a few similarities, but its a huge leap to say the Genesis author had the Epic of Gilgamesh in front of him and used the Epic of Gilgamesh while writing Genesis.

If you read Gilgamesh and Genesis, the Genesis story is hardly a word for word borrowing. The ark’s dimensions in Genesis are different; it’s bigger, being 300 cubits in length while Gilgamesh’s is only 120 cubits.

The differences between the Revised Standard Version of the Bible Genesis Noah (Genesis 6-11) and the Penguin Classics 1960, reprinted 1974 version I have are numerous. There is much more detail in Genesis about Noah and his family. The two texts only in a couple of details resemble each other.

O.K., in Gilgamesh a “boat” is built; nothing about 40 days and 40nights, no Ishtar crying out like a woman in labor, no gods of heaven and hell weeping, the Gilgamesh guy burns wood; Noah burns the clean animals.

Noah sends forth a raven and then later a dove on the seventh day; the Gilgamesh guy looses a dove on the seventh day, and then a swallow, and then a raven;

“With the first light of dawn a black cloud came from the horizon; it thundered within where Adad, lord of the storm was riding. In front over hill and plain Shullat and Hanish, heralds of the storms, led on. Then the gods of the abyss rose up; Nergal pulled out the dams of the nether waters, Ninurta the war-lord threw down the dykes, and the seven judges of hell, the Annunaki, raised their torches, lighting up the land with their livid flame” (Epic of Gilgamesh, The Story of the Flood)

Where is that in Genesis? And the Gilgamesh text goes on like that. Utunumsint said the Genesis writer just changed the text to say “God” for when the text said gods.

How about a little friendly criticism and maybe checking your facts twice before you post a thread like this?

The stories end differently; there’s no “Covenant” made in Gilgamesh between the gods and man. In Gilgamesh the guy is mad immortal and moved to a different location to live.

The Genesis story is a much more detailed account of Noah and his three sons.

The link someone provided to Tablet 11 seems to have a little more text in their translation, especially dealing with a named mountain, than my Penguin Classic edition from 1974. It’s conceivable more tablets from the story have been found and translated, but I don’t know where the translator got all that extra text.

So there are a few similarities. But so what? That doesn’t necessarily prove that Genesis author used Gigamesh Tablet 11 in writing the story.

There could be dozens of versions of Noah’s story on papyrus paper or stone tablets that could be buried in the desert or simply did not survive.

There could be dozens of other Gilgamesh type stories with the names of other heroes that haven’t been found or do not survive.

If anything you could say the Gilgamesh story bolsters Genesis. There are other, older stories of a flood and a hero favored by supernatural creatures. There definitely was some sort of common oral tradition.

But all of this just pure speculation. Literary analysis is not science. The number “seven” to ancient Semitic peoples represented perfection.

As Catholics, we believe that the Bible is the “Word of the Lord” and was written under the spiritual guidance of the Holy Spirit. We only accept the Bible as God’s word. Ancient pagan religions may have contained some sort of spiritual Truth, but not the Full Truth that Catholic Christianity provides and reveals.

Some one here will groan “its the same story” and give all sorts of modern historical inquiry analysis and archeological evidence, but there missing the concept of Faith.

One isn’t necessarily Catholic because all the historical evidence and literary texts and scientific methods match up and add up100% like a jigsaw puzzle.

But one is Catholic because they have Faith. Jesus, I trust in you.

So to me it is not a matter of historical inquiry, archeology, and scientific method, but also, and more so, a matter of Faith.

And if you leave Faith out of it and don’t respect Faith, you’ll never understand Christianity.

Secular humanists know the majority of Christians don’t know the Bible because they got the ACLU and a Freemasonic run U.S. Supreme Court in the 1930’s and 40’s to throw it out of America’s public schools.

Since Christians are Bible illiterate, they can then say Genesis is a rip off of Gilgamesh. And the Christian is unable to refute it because of their illiteracy. This Gilgamesh epic makes its appearance once and a while on Liberal run U.S. government agencies like National Public Radio and PBS. And on NPR and PBS they never have an orthodox theologian, Protestant , Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or Jewish on their programs.

It’s always a single liberal minded individual when social issues are involved.
 
When I tried to go to that site, my firewall came alive and said the site was trying to plant 2 different trojan-horse programs as well as a key-logger. :eek:
Unlikely. I see nothing of the sort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top