Gilgamesh-let's discuss

[mechanicdb]

First, let me say that I did a search and found a few threads with the mention of other stories and other religions telling of a great flood, but none of them actually tackle the subject like I would like it to be tackled. Some are post Genesis literacy time, but some are pre Genesis literacy time period.

I've seen some sources are condradictory on when Genesis was written, but mainly between second and third century b.c.. Now, my main point of attraction is with Gilgamesh because historians and archiologists date these cuneiform tablets beyond the third century b.c., which would put them in esixtance before the writing of Genesis.

My main question is how do we, as christians, explain the similarities of the Epic of Gilgamesh and the writings of Genesis presumed to be by Moses? I mean, since evidence is slight (save the many historical stories) on a great flood, how are we supposed to explain that Moses didn't copy the ideas of early mesopatamian literary writers? This would put the Bible in a whole new light from the beginning. What are we to say if an athiest were to say the Bible is just a story copied and revised from old mesopatamian folklore legends or myths about polytheisticism?

 

[mondar]

First, let me say that I did a search and found a few threads with the mention of other stories and other religions telling of a great flood, but none of them actually tackle the subject like I would like it to be tackled. Some are post Genesis literacy time, but some are pre Genesis literacy time period.

I've seen some sources are condradictory on when Genesis was written, but mainly between second and third century b.c.. Now, my main point of attraction is with Gilgamesh because historians and archiologists date these cuneiform tablets beyond the third century b.c., which would put them in esixtance before the writing of Genesis.

Can I ask for clarification here. Do you mean that Genesis was written in the 2nd and 3ird century, or the 2nd millenium BC?

My main question is how do we, as christians, explain the similarities of the Epic of Gilgamesh and the writings of Genesis presumed to be by Moses? I mean, since evidence is slight (save the many historical stories) on a great flood, how are we supposed to explain that Moses didn't copy the ideas of early mesopatamian literary writers? This would put the Bible in a whole new light from the beginning. What are we to say if an athiest were to say the Bible is just a story copied and revised from old mesopatamian folklore legends or myths about polytheisticism?

Of course atheists will say that the bible is copied, or made up, or merely saga, myth, or fables. Extremists will even say that Jesus is not an actual historical figure. Some of what they say is so far out that I feel no interest.

The Gilgamesh epic is certainly interesting. I am certainly no scholar, but am going to offer my laymens opinion. There are unmistakable similarities to the biblical account, there are also great differences. Just reading the dementions of the ark in each story shows great differences. I believe the Gilgamesh epic has an ark the shape of a cube. Of course the biblical account has a large ship closer to modern shipping proportions. Both stories have a boat, but the biblical account seems superior to me.

Could the differences and similarities be accounted for by previous oral tradition? Moses drew from a sacred oral tradition that was accurate, but the Babylonian account had was changed to reflect their polytheism? In the process of change, did distortion occur.

I have little support to offer off the top of my head for my opinions. I am not a scholar of ancient literature. Nevertheless, my opinion is that the biblical account is superior. I also think that the Biblical account was written after the Babylonian account. You might assume that the early written record should be the one with more integrity, but this time I think even a casual reading reveals nasty flaws in the Babylonian account. I believe I have read (somewhere) of several other cultures in which either written, or oral accounts of a flood have been passed down. Do all these separate and different oral accounts go back to one true and actual event? The stories have similarities and differences to some degree? Which one is accurate? Well, by now you know I believe the biblical account, but read for yourself and see which one you think has the most integrity. If each story is a strand of an oral tradition, and there is one single oral tradition back before all of them in the midst of time, which one do you think most accurately reflects some possible original story with the original event behind it?

 

[mechanicdb]

Do you mean that Genesis was written in the 2nd and 3ird century, or the 2nd millenium BC?

sorry, yes, I used century mistakingly...i'm at work and was trying to rush through it. I've seen Genesis was written around 1400-1600 b.c. and I've seen documents that show gilgamesh written around 2000-2100 b.c.


sorry.

 

[mechanicdb]

The Gilgamesh epic is certainly interesting. I am certainly no scholar, but am going to offer my laymens opinion. There are unmistakable similarities to the biblical account, there are also great differences. Just reading the dementions of the ark in each story shows great differences. I believe the Gilgamesh epic has an ark the shape of a cube. Of course the biblical account has a large ship closer to modern shipping proportions. Both stories have a boat, but the biblical account seems superior to me.

Could the differences and similarities be accounted for by previous oral tradition? Moses drew from a sacred oral tradition that was accurate, but the Babylonian account had was changed to reflect their polytheism? In the process of change, did distortion occur.

I have little support to offer off the top of my head for my opinions. I am not a scholar of ancient literature. Nevertheless, my opinion is that the biblical account is superior. I also think that the Biblical account was written after the Babylonian account. You might assume that the early written record should be the one with more integrity, but this time I think even a casual reading reveals nasty flaws in the Babylonian account. I believe I have read (somewhere) of several other cultures in which either written, or oral accounts of a flood have been passed down. Do all these separate and different oral accounts go back to one true and actual event? The stories have similarities and differences to some degree? Which one is accurate? Well, by now you know I believe the biblical account, but read for yourself and see which one you think has the most integrity. If each story is a strand of an oral tradition, and there is one single oral tradition back before all of them in the midst of time, which one do you think most accurately reflects some possible original story with the original event behind it?

First, I want to thank you for your reply.

For the sake of this discussion for now, I will act as an athiest (I am not, however). The story of Gilgamesh was a fable, folklore, or myth, at least it has generally been accepted that way because of the language it was written in. Since there are stories of a great flood and creationism long before biblical accounts, we must look at them first.

You say the story has flaws early on and has more integrity; but that is way too easy to combat. Take the medical profession for instance. One reasearch might show that cell phones don't cause cancer, but they may have another research that shows it does. Take science as another example. The theory of evoultion has been curtailed and improved over several years due to the increasing knowledge on the subject matter and advances in technology and so forth.

So, when you say the story had flaws, but has more integrity now simply means that the people who wrote the story first had less knowledge of the subject matter when they wrote the story; the first accounts of the story helped the composers of the second, third, fourth, etc stories to improve on it...where would that put us then?

 

[Rick W]

I have little doubt one can find similarities judging from the amount of pagan writings we have. There's a lot to choose from and finding those similarities shouldn't be difficult no matter what part of the bible or topic you care to look at.
Fact is if one can't find a similarity somewhere then one really isn't looking hard enough.

 

[samuel]

If you will check, almost ever culture has a flood story. I think rather than making a questioning of the Genesis account, it gives it credence.

Every culture has a common tie, through the account of the tower of Babel. So it stands to reason verbal tradition, was carried on through common knowledge. Now we all know that a story being told, and retold changes with the telling, sometimes to the point! that it no longer even resembles the original. I think this is as good an explanation as any for the differing flood stories.

If you will also notice pyramids are not limited to the Egyptian culture, but exist in many others. A pyramid is a ziggurat, and can vary in form somewhat, example the Aztec pyramids. But they are still pyramids, is this not possibly what the tower of Babel was??.

 

[wavy]

There is little doubt the biblical Flood myth is molded on an older Babylonian version.

There may have been a flood of some devastating proportions in ancient Mesopotamia (definitely not worldwide), which gave rise to a flood myth, but I doubt the biblical Flood story reflects an independent version. It simply follows a train of Babylonian myth.

In fact, I believe it can be proven that the biblical Flood story depended on a Babylonian one. The key is the calendar in the story.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mechanicdb]

Ok, so, you are saying that it is quite possible the flood actually happened; which many people believe, but that both stories are talking about the same flood? The exception is being the Epic of gilgamesh used an acutal flood to tell a fable; whereas the Bible uses the actual flood to tell a historical story.

This is what i'm taking out of this.

Out of that conclusion, the athiest has the choice to choose whether to believe the flood actually happened along with which, if either, story he chooses to believe.

Is this correct?

How then, does it account for the story of creationism? Because apparently there was a 'fall of man' and creation story in the Epic also.

 

[stovebolts]

The Epic of Gilgamesh and the account of Noah, though similar, are very different.

For one, and if memory serves me in the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh, the "See'er" is telling Gilgamesh the story, where as in the Genesis Account, it is portrayed as first person.

Another interesting twist might be this. Abram can be linked geneologically to Noah, also, Abram was called out of UR.

Now then, what part of the Near East was Ur located :D

Keeping that in mind, it's interesting the difference in the storyies between the near eastern cultures. (Pantheon and Monotheistic)

 

[stovebolts]

How then, does it account for the story of creationism? Because apparently there was a 'fall of man' and creation story in the Epic also.

viewtopic.php?f=56&t=34818

Love to chat about it ;)

 

[wavy]

Ok, so, you are saying that it is quite possible the flood actually happened; which many people believe, but that both stories are talking about the same flood? The exception is being the Epic of gilgamesh used an acutal flood to tell a fable; whereas the Bible uses the actual flood to tell a historical story.

This is what i'm taking out of this.

Out of that conclusion, the athiest has the choice to choose whether to believe the flood actually happened along with which, if either, story he chooses to believe.

Is this correct?

How then, does it account for the story of creationism? Because apparently there was a 'fall of man' and creation story in the Epic also.

I am saying the biblical Flood story is not based off of independent historical information. It's simply a Hebraic adaptation of an earlier Babylonian version. In other words, a historical flood may have occurred that inspired the earliest versions of it, but the biblical version has no independent access to it. So it is of no historical value, since it's just copying from and adapting known stories.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mechanicdb]

Awesome, thanks SteveBolts. I skimmed through just a little bit of that link, i'll have to read it more later (always never enough time, right )

Now, you talk of akkadians; but there was another version of the Epic was there not? What was it....and wasn't the akkadian version the later of the two???

 

[Veritas]

I don't think Genesis was copied.

If Genesis was copied from the epic of Gilgamesh it is odd that there is less complexity and more simplicity in its story. Usually, there is elaboration when one story is copied down through time. In Gilgamesh, there are extra layers to the story from infighting between the gods. Human characters, the reason why the flood happens, and why Utnapishtim and the others are saved are convoluted. Applying Occam's Razor to these stories is helpful in my opinion: "the simpler one is better."

That, and the fact the Genesis story reports realistic details. Utnapishtim's boat was a cube and had a slate roof. That would be a horrible boat. Genesis reports materials and dimensions that would make a very seaworthy boat. Both these cultures were not seafaring, so it's surprising the Genesis account HAS such a well formulated design.

I think its much more likely that the flood was a real event in the history of mankind and it was passed down through the generations of different cultures independently (for the most part) of each other.

 

[mondar]

Ok, so, you are saying that it is quite possible the flood actually happened; which many people believe, but that both stories are talking about the same flood? The exception is being the Epic of gilgamesh used an acutal flood to tell a fable; whereas the Bible uses the actual flood to tell a historical story.

This is what i'm taking out of this.

Out of that conclusion, the athiest has the choice to choose whether to believe the flood actually happened along with which, if either, story he chooses to believe.

Is this correct?

How then, does it account for the story of creationism? Because apparently there was a 'fall of man' and creation story in the Epic also.

I am saying the biblical Flood story is not based off of independent historical information. It's simply a Hebraic adaptation of an earlier Babylonian version. In other words, a historical flood may have occurred that inspired the earliest versions of it, but the biblical version has no independent access to it. So it is of no historical value, since it's just copying from and adapting known stories.


Thanks,
Eric

This does not explain the great differences between the two accounts.

 

[wavy]

I don't think Genesis was copied.

If Genesis was copied from the epic of Gilgamesh it is odd that there is less complexity and more simplicity in its story. Usually, there is elaboration when one story is copied down through time. In Gilgamesh, there are extra layers to the story from infighting between the gods. Human characters, the reason why the flood happens, and why Utnapishtim and the others are saved are convoluted. Applying Occam's Razor to these stories is helpful in my opinion: "the simpler one is better."

The earliest versions of the Gilgamesh epic, to my knowledge, are even less complex than Genesis, which is also polemical (e.g., Yahweh commanding that Noah fill the earth with children, while in the earlier versions the gods send a flood because the human population makes too much noise).

J. H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, Bolchazy-Carducci, 2002, has traced the development and there is little doubt as to the direction of the dependence here. Put simply, the biblical account has no priority.

That, and the fact the Genesis story reports realistic details. Utnapishtim's boat was a cube and had a slate roof. That would be a horrible boat. Genesis reports materials and dimensions that would make a very seaworthy boat. Both these cultures were not seafaring, so it's surprising the Genesis account HAS such a well formulated design.

Nothing about the biblical Flood is any more realistic, and the word for ark is 'box', i.e., a cube. The fairy tale-ish pictures you see of the ark resembling a modern ship with giraffe heads poking out windows in the ark is mere art and nothing else.

I think its much more likely that the flood was a real event in the history of mankind and it was passed down through the generations of different cultures independently (for the most part) of each other.

The evidence, both literary and scientific, simply does not support this conjecture.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

This does not explain the great differences between the two accounts.

Of course there are differences. Afterall, the author (presumably a Hebrew) adpated a core story to his own themes.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[stovebolts]

Awesome, thanks SteveBolts. I skimmed through just a little bit of that link, i'll have to read it more later (always never enough time, right )

Now, you talk of akkadians; but there was another version of the Epic was there not? What was it....and wasn't the akkadian version the later of the two???

No problem. If your into that kind of stuff, purchase "Near Eastern Texts" by Pritchard. It's an awesome collection

I'll be honest in that I have not fully read the Sumerian version of Gilgamesh. The Akkadian version was enough for me But to answer your question, yes, the Sumerian version is much, much older than the Akkadian version which dates back to the third dynasty of UR in Chaldea. However, both are Chaldean writings and the Akkadian version is a revamp of the older. :yes Some believe that their is evidence that Gilgamesh was an ancient Sumerian King.

Which brings me to this. I asked a question earlier about where Abram was called out of. Abram was called out of UR of Chaldea.

What you might find interesting is within the Akkadian accounts of creation, Babylon is the first city that humanity built in response to the Gods (Murkuk in particular). Also, in all of the Pantheon creation accounts, humanity was created to serve the Gods as slaves, where in the Genesis account, man is created with free will to fellowship with YHVH.

But my point, which is more of a response to wavy is this. The Sumerian writings are the oldest surviving writing we have on earth. I don't think that there is anything that predates them, and if I am wrong, please correct me. The Bible stakes no claim to being the oldest, but rather, it refutes the claim of Babylon along with their mythology and multiple gods.

 

[mechanicdb]

Both these cultures were not seafaring, so it's surprising the Genesis account HAS such a well formulated design.

maybe not trans-atlantic style of sea-faring....however, there were many fishermen, and between the mediterranian and the dead sea, I would presume they had knowledge of vessels on the waters.

...just trying to get it from another perspective, here.

 

[Veritas]

The earliest versions of the Gilgamesh epic, to my knowledge, are even less complex than Genesis, which is also polemical (e.g., Yahweh commanding that Noah fill the earth with children, while in the earlier versions the gods send a flood because the human population makes too much noise).

Well, this differs from my knowledge. The earlier Babylonian version still contains a host of gods and characters producing the subsequent extra relationships.

J. H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, Bolchazy-Carducci, 2002, has traced the development and there is little doubt as to the direction of the dependence here. Put simply, the biblical account has no priority.

Priority is debatable among scholars. I can site Morris Jastrow, professor of semitic languages at the University of Pennsylvania and Albert T. Clay, professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature at Yale University - who wrote: An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic. Both indicate independence in transmutation of the story through the ancient cultures.

Nothing about the biblical Flood is any more realistic, and the word for ark is 'box', i.e., a cube. The fairy tale-ish pictures you see of the ark resembling a modern ship with giraffe heads poking out windows in the ark is mere art and nothing else.

I was not speaking of the artwork. In fact, the pictures of the ark are usually quite false in their depiction. However, if you take into account the dimensions given for the ark you will find that a ship built to those specifications is quite suitable to ocean travel and quite difficult to capsize.

I think its much more likely that the flood was a real event in the history of mankind and it was passed down through the generations of different cultures independently (for the most part) of each other.

The evidence, both literary and scientific, simply does not support this conjecture.

I disagree because of the afore mentioned reasons.

 

[Veritas]

maybe not trans-atlantic style of sea-faring....however, there were many fishermen, and between the mediterranian and the dead sea, I would presume they had knowledge of vessels on the waters.

...just trying to get it from another perspective, here.

Sure, no problem. I would assume they had some knowledge of vessels as well. However, a boat that rivals the size of modern vessels is a far cry from what any civilization had at that time. The dimensions given for the ark have actually suprised modern engineers in that it is incredibly seaworthy for a boat of that size. Our modern boats today have specifications close to that of the ark (and that took the course of thousands of years of development in technology to produce). Scale models have been built and tested; as well as computer simulations run. As specified, it has proven to be a very difficult boat design to capsize.

By the way... judging by the avatar... are you a motorcycler by chance!!?? Just curious.. I have a KTM 950 adventure! he he