It has been said that the OT was a clone of the Epic of Gilgamesh (written approx 1000 years earlier). One thing to take into consideration is that if the earth is 6000 years old (which I believe), Genesis was written approx 2000 BC. As all scripture was "God breathed" (stated in the Bible) and since Moses was the author of the first book of Genesis, we have approx 4000 years between God's creation of the heaven and earth, man, the flood, much more space and then Moses. So even if Gilgamesh was approx 1000 years older, that really does not mean anything as the timeline of Gilgamesh could have been in alignment with the actual flood. Moses was around 1000+ years later to pen what God breathed/told him about the events over a 1000 years earlier. Having said that, here's an paper about Gilgamesh and Genesis that I find a worthy read. I'll just include a few things but it's encouraged to read the whole thing.
First I highly recommend this video for viewing.
Alexander Heidel shows the three main possibilities about the relationship between the two accounts: “first, the Babylonians borrowed from the Hebrew account; second, the Hebrew account is dependent on the Babylonian; third, both are descended from a common original.
While the fact that there are flood legends like the Genesis Flood account in most cultures around the world is used to testify to the reliability of the Bible,3 the Gilgamesh Epic is used to deny the authority of the Bible because of its predating.
- Though there are many translations of the Gilgamesh Epic, some of them seem to be linguistically unreliable. Thus, it was important for this project to work from the original Akkadian.
- This flood account in the Gilgamesh Epic is the most complete of these ancient flood accounts(The Sumerian story of Ziusudra,1 the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, and the Gilgamesh Epic). So there is confirmation of an actual flood outside the bible.
- Sumerian epic poems about Gilgamesh were discovered in Iraq.18 Scholars believe that the initial text of these tablets seems to trace back to the Third Dynasty of Ur (around 2094–2047 B.C.),
- Gilgamesh Epic was translated by George Smith after tens of thousands of tablets were brought to the British Museum from the library. Absorbed in archaeology, George Smith was working in a minor position in the British Museum.33 Although his poor family background had prevented him from being well-educated, because of Smith’s genius and diligence the Department of Oriental Antiquities designated him as the assistant in order that he might contribute to the Museum’s publications of cuneiform texts.
- the story as told here is not an independent account; it draws on an identifiable source, the myth of Atrahasis
- Thus, the date of the original text of the flood account of the Gilgamesh Epic is not certain,
- If it is correct that the flood account in the Gilgamesh Epic is derived from the Sumerian, and if one wishes to compare the Gilgamesh Epic and the Genesis accounts, it is important to know whether the Sumerian account derived from an historic event. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence of this. Alster states that “It is often more or less tacitly assumed that the stories told in the Sumerian epics are based on actual historical events
- “A series of basic general similarities suggests a definite relationship between the two traditions; but there are also many detailed differences.”
- This is a significant difference from the Epic in which Utnapishtim had to close the entrance by himself (XI 93).
- A noticeable difference between the two accounts is that the Gilgamesh Epic portrays the ship as the means of escape through Ea’s deception, whereas in Genesis the Ark is the means of salvation through God’s mercy for the righteous.About the flood
Merrill F. Unger proposes that both accounts share the following characteristics:
(1) state that the deluge was divinely planned, (2) agree that the impending catastrophe was divinely revealed to the hero of the deluge, (3) connect the deluge with defection in the human race, (4) tell of the deliverance of the hero and his family, (5) assert that the hero of the deluge was divinely instructed to build a huge boat to preserve life, (6) indicate the physical causes of the flood, (7) specify the duration of the flood, (8) name the landing place of the boat, (9) tell of the sending forth of birds at certain intervals to ascertain the decrease of the waters, (10) describe acts of worship by the hero after his deliverance, and (11) allude to the bestowment of special blessings upon the hero after the disaster.9
However, as K.A. Kitchen mentions, “A series of basic general similarities suggests a definite relationship between the two traditions; but there are also many detailed differences.”10 The differences between the Epic and the Genesis account are the clarity of the reason for the flood, the character of god and of the hero, the specifics of the number and gender of the survivors and animals, the structure of the ship, the duration and the source of the flood, the kind and number of the birds for the test flights, the landing place of the ship, and the references to the repopulation after the flood. It is important to compare these differences in order to examine the relationship of the two accounts.You can see the comparisons and differences by starting here and then clicking on next at the bottom.
At the end
After examination, the Genesis account of the flood is verified as the historically valid flood account.
The purpose of this research has been to examine the relationship between the flood accounts of the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis. Three possibilities of relationship are commonly discussed: (1) that the Epic derived from the Genesis account; (2) that the Genesis account used the Epic as its source; and (3) that both accounts depended on a common source.
The first possibility—that the Epic account derived from the Genesis account—has been discounted in this research because of the dates of the extant copies of the Epic and Genesis. The original compilations of the Epic are older than the original compilations of Genesis. Few scholars would consider this theory credible. Therefore, this writer has investigated the remaining two popular theories about the relationship between the Epic and Genesis.
The second hypothesis—that the Genesis account is dependent on the Epic—has significant difficulties. According to this hypothesis, the author of the Genesis account would have needed to revise the Epic as follows: change the concept of god from polytheism to absolute monotheism and add the strong, consistent moral motivation for the Flood by establishing God as righteous and gracious; write clear descriptions that show the Flood as universal in order to make the whole account consistent; change the character of the survivors to portray them as righteous and worthy to be saved; specify the survivors as four couples who are capable of replenishing the human race; add their descendants’ genealogy which agrees with the secular historical records; add the details about animals being included in pairs of every kind for the preservation of the created kinds; improve the source of the Flood from only rain to rain and underground water sufficient to cover the whole world; specify the duration of the Flood from only six days and nights and unspecified days to more than one year which is adequate for a universal Flood; redesign the structure of the Ark from the unstable cube to the ideal safe design for floating; change the order and the kind of the birds of the test flights in order to make them more logical; specify seven days interval between each test flight; and add the account of the freshly plucked olive leaf which is botanically realistic and more informative than the Epic.
This writer believes the third theory—that both accounts descended from a common origin—is the most plausible one. As noted in chapter one, the Epic was likely derived from the Sumerian story which was probably based on an historical event, though distorted. On the other hand, according to the specifics, scientific reliability, internal consistency, the correspondence to the secular records, and the existence of common elements among the flood traditions around the world, the Genesis account seems to be more acceptable as an accurate historical record. If all human races are descendents of Noah’s three sons, the survivors from the universal Flood, and the two accounts had derived from the same historical event,2 the reason the accounts have many similarities is explicable. As K. A. Kitchen states, it is likely that “The Hebrew and Babylonian accounts may go back to a common ancient tradition, but are not borrowed directly from each other.”3 Even though the Genesis account was written in Hebrew which was used later than Akkadian in which the Epic was written, the historical event of the Flood was much earlier than the publication of the Epic.
Even if Moses had used some source materials which are not extant today, the process of his gathering and compiling them to write Genesis would have been guided correctly by God.5 Thus, after investigating the differences between the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis, it seems reasonable for this writer to conclude that the flood account in the Epic is the story which lost historical accuracy and was distorted, whereas the Genesis Flood account is the accurate historical record of the Flood event.
Comments