THE FLOOD OF NOAH AND THE FLOOD OF GILGAMESH
- IMPACT No. 285 March 1997
by Frank Lorey, M. A.*
©
Copyright 2002 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights
Reserved
Background
The Epic of Gilgamesh has been of interest to Christians
ever since its discovery in the mid-nineteenth century in the
ruins of the great library at Nineveh, with its account of a universal
flood with significant parallels to the Flood of Noah's day.1, 2 The rest of the Epic,
which dates back to possibly third millennium B.C., contains little
of value for Christians, since it concerns typical polytheistic
myths associated with the pagan peoples of the time. However,
some Christians have studied the ideas of creation and the afterlife
presented in the Epic. Even secular scholars have recognized the
parallels between the Babylonian, Phoenician, and Hebrew accounts,
although not all are willing to label the connections as anything
more than shared mythology.3
There have been numerous flood stories identified
from ancient sources scattered around the world.4 The stories that
were discovered on cuneiform tablets, which comprise some of the
earliest surviving writing, have obvious similarities. Cuneiform
writing was invented by the Sumerians and carried on by the Akkadians.
Babylonian and Assyrian are two dialects of the Akkadian, and
both contain a flood account. While there are differences between
the original Sumerian and later Babylonian and Assyrian flood
accounts, many of the similarities are strikingly close to the
Genesis flood account.5 The Babylonian account
is the most intact, with only seven of 205 lines missing.6 It was also the first
discovered, making it the most studied of the early flood accounts.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is contained on twelve large
tablets, and since the original discovery, it has been found on
others, as well as having been translated into other early languages.7 The actual tablets
date back to around 650 B.C. and are obviously not originals since
fragments of the flood story have been found on tablets dated
around 2,000 B.C.8
Linguistic experts believe that the story was composed well before
2,000 B.C. compiled from material that was much older than that
date.9 The Sumerian cuneiform
writing has been estimated to go as far back as 3,300 B.C.10
The Story
The Epic was composed in the form of a poem. The
main figure is Gilgamesh, who actually may have been an historical
person. The Sumerian King List shows Gilgamesh in the first dynasty
of Uruk reigning for 126 years.11 This length of
time is not a problem when compared with the age of the pre-flood
patriarchs of the Bible. Indeed, after Gilgamesh, the kings lived
a normal life span as compared with today.12 The King List is
also of interest as it mentions the flood specifically�"the deluge
overthrew the land."13
The story starts by introducing the deeds of the
hero Gilgamesh. He was one who had great knowledge and wisdom,
and preserved information of the days before the flood. Gilgamesh
wrote on tablets of stone all that he had done, including building
the city walls of Uruk and its temple for Eanna. He was an oppressive
ruler, however, which caused his subjects to cry out to the "gods"
to create a nemesis to cause Gilgamesh strife.14
After one fight, this nemesis�Enkidu�became best
friends with Gilgamesh. The two set off to win fame by going on
many dangerous adventures in which Enkidu is eventually killed.
Gilgamesh then determines to find immortality since he now fears
death. It is upon this search that he meets Utnapishtim, the character
most like the Biblical Noah.15
In brief, Utnapishtim had become immortal after
building a ship to weather the Great Deluge that destroyed mankind.
He brought all of his relatives and all species of creatures aboard
the vessel. Utnapishtim released birds to find land, and the ship
landed upon a mountain after the flood. The story then ends with
tales of Enkidu's visit to the underworld.16 Even though many
similarities exist between the two accounts, there still are serious
differences.
The table below presents a comparison of the main
aspects of the two accounts of the flood as presented in the Book
of Genesis and in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
COMPARISON OF
GENESIS AND GILGAMESH |
|
|
|
GENESIS |
GILGAMESH |
|
Extent of flood
Cause
Intended for whom?
Sender
Name of hero
Hero's character
Means of announcement
Ordered to build boat?
Did hero complain?
Height of boat
Compartments inside?
Doors
Windows
Outside coating
Shape of boat
Human passengers
Other passengers
Means of flood
Duration of flood
Test to find land
Types of birds
Ark landing spot
Sacrificed after flood?
Blessed after flood? |
Global
Man's wickedness
All mankind
Yahweh
Noah
Righteous
Direct from God
Yes
Yes
Several stories (3)
Many
One
At least one
Pitch
Rectangular
Family members only
All species of animals
Ground water & heavy rain
Long (40 days & nights plus)
Release of birds
Raven & three doves
Mountain�Mt. Ararat?
Yes, by Noah
Yes |
Global
Man's sins
One city & all mankind
Assembly of "gods"
Utnapishtim
Righteous
In a dream
Yes
Yes
Several stories (6)
Many
One
At least one
Pitch
Square
Family & few others
All species of animals
Heavy rain
Short (6 days & nights)
Release of birds
Dove, swallow, raven
Mountain�Mt. Nisir
Yes, by Utnapishtim
Yes |
|
Some comments need to be made about the comparisons
in the table. Some of the similarities are very striking, while
others are very general. The command for Utnapishtim to build
the boat is remarkable: "O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu,
tear down thy house, build a ship; abandon wealth, seek after
life; scorn possessions, save thy life. Bring up the seed of all
kinds of living things into the ship which thou shalt build. Let
its dimensions be well measured."17 The cause of the
flood as sent in judgment on man's sins is striking also. The
eleventh tablet, line 180 reads, "Lay upon the sinner his sin;
lay upon the transgressor his transgression."18 A study of these
parallels to Genesis 6-9, as well as the many others, demonstrate
the non-coincidental nature of these similarities.
The meanings of the names of the heroes, however,
have absolutely no common root or connection. Noah means "rest,"
while Utnapishtim means "finder of life."19 Neither was perfect,
but both were considered righteous and relatively faultless compared
to those around them.
Utnapishtim also took a pilot for the boat, and
some craftsmen, not just his family in the ark. It is also interesting
that both accounts trace the landing spot to the same general
region of the Middle East; however, Mt. Ararat and Mt. Nisir are
about 300 miles apart. The blessing that each hero received after
the flood was also quite different. Utnapishtim was granted eternal
life while Noah was to multiply and fill the earth and have dominion
over the animals.
Conclusions
From the early days of the comparative study of
these two flood accounts, it has been generally agreed that there
is an obvious relationship. The widespread nature of flood traditions
throughout the entire human race is excellent evidence for the
existence of a great flood from a legal/historical point of view.20 Dating of the oldest
fragments of the Gilgamesh account originally indicated that it
was older than the assumed dating of Genesis.21 However, the probability
exists that the Biblical account had been preserved either as
an oral tradition, or in written form handed down from Noah, through
the patriarchs and eventually to Moses, thereby making it actually
older than the Sumerian accounts which were restatements (with
alterations) to the original.
A popular theory, proposed by liberal "scholars,"
said that the Hebrews "borrowed" from the Babylonians, but no
conclusive proof has ever been offered.22 The differences,
including religious, ethical, and sheer quantity of details, make
it unlikely that the Biblical account was dependent on any extant
source from the Sumerian traditions. This still does not stop
these liberal and secular scholars from advocating such a theory.
The most accepted theory among evangelicals is that both have
one common source, predating all the Sumerian forms.23 The divine inspiration
of the Bible would demand that the Genesis account is the correct
version. Indeed the Hebrews were known for handing down their
records and tradition.24 The Book of Genesis
is viewed for the most part as an historical work, even by many
liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological.
The One-source Theory must, therefore, lead back to the historical
event of the Flood and Noah's Ark.25 To those who believe
in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, it should not
be a surprise that God would preserve the true account of the
Flood in the traditions of His people. The Genesis account was
kept pure and accurate throughout the centuries by the providence
of God until it was finally compiled, edited, and written down
by Moses.26 The Epic of Gilgamesh,
then, contains the corrupted account as preserved and embellished
by peoples who did not follow the God of the Hebrews.
REFERENCES
[1] Keller, Werner, The
Bible as History, (New York: William Morrow and Company,
1956), p. 32.
[2] Sanders, N.K., The Epic of Gilgamesh ,(an English
translation with introduction) (London: Penguin Books, 1964),
p. 9.
[3] Graves, Robert, The Creek Myths,
Volume 1,(London: Penguin Books, 1960), pp. 138-143.
[4] Rehwinkel, Alfred M., The Flood
in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, (St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1951), p. 129.
[5] O'Brien, J. Randall, "Flood Stories of the Ancient
Near East", Biblical Illustrator, (Fall 1986, volume
13, number 1), p. 61.
[6] Barton, George A., Archaeology
and the Bible, (Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union,
1916), pp. 273-277
[7] Keller, The Bible as History, p.
33.
[8] Whitcomb, John C. and Morris, Henry
M., The Genesis Flood,
(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), p. 38.
[9] Heidel, Alexander, The Gilgamesh
Epic and Old Testament Parallels, (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1949), p. 13.
[10] O'Brien, "Flood Stories of
the Ancient Near East", p. 61.
[11] Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and
Old Testament Parallel, p. 13.
[12] Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh,
p. 21.
[13] Vos, Howard F., Genesis and Archaeology,
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), p. 35.
[14] Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh,
pp. 20-23.
[15] Ibid., pp. 30 39.
[16] Ibid., pp. 39-42.
[17] Keller, The Bible as History, p. 33.
[18] Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh, p. 109.
[19] O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East",
pp. 62, 63.
[20] Morris, Henry M., Science and
the Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), p. 85.
[21] O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East",
p. 64.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Morris, Science and the Bible,
p. 92.
[25] Ibid., p. 85.
[26] Whitcomb, John C., The Early Earth (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1986), p. 134; Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, p. 488.
* Mr. Lorey is a Registered Historical Archaeologist.
|