CRI's Flood of Noah v. Flood of Gilgamesh

[Brianroy]

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.

........................................ ..........GENESIS...............GILGAMES H
Extent of flood.............................Global .........................Global

Cause................................... ......Man's wickedness.......Man's sins

Intended for whom?...................All mankind................One city & all mankind

Sender.................................. .....Yahweh......................assembl y of gods

Name of hero.............................Noah... .......................Utnapishtim

Hero's character........................Righteo us...................Righteous

Means of announcement...........Direct from God...........In a dream

Ordered to build boat?..............Yes....................... .......Yes

Did hero complain?....................Yes................. .............Yes

Height of boat...........................several stories (3)......several stories (6)

Compartments inside?..............many...................... ......many

Doors................................... .....one.............................. one

Windows................................a t least one..................at least one

Outside coating........................pitch.... ........................pitch

Shape of boat..........................rectangula r..................square

Human passengers...........Family members only.....Family & few others

Other passengers................All species of animals....All species of animals

Means of flood.............Ground water & heavy rain.....Heavy rain

Duration of flood...Long (40 days & nights plus)......Short (6 days & nights)

Test to find land...........Release of birds..................Release of birds


Types of birds...........Raven & 3 doves...............  Dove, swallow, raven

Ark landing spot...........Mountain—Mt. Ararat?.......Mountain—Mt. Nisir

Sacrificed after flood?......Yes, by Noah.................Yes, by Utnapishtim

Blessed after flood?............Yes......................... .........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.

[Elijah]

would love that scripture where it says Noah complained, there is no scripture that says that.

And Gilgamesh is not preFlood he is post Flood, there is no preFlood
city Ereck in Genesis, it is postFlood. Gilgamesh is a king of postFlood
city Ereck even in the kinglist it is postFlood. So Gilgamesh is talking to UtuNapishtim after the Flood and asking him to relate the story to him.
Simply put, it was before what Moses wrote, but obviously Gilgamesh didnt listen well to the facts. IN fact thwe story says that too, says Utunapishtim complained that king Gilgamesh kept falling asleep and should learn to listen too.
Does the story say UtuNapishtim is immortal. Not really. What it says is Gilgamesh claims UtuNapishtim is immortal, he claims NOah will not die. But so did Peter claim Jesus would not die... shoved it down Jesus throat just like Gilgamesh shoved it down Noah's throat. That being the case Gilgamesh is dated as 340 years after the Flood when all men began to die.
Check your Genesis timelines.... first to die are 340 years after.

[Brianroy]

Elijah,
   First of all, you almost never source.  The text provided is an example for you to follow.

    Secondly, it seems to me that you pretend authority and order, when all you offer is a series of disconcerted ramblings.  That is, you never lay out an orderly timeline and source your calendar authority texts.  For you a 1700 something BC is really 356 BC, but that is really an illusion because it is this and that and the other, but really none of them but all of them, but not really. 
 


How about laying out an orderly chronology in columns?


Jacob enters Egypt

1766 B.C. --------1000 by x "calendar" --------300 by y  ---------- 4000 by z

It isn't up to the reader to search through your posts when you contradict by declaring what is or isn't,  but really is, to lay out an orderly explanation. I have no interest in buying books based on quack astrology or some liberal activist who abuses Moses reputation (via calling Moses a dope user) in order to make a name for himself at Hebrew University, when he should be expelled for his self aggrandizement and what I would call as "enteralgic intellectualism." 



Third, you presume that Gilgamesh isn't primarily fabricated in the later tablets of the First Millenium B.C., where the majority of the texts from previous terse references were elaborately expanded upon.  I'm fairly certain I provided such links that substantiate this conclusion elsewhere at the Forum. 

You seem always to fully accept the expanded version of Gilgamesh at face value, while you  (from what I have seen) never source or link or quote in context  the Gilgamesh accounts, and you do not even source what New Testament scripture you claim "Peter shoved down Jesus' throat", as you word it.

Quote the Scripture and source it.  What book and what verse?

You claim Gilgamesh is 340 years after the Flood? What year do you claim the Flood was? What year are you then saying Gilgamesh was?    For all anyone knows, you could be talking about a hyperbole of 20,340 B.C. and 20,000 B.C.

You also start your thread off with "would love that scripture where it says Noah complained".   You expect people to automatically know to what you refer?  Quote what you are referring to.  On average, a person will not retain above 70% of what they have read in the last 5 minutes.  If you post a day later, it becomes far less than that.   At a Forum, unless the post is short, 200 words or less (which the article is not), you should expect people would spend more time skimming over --rather than reading to absorb the material, unless it strikes a chord with one or two or a handful. So the retention becomes even less....


If you want to be taken seriously, put your presentation in order.  Offer us insights and links, scholarly written books or material that will suport your thesis into the Ugaritic, the Sumerian, the Akkadian, the Hebrew, the Greek, the Egyptian.  After all, you claim authority to reckon such calendars...so prove it.  Lay out some sources, etc.

Quote the text, give the transliteration and translation and why...if you claim to be an "authority" on a topic. 

Maybe if you use Greek word studies, you can point to Strong's, Thayers, Zodhiates, Robertson, Ardnt-Bauer-Gingrich, Liddel- Scott -Jones, etc.

You can post a link, if wanting to bring out a specific point --for example, the Greek word "oikos", by posting something  such as:

 Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

which is an acceptable link used by those attending Harvard University. 

Writing at a Forum such as this sometimes requires more documentation and sourcing than having a casual Starbuck's conversation, or unsourced soliloquy. 

 As an example, regarding Bethlehem (etc.), you will notice that when I addressed a change in calendar reckonings regarding Herod etc., I utilized NASA's program and more than a dozen linkages people could click on to see why I was supported in the data to reason out a date that I offered in my presentation. 

If you cannot find an internet link, it would help if you sourced, author, book title, city of publication, publisher, copyright year, and page number(s).

Direct quotes of a few words to entire sentences are also a help. 

Such an improvement would be miraculous. 


Thanks. 

[archaeologist]

well said brianroy  and i agree withyou 100% but i willpoint out a couple things:

Cause................................... ......Man's wickedness.......Man's sins

the sumerian deluge story does not mention it is for sin (pritchard vol. 1 pg. 28-30)

Did hero complain?....................Yes................. .............Yes

i know of no verse which states Noah complained, Gen. 6:22 states "Noah did everything just as God commanded him.", Gen. 7:5 repeats that observation.

Windows................................a t least one..................at least one

Gen. 8:6 implies quite clearly that there was only 1 window in the ark.

Ark landing spot...........Mountain—Mt. Ararat?.......Mountain—Mt. Nisir

should read mountains of ararat not mtn. of.

now on pg. 31 in pritchard's 'the ancient near east, vol. 1 we read:

there is yet no general agreement as regards the date of composition.  none of the extant texts antedates the first millenium b.c....

now inother readings, and i forget right now their titles, this is confirmed and a date of 7-8th century b.c. is the oldest known tablet discovered.  i know of nothing earlier.

thus it is easy to see that the sumerians and the babylonians had plenty of time to hear the truth and re-work the truth to fit their own culutural beliefs and religions.

now dever, finkelstein, silberman, and others all say the hebrews copied from the babylonians but they cannot offer one shred of proof that it was so.  to assume God's people would go contrary to what the Bible teaches is ridiculous and shows an unbelief in God, the truth and logic.  it is highly likely that the babylonians COPIED the stories from the hebrew slaves. 

we know they were great at recording (i believe i found that point in 'Mesopotamia & the Bible) and it makes more sense that they copied the Hebrew accounts and edited for their own purposes.

those who advocate a hebrew copying forget chronology and alter the truth and history to fit what they want to believe.   noah came before the sumerians and other peoples, the Biblical account was the first-- the original.

[Brianroy]

I cannot justify Frank's points, I can only say that the way he presents it was more practical.

Perhaps we will have to look at the texts, etc.  He may have meant Ham's curse, but I can't answer to that. 

I thought I had the posted the link to the article and other links referring to Gilgamesh earlier,  but when I was looking for it here at the BAS Forums, I found that I did not post those after all.  Looks like I deleted a working draft with all the data a few weeks back when I was freeing up some Gigabyte memory space.   (My oops.)

Here's the Frank Lorey article via link:

The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh


You also may want to check out:


DA111
-
equip.org


where Paul Meier utilizes a generic acceptance of Gilgamesh, but makes a sweeping general criticism of what constitutes "revisionist"archaeology.




And CRS has quite a bit on the flood era of Noah, etc., from a more  scientific perspective of the Bible.   You can use the "search" on the left  for some other good info on Creationism, too.

CRS Search Results

Hope this helps.  Gotta go.

Peace.

[Elijah]

Matthew 16: 21,22   Jesus made it clear the enemy will kill him (and kill you) and Peter said dont speak this way it will not happen.
So for him to tell Jesus that Jesus wont die, as if he knows better or smarter than Jesus, it is like Gilgemesh to tell Noah you will never die Noah... and it doesnt matter where i read that. It was not my own interpretation, Someone has translated Gilgamesh as saying look at you Noah you will never die... and thats one reason the later copies place him as already dead, and immortal, when in fact Gilgamesh went to find Noah, and came back as the big hero with the answer to his city of Ereck..... but all empty crap. Like i said, that text i read, also was translated by the person of that book as saying, that Noah told Gilganmesh to wake up.... just like the apostles who were sleeping as Jesus was close to death... John then comes out and says Jesus' words CANT YOU STAY AWAKE JUST AN HOUR, was again directed to Peter. All that Jesus ever did, was not a made-up copy of old myths, but was to make us see that he was reliving the old history, so we would see truth buried in the myths. Thats why i looked for the 40 days (of Jesus waiting to go to heaven), and related it to 40 day Flood. I know Xisuthros the spirit talked to Babel priests after Noah died, and here we all assume that they imagine the story is about 40-day Flood, THEN rise to heaven. Not so with Noah, but Yes that spirit had to go to heaven or drown. Then duh, hits me in the head. 350 years later that spirit talks 40 days after Noah's death. So now thats why Jesus spends 40 days on earth so that we SEE that and DISCOVER that. why 40 days if Xisuthros is a bad spirit?  Because it wasnt until 40 days that the men had a seance. So you see. The connection in myths are not to bicker who wrote first, or whose stories came from who. But rather to compare all the lies and see how much is not lie, but rather is just misinterpretation by liars. Where there is a lie, someone can see the truth, though never hearing the story before.

i would side with archeologist and against brian, what archeologist pointed out is truth whether you have the link to a story or not. All you imply now is that we should waste time reading someone elses link and their story and their claim when in fact the bible says Noah did not complain... doing as he ought to do, or JUST SO means all he did was what was required to survive... the ark shape ratio, the tarring with pitch etc.

As far as timelines go every one of my dates perfectly mesh not just with time and event but with every calendar in the world of which i dont see anyone listing dates at all. Do you want the new year to these dates in each calendar 365-day Egyptian, Persian, Zoroasterian, Armenian. Do you want them in the 360-day of Noah's of in the Mayan tun which all you have to do is add 155 tun and 20 days to get their date.
Your claims are too outrageous in accusing me.

ARCHEOLOGIST
your right about plural mountains... but just as everything had to be
scientifically JUST SO as if commands from God... so does natural tell any mind that you cannot land on more than one mountain. Also it says grounding occurred before other mountains appeared. So that means on the highest. Next if Gilgamesh says assembly of gods, and yet our God is made Almighty by a title that means The gods.... (God of gods), i dont feel it is out of place for one Ararat to be Mountains instead og mountains, because it is the Mountain of mountains. Its a thinking pattern. And dont deny cultures have such different than our English.

As far as Nisir goes, who cares, Greeks say Mount Olympus, or Mount xxxx,
every nearest highest mountain has been pointed to by that nation as the mountain, the highest with the ark on it. Who ever started the Nisir... were a people who didnt get 300 miles to see Ararat. Its no issue.

Brian, i can look under any name at all and it shows posts.
Dear Brian you dont have to read a thing.
I have posted colored timeline charts.
Do you want a year by year dating too, i can give, but YOU dont.

[archaeologist]

i am not worried brianroy and realize you can't speak for him but i wanted to point out those changes and maybe he made a mistake and didn't read it right.

[Elijah]

Gilgamesh answer to his conversation with Noah.
Charted timeline shows scenerio to both existing versions.
This also shows the likelyhood of Izdubar (Gilgamesh)
being Namr Rud (Nimrod), the if Gilgamesh was king
because his appointment was by Namr Rud, then in effect
he ruled for Narmr Rud and in that sense was Namr Rud.
See chart, youll understand.

[Brianroy]

Elijah,

In Hebrew, an "amhaaretz" is an "unlearned man".  It was the custom of false prophets to wear garments of hair or sackcloth to deceive.  Your garments weren't "cursings" ('He wore cursings like a garment'), but they were your ravings about March 10, the mysterious 'they' who are going to kill you - me - Rick - Archaeologist - etc., the virus that was going to plunge the entire world into the absolute devastation, etc.  Those rantings were your cloths of hair, your 'bona fide' that you were a 'prophet'.  You craved attention, sympathy, the martyrdom that never came.

You were asked to write out a coherent chart BEFORE you practiced a form of **** in believing your own hype:  i.e., You    papered your entire  neighborhood with  "don't cry for me",    because some mysterious police force was going to come and kill you on March 10, etc.) and looking for sympathy and attention, posted the details about it twice at BAS...and then still proceeded to blubber away until virtually all other participation here came to a halt.


Now you want to pretend that it is all nice, and July 1  or whatever new timeline you will wish to give it is the date. 

So, in lieu of all that, since your March 10 prophecies, like all your other prophecies    FAILED  ...and all you want is attention...find another forum that cares, will ya?

Thanks.


P.S., You timeline chart is -- indeed -- defective (regarding the Patriarchs).  I have no desire to do your homework for you or converse with you anymore.  Thanks again.   

[archaeologist]

no they don't.  i am backing brianroy  as the poster knownas elijah as been allowed to ruin too many threads and discussions with his crap.

when are the powers that be going to rein him in and get him to post properly or ban him?

it is obvious that BAS doesn't care about its reputation as it allows such drivel to remain and good people to be put off from participating here.  such a shame as i used to like BAS until they let elijah run amok.