But my only quarrel with it is there are a ton of flood stories from various ancient cultures all happening at different time periods.
Maybe it means that something in fact happened, and that's why we have all these flood stories all over the world.
So every human had turned pretty bad (save Noah and his family), so God decided he needed to destroy all the living beings and start over basically. He commanded Noah to build a ginormous ship to carry two of every creature.
Where is the evidence of this unimaginably huge boat? Archaeological, paleontological, historical, anything...nope, not a shred.
I reckon the ark would come to rest at Mt. Ararat ....obviously. Of course, over the past 4000 years it has probably been destroyed.
Would you like to explain your version?
Version of what? There have been numerous legendary, mythical tales of lone men/families surviving global floods and repopulating/saving the Earth. Why should I treat this one differently than I treat the others?
I would say one story prefigures Christ, mirrors Baptism and God's action with God's people, and is therefore inspired, while the other one does not.
Myths are 'true' only in as much as they reflect Christ.
Current scholarship reasonably places the
account of Gilgamesh as predating any Hebrew Scriptures. The earliest Gilgamesh accounts (Sumerian) definitely predate a Hebrew identity. Even the Akkadian versions do. But despite the opinion of many learned archeologists -- the Noahic flood and the
event of Noah was the source for the Gilgamesh epic as well as the source for other 200+ flood accounts around the globe, respectively. The other accounts were most likely corrupted after mankind was dispersed at Babel.
Other than Aleister Crowley's fake modern 'witchcraft' by overpriced Llewellyn Press books, the most popular form of Gilgamesh most familiar to us was written down after the Hebrew account of Noah and comes from
Assyria, when under the great warrior-scholar Ashurbanipal the familiar twelve tablets of Gilgamesh were preserved. This was in the 7th century BCE. The version may be anywhere from three to six hundred years older. I can't recall if the tablet was from Ashurbanipal's era or just added to the library of Nineveh under Ashurbanipal. Given the interaction of Assyria with Israel & Judah, it is unlikely that Assyrians would turn to the Pentateuch for their Flood account because they already had their own version in circulation.
So every human had turned pretty bad (save Noah and his family), so God decided he needed to destroy all the living beings and start over basically. He commanded Noah to build a ginormous ship to carry two of every creature.
Why is this "Noah" character extremely similar to multiple other mythical characters of other ancient civilizations (Gilgamesh particularly)? Why is the story of Noah's Ark extremely similar to multiple other global flood myths of other ancient civilizations (again, Gilgamesh in particular).
Floods should be a common motif of Sumerian mythology for a few reasons.
First, look at their meaning. (The floods are a symbol largely of chaos, primordial chaos. Thus they are a common theme in a lot of ANE literature, period.)
Next, the flood accounts are not that similar. (Though if you want to look into this you should read
Enuma Elish &
Atrahasis)
I think the simple explanation is this. All probably descend from an actual flood. I would say the flood of Noah, be it local or global is the source of this. All the ANE cultures time a flood at roughly the same time, save one. (Egypt) Interestingly enough though, prior to this time period, all the cultures have really ridiculously long recorded life lengths.
The reality is that Gilgamesh ends up being standardized IIRC later than Moses, around 1000 to 1300 BCE. (Assuming Mosaic authorship of the flood narrative is going to have to be a given here to get that date.) IIRC, however, it is generally accepted that the Gilgamesh tale in earliest forms predates Moses by nearly a thousand years. But then again, if Moses either used sources, (which conservatives grant as a couple are cited in the Pentateuch) we do not know their age. However, the biblical flood account is honestly much less full of flagrant propaganda imagery than the mythological accounts because the difference isn't merely one of degree.
There's also more to the Gilgamesh Epic than the deluge tablet/story.
(See below.)
Look up "The Deluge" and tell me what you think. Just curious.
There are similarities. In fact, many cultures (but not necessarily all) have a basic Flood story: the gods or God sweep the earth with water and boats, mountains, caves, etc. are used to save a remnant of mankind (often with animals).
The account in Gilgamesh is actually transposed from the preceding epic of Atrahasis. I can't recall if Utnapishtim ("Noah") is meant to be Atrahasis or if they're two separate characters from different city-state myths (I think the latter, given how extensively the Gilgamesh epic borrows from Atrahasis without including the plagues and kingship of Atrahasis in the story of Utnapishtim).
From a Christian point of view, this ties in with Acts 17 (all men groping toward God) and the idea that pagan myths
may preserve a kernel of truth ("common grace"). Heck, look at how we've found that the Iliad reflects a real conflict at a real Troy! Obviously, the Greek account is hardly what truly happened as Mycenaeans clashed with Hittite allies. Regardless, myths are not entirely unreliable. Many Near Eastern scholars are sure there was a historical Gilgamesh whose legacy caused a legend to arise (compare with the historical Arthur).
It is also important to note what R.O. noted: there is much more to the Gilgamesh epic than simply the Flood, and the Sumerian version of Gilgamesh is different than the more familiar Akkadian/Babylonian one. So if the author or authors of the Genesis was attempting to borrow from a pagan culture, he or she or they proved to be
very selective. In fact, the way that the Gilgamesh epic reads, the story of Utnapishtim is clearly familiar to the audience and the Gilgamesh epic was not the first time it was heard (proven by the earlier Atrahasis account.)
Nonetheless, from a non-Christian point of view, it makes sense that as mankind spread out from Northern Africa and the Middle East (and generally all of the early civilizations that lived near rivers), the destructive nature of floods would work their way into the mythic accounts. And a destructive flood story doesn't make sense without survivors. But from a Christian point of view, these pagan flood stories (whether Utnapishtim or the familiar Greek story of Deucalion) are a fractured visions of the true story. Even the Norse had a myth about Ymir, a giant whose death at the hands of the gods caused a flood that killed all but two giants. From his body the earth was made and from his blood the seas were made -- compared to the death of the Tiamat in the Babylonian account, who was slain by Marduk and her body and blood used in a similar way. Current evolutionary theory holds that humans did not evolve independently in various parts of the world (as was once considered): we are all from the same stock. Coupled with the Christian understanding of how mankind twists the truth, it seems consistent (if not convincing) to see all Flood accounts as memories of a true flood (whether local or global).
As for the key differences: in the Gilgamesh account, there is conflict among the gods. Utnapishtim ("Noah") is saved because Enki finds a way to tell a human about the plan of the gods without directly doing so (he whispers the secret to Utnapishtim's reed walls). On top of this, gods like Inanna/Ishtar are not involved in the decision and are distraught to see humankind and the animals killed. Utnapishtim is also a bit grim, giving his house to the man who helps seal up his boat (fat lot of good that'll do him). There is indeed a sweet-smelling sacrifice that causes the gods to swear not to kill mankind in this fashion again. If I can be brutally honest, the corresponding segment in Genesis seems like the most reasonable place for a non-Christian to say: "Aha! Look at the similar phrases and plotting!"
Still, the Flood myth was older than Gilgamesh, and the fact that the Hebrews did not borrow any of the other trappings of the Gilgamesh myth, it doesn't seem conclusive that Genesis borrowed from Gilgamesh, even if one doesn't have faith in the truth of the Word. Yes, there is an archetypal appearance of a snake (a snake steals a life-giving plants from Gilgamesh), but it only superficially resembles Eden's serpent. Furthermore, while there is a life-giving plant (renewed youth!) in Gilgamesh, it is underwater though unguarded by the gods, so it hardly seems like a predecessor or real echo of the tree of life in Eden. I think the Gilgamesh flood account is like the (breathtakingly beautiful!) Canaanite Baal epic in regards to the Hebrew Scriptures: there are enough similarities to raise a fair question, but enough differences to lead one to suspect there is either a lost source for both or to understand by faith that the pagan accounts are fractured versions of the truth.
Community Forum
Topic: Please explain Noah's Ark to me ... (Read 43297 times)
September 20, 2010, 04:08:58 pm
