The Validity and Intent of Biblical Origins

It is commonly argued that the similarities in the stories in The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible's Old Testament somehow prove the Bible is scientifically or historically invalid; but in fact it is the existence of this and other ancient text with historical accounts of similar events that solidify the accuracy and more importantly the intent of the most recent version.

The comparisons of these stories in no way should question the spiritual use and benefits of the Bible. The Bible's intent cannot be used against itself for historical or scientific purposes. It was compiled as an aid in guiding one in their life's direction. "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3.16). "This important verse gives the origin of the term "inspiration", which literally means God-breathed" (New Student Bible, 1081). The Bible was inspired by God to help guide us on the road to righteousness, not the historical account or timeline of events in history.

"To take this poetry and these stories and put them into a historical or scientific context would be inherently wrong. It is like trying to use a hammer as a screwdriver. It does not work. One must understand the historical context and meaning of the original language that the Bible was written in." (Morris).

There are many accounts of comparing timelines and historical data to prove the validity of the Bible. Events, such as the flood in Genesis cannot be compared to The Epic of Gilgamesh or any other story with the goal of condemning the Bible. Both stories, with their similarities and differences, are more than likely the same events; each having a very different intent by their authors.

In The Epic of Gilgamesh, the flood is caused at the whim of the gods. "The hearts of the Great Gods moved them in to inflict the flood" (Gilgamesh, 18). In the Bible, God sent the flood to destroy his own creation, all living things that had turned evil.

"God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, " I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them"" (Gen. 6.12-13).
The commonalties in the two stories are important, yet the Biblical writers or translators most certainly knew of the earlier writings and fashioned the story to meet their current historical views and needs. The compilers of the Bible were creating a book of books, with a common view. The stories contained within needed to fit their current ideology and present the moral lessons required by the God whom was inspiring its compilation.
There are many scientific discrepancies that attempt to derail the Old Testament and there are many accounts of the differences between the ancient texts. The biblical flood and the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh are probably one in the same.

"The Noahic flood was a local flood that covered all the known world at the time which was the Mesopotamian valley. In Luke 2 "world" means only the Roman empire around the Mediterranean Sea. There are many places in scripture where "all the earth" does not mean the whole globe as we know it. The same is true of Noah's flood. Geology shows no evidence of a wold flood at Noah's time but archaeology has found a layer of mud that probably is from Noah's flood of 2900 BC. In the Mesopotamian valley" (Young).

Noah's world at the time was the Euphrates River Valley. He could not have been an eyewitness to anywhere else in the world. He would have reported what he personally saw, which was a flood that "covered the earth". Yet, the flood's symbolism of a new beginning or second creation in each story is the same regardless of the scale of the disaster.
Each story has important similarities and disparities that lie within the main characters. Each of the men chosen to survive was chosen because of their beliefs in the God that protected them. Utanapishtim was a true worshiper of Ea. "My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered I will heed and will do it" (Gilgamesh, 18). Likewise in the Bible, "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen. 6.8). Both men followed the orders of their gods and in each story they were saved. And in each, at the end of the flood each of them showed their reverence by making a sacrifice to their applicable God, and each was rewarded.

With all of the similarities between the two tales, the rewards are quite different. Here in the conclusion, the difference in the intent of each story teller is very apparent. In the ancient text, Utanapishtim was rewarded with immortality. "Previously Utanapishtim was a human being. But now let Utanapishtim and his wife become like us, the gods!" (Gilgamesh, 23). In the Hebrew text, Noah was rewarded with blessings and food.

"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you green plants, I now give you everything" (Gen. 9.1-3).
The ideology of the two cultures is clearly different. Each story tells of a different "happy ending". The Babylonian culture seeking to be equal with the gods, and the Hebrew culture wanting to be blessed by God.
These stories were written to influence people. Based upon the ideology of the time they were written, and translated, the intent of the story; the moral of the story is different. When the Apostle Peter described the flood of Noah in II Peter 3:6, his attempts are not to be scientifically accurate. His goal is to persuade the reader into believing his argument is correct.
"Peter received his information on the flood from the same texts that we have and was therefore limited by the same ambiguities in the text that we can see for ourselves. Just because Peter referred in broad terms to a world that was overflowed with water, does not prove that the "world" in the original story was anything more than the local world known to Noah. Peter was using the flood story as a metaphor; he was not giving a discourse on geography" (Best).
It is the story in it's many forms that cultures have used for four millennia to tell the story of a new beginning, a symbolic second creation story. From the days before writing, it was told in song, then the first recorded written story, and now The Holy Bible. What is important is not the historical or scientific validity of the tale itself, but the intent of the story teller.
"But what is important is what the Flood represents to mankind through the use of myth. The Flood is dual in nature for it both destroys and cleanses. It obliterates but it makes way for something new. The Flood in myth represents rebirth - rebirth of the world, of a new world order, and rebirth of mankind. It is a creative force. Through mythology, the Flood brings forth new life" (Casselman).

Utanapishtim and his wife are given immortality. Noah and his family receive blessings and food, and are given the earth to command. Not totally unlike the instructions God gave Adam in the Garden of Eden. It is the story of a new beginning for each culture told in the form that the current human condition would accept and could be persuaded in.

Works Cited

Best, Robert M. "Noah's Ark and the Zuisudra Epic" 1991. .

Casselman, Linda "Gilgamesh and Parallels to the Bible" 1999. .

Morris, Henry "The Genesis Flood" 1984.

The New Student Bible. New International Version. Grand Rapids Michigan, 1992.

World Literature and Thought Volume 1 "The Epic of Gilgamesh" 1997 Ft. Worth, TX,

Young, Davis "The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited". Christian Scholar's Review XXIV 1995.