• home
• about
  • Our Staff
  • Our Vision
  • Our Message
  • Our Finances
  • Our Building Fund
  • Contact Us
• services
• ministries
  • Home Groups
  • Pastoral Care
  • Kidz Church
  • Youth
  • Alpha
  • Simply Christianity
  • Mothertime
  • St Marks Preschool
  • Link Missionaries
  • PASWCA
• occasions
  • Infant Baptism
  • Thanksgiving
  • Weddings
  • Funerals
• resources
  • Sermons
  • Bible Studies
  • Short Articles
  • Links
  • Ministry workshops
• what's on
• blog
• rosters

The story of Utnapishtim
as an aid to understanding the God of Noah.

Introduction

The story of Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh Epic appears to be an embarrassingly similar narrative to the biblical story of Noah in Genesis.

. . . When first published, the Gilgamesh Epic’s flood narrative shocked Europe no less than any of Darwin's theories, for it placed into question the uniqueness and authenticity of the Hebrew experience. [1]

The texts of the Gilgamesh Epic date back to the Babylonian Empire in the seventh century B.C., much earlier than any existent biblical text. It is often assumed that the Genesis account is significantly discredited because it is shown to be a reworking of another source, a polytheistic source, and therefore not truly the word of God. This paper will demonstrate that the account of the flood in the Gilgamesh Epic, far from being an embarrassment, strengthens our view of Scripture and enhances, in a unique way, our understanding of the God of the Bible.

The remarkable similarities of the account of the flood in Genesis 6-9 and the narrative within the Gilgamesh Epic are well documented [2] . Both are narratives of Divine universal judgement on mankind by flood. A righteous man and his kin are saved in obedience to special knowledge of the impending deluge received from deity by building a large bitumen covered timber boat to exact specifications. The chosen people, along with a stock of animals, are taken into the boat and witness the terrible rain and flood which covers the tops of the mountains, destroying all other human and animal life. As the waters subside, the boat lodges on a mountain, a series of birds are released for reconnaissance and the people and animals eventually leave the boat in safety to repopulate the earth. Both narratives conclude with the righteous man, prior to receiving divine blessing, offering a pleasing sacrifice. These parallels, along with textual, literary, geographical and cultural similarities have led many to the conclusion that the two are genetically linked.

Literary Origins

The nature of this link has caused some debate. One of three views is generally adopted, (i) the Biblical account is original, the Babylonian is derivative, (ii) the Babylonian story is primary and the Biblical secondary, or (iii) both have a common ancestor, not known or found, possibly an oral source. The first of these has least support, the second is well supported [3] , but it is the third which has the most credible and reasonable basis.

. . . Finally, there is the third way of accounting for the analogies between the Hebrew and the Babylonian versions of the deluge, viz, that they revert to a common source of some kind. This source need not have sprung up from Palestinian soil but may very well have originated in the land of Babylon, where, indeed, the book of Genesis localises the home of post-diluvian mankind (11:1-9) and whence Abraham emigrated to Palestine (11:27-12:5).... The skeleton is the same in both cases, but the flesh and blood and, above all, the animating spirit are different. [4]

The two narratives do not demonstrate an elaborate and ancient plagiarism, rather they are “cognate” parallels.  

. . . the primary basis for cognate parallels is not scribal relationship between individual texts, but continuity of the narrative traditions  that the texts presume. [5]

It is the fact that the biblical text is not the original source that causes some adherents of the Christian tradition some embarrassment. This reflects an incorrect view that supposes Scripture is direct revelation, a word by word dictation, from the mouth of God. This understanding is not supported by Scripture itself, rather Scripture affirms that it is God breathed (2 Tim 3:16), the words (and thus the pens) of godly men carried along by the Spirit of God (2 Pet 1:21). Scripture is both the work of men and God.  In the case of the writers of biblical history, it is the Divine interpretation of, and commentary upon, the events of history which mark their writings as Scripture. And so, the Biblical flood account is not discredited in any way if the facts of the event are drawn from a pre-existent literary or oral source. [6] Indeed, it is well established that the flood account we have in Genesis is the result of the blending of two parallel written accounts by the 'Jehovist' and the 'Elohist'. [7] The biblical account is not alone in its reworking of an earlier source: the story of the flood within the Gilgamesh Epic is also clearly an earlier and separate entity within the whole. [8]   Indeed, it is the very similarity of the two texts which strengthens the claim for the literary historicity of the Bible. The biblical narratives describe the ancestral roots of the Hebrews in the Babylonian region and the Gilgamesh Epic now confirms that the biblical text reflects such a geographic, literary and cultural setting. It may be argued that the story of the flood was orally transmitted from Noah to his sons, and from them to their families. Generations later, as Abram left Ur he carried the story with him, passing it on through the Hebrew family. At some stage, both the Babylonian and Hebrew versions were reduced to text, having undergone some modifications.   Assuming both accounts refer to the same event, we are now in the fortunate position of having two versions of the same story, one interpreted for us by the Living God and the other understood through the polytheistic mind of ancient Babylon. That which Jehovah intended us to understand about himself and his purposes will therefore be highlighted by contrasting the two. Such a contrast poses a series of profitable questions for the Christian.  

...For it is the use to which the Deluge is put in each work which reveals even deeper differences and similarities in the religious approaches of the Hebrews and the Babylonians.... one is compelled to ask why the respective authors use the story where and how they use it. [9]

 

Context

The story of Utnapishtim appears as the climax of Gilgamesh’s quest to escape mortality. Driven by the death of Enkidu, Gilgamesh travels far from Uruk in search of Utnapishtim who is the only mortal ever to achieve the everlasting life of the gods. When asked by Gilgamesh how he achieved his status, Utnapishtim answers with the story of the flood. This gives Gilgamesh no hope, unless he can obtain special dispensation from the gods, as has Utnapishtim. After his narrative, Utnapishtim sets Gilgamesh the task of staying awake for six days and seven nights. If Gilgamesh is successful, Utnapishtim will summon the gods to assembly for him. Gilgamesh is not able to perform this god-like feat and so Utnapishtim bids him to return home to Uruk. As Gilgamesh is departing Utnapishtim relents and tells him that if he eats a certain plant he will gain new life. Gilgamesh obtains the plant, but the plant is stolen by a serpent before he eats it, and so he must return home with only the wisdom that it is the lot of all mortals to die. Thus the Babylonian flood story is set in the context of a futile quest for eternal life. The gods have decreed death for humanity and that order will not be circumvented even for Gilgamesh, who is two-thirds god and one-third man. No hope remains. Man’s task is to,

...let full be thy belly,
Make thou merry by day and by night..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pay heed to the little one that holds on to thy hand,
Let thy spouse delight in thy bosom. [10]  

The story of Noah and the flood appears as the second of three narrative cycles which together form a prologue to the main body of Genesis. The first cycle of the prologue, set in the garden of Eden, establishes cursed life and death as a just punishment for Adam’s sin of trying to attain the status of God. [11] The curse was to extend to the entire human family. During the pronouncement of this curse, God also promises humanity an ultimate victory over the agent of death (Gen 3:15). The flood story begins with the depravity of humanity requiring God’s righteous judgment and closes with a covenant promise of providential care. The story of the Tower of Babel, which follows the flood story, depicts humanity attempting to elevate themselves to divine heights, but their efforts are frustrated and confused by God. In each of the three parts of the prologue the seriousness of the problem of sin is emphasized by the nature of the punishment which it warrants. A pattern of blessing and promise within judgement is established in the first two cycles. The Tower of Babel, however, does not finish on a note of hope, rather the reader is drawn into the opening chapter of the body of Genesis to see God’s promise to Abram. This is a promise of blessing, ultimately to be enjoyed by all the peoples of the earth. Thus the thematic context of the biblical flood story is ‘curse and death’ resulting from the fall of humanity, however, there is hope that God will one day reverse the curse bringing blessing for mankind.  

The Divine Nature

The nature and character of deity is central to both accounts of the flood, yet it is at this point that they are most divergent. The Babylonian story is overtly polytheistic while the biblical account asserts one almighty God. The diverse and divided Babylonian pantheon is populated by deities of both noble and ignoble character. Some cower like dogs during the fury of the flood, others are capricious, vein, lacking wisdom or sycophantic, while others are called wise, valiant and powerful. At the heart of the Babylonian story is the confrontation between Enlil and Ea; the instigator of the flood and the one who sought to spare humanity. In contrast to this conflict, Jehovah is revealed as being without weakness or fault. He is purposeful, just, omnipotent, and merciful in carrying out his will. Unlike the pantheon, there is no tension or conflict within his character. He establishes covenant relationship with his creation while the Babylonian gods remain aloof and self-absorbed. Because Jehovah is faithful, Noah can trust his word whereas the experience of Utnapishtim gives Gilgamesh no assurance of how the gods will deal with him.

The Nature of Humanity

At the heart of both stories is the maxim, “deity is immortal but humanity is mortal”. Gilgamesh seeks immortality, but the quest is fruitless;  

. . . Do we build a house forever?
Do we seal contracts forever?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Since the days of yore there has been no permanence;
The resting and the dead, how alike they are! [12]  

In the time of Noah, mankind sought immortality for their offspring through mixed marriages with the sons of God.  But in Genesis 6:3 we read “My spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days shall be 120 years.” Such aspirations, as an expression of the grasping corruption and depravity of humanity, drew forth God’s judgment in the flood. But the flood was also the precursor to God’s providential blessing. The survival of a remnant of faithful people manifested the hope that one day the curse of death would be defeated by the seed of Eve.   Both texts agree that humanity is mortal, and cannot become divine. The biblical story is set in the wider context of hope in the promise of God to bring about a perfect state of affairs for humanity. In contrast, there is no hope of change or restoration in the nature of humanity in the Gilgamesh Epic; all that remains is fleeting existential pleasure.

The Cause of the Flood

In both narratives, the flood is actively wrought by deity. In the Gilgamesh Epic the flood is variously attributed to,

(i) the caprice of the gods [13] ,
(ii) Enlil’s desperate attempt to kerb humanity’s rapid multiplication and regain his sleep [14] , and
(iii) the sin of some, not all, of mankind [15] .

In opposition to such apparent injustice, Ea argues that the gods ought to deal justly and mercifully with humanity, “On the sinner impose his sin, On the transgressor impose his transgression, (Yet) be lenient, lest he be cut off, be patient lest he be dislodged.” [16] Indeed, it is said that the Gilgamesh Epic is essentially   . . . a search for justice on the part of the gods, a theological affirmation that the mercy of some gods will always temper the caprice of others, and the fact that Ziusudra (Noah's counterpart) is saved because of his piety and obedience. Hence we have, almost a millenium before (Genesis), the beginnings of dissatisfaction with the crudities of polytheism, a conscious search for an explicitly ethical theism which would find its most consistent articulation in the hebrew scriptures. [17]   By contrast, the biblical story reveals God as being eternally just in power and purpose. The flood is brought about because of the corruption of the earth and the exceeding wickedness of humanity. We are told that all humanity are corrupt, and so all are deserving of destruction. Noah is saved because he found favour in God’s sight (Gen 6:8,9), [18] not because he was without fault. God intentionally reveals to Noah that he will destroy all his creatures with a flood. Unlike Ea’s deception of Enlil, there is no intrigue or counter-conspiracy involved. God’s purpose is clearly stated and he carries it out, manifesting his unblemished righteousness. Thus a comparison of the causes of the flood in the two narratives highlights the immanence of God over and against the chaotic rivalry of the Babylonian pantheon. Jehovah is purposeful, just and merciful; the gods are divided, unjust and capricious.

Covenant

God’s covenant with Noah is an important feature of the Genesis account which has but a faint echo in the Gilgamesh Epic. Following the offering of a sacrifice God promises Noah and all with him in the ark that he will never again destroy the world by flood, offering the rainbow as a sign of his continued providential care, and he promises that the seasons and cycles of nature will continue to sustain his creation. The covenant is characterized by grace as it seems that there is no quid pro quo binding Noah to do more than exercise stewardship over creation and to fill the earth. Jehovah's authority as creator and his decretive power over all creation are affirmed, as is humanity’s unique relationship to the one whose image they bear. The fact that God has been true to his covenant promise to this day confirms his unchanging faithfulness.   The only parallel in the story of Utnapishtim occurs as Ishtar lifts up her necklace and says, “Ye gods here, as surely as this lapis Upon my neck I shall not forget, I shall be mindful of these days, forgetting (them) never.” [19] This is not a covenant with humanity, but it is a vow to the gods. She does not promise any action on her behalf other that remembering the event. In addition, Utnapishtim and his wife receive immortality but are banished to live at the edge of the earth forever.   The character of Jehovah is once again brought into sharp relief against the background of the Babylonian pantheon. Jehovah is the supreme creator who establishes covenant relationship with his creation. As the story of the bible unfolds his redemptive purpose in creation is seen to be progressing toward fulfilment. In contrast, the Babylonian story depicts the gods remaining detached from humanity, leaving them with an essentially meaningless and hopeless cycle of life and death.

 

The Message

Having considered the comparisons afforded by the parallel narratives, we are now in a position to return to the questions posed earlier. What is the purpose of the flood story? How is it used? Why is it located within each document as it is? Clearly both narratives are used as a means of revealing the nature of divinity and humanity and the relationship between the two. The structure and detail of each are parallel, but the message of the two are quite different.   The story of Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh Epic is the climax to Gilgamesh’s search for immortality. Its message is that humanity is subject to the gods and are without hope of ever attaining their immortality. The caprice and intrigues of the gods mean that life for humanity has neither certainty nor reason. Although Gilgamesh has accomplished great deeds in life, ultimately there is only a gloomy nether world that awaits him. Enkidu’s words from the grave give no comfort to him or the readers of the Epic, “(But) if I tell thee the order of the nether world which I have seen, Sit thou down and weep!” [20]   The biblical flood, while demonstrating the seriousness of sin and its consequences, also demonstrates that God has chosen a people for himself to be the carrier of his promises until their fulfilment. [21] God is active in preserving these people, assuring them of his ongoing care by establishing covenant with them. The story is part of a prologue to a far greater narrative. Its purpose is to establish the just, merciful, omnipotent, covenant making and keeping nature of God. The corrupt and undeserving nature of humanity is also delineated. The message of Noah is God’s gracious election of a people to carry his promise of restoration until its fulfilment.

 

Conclusion

The Gilgamesh Epic offers a tremendous opportunity to appreciate the character of Jehovah in a unique way. We now have two accounts of the same story; one which has been breathed and interpreted for us by God and another which has remained mere general revelation. That which God especially wants us to understand from the story is highlighted by contrast. His perfect, just, gracious, and awesome nature stand out clearly against the divided, discordant, and capricious Babylonian pantheon. The people of God are able to trust in a faithful covenant keeping creator whereas the people of Uruk are left to wonder what will be their fate at the hands of their capricious gods.   Such a stark contrast prompts the question of a hidden agenda in the Genesis account. Knowing that the story of the flood was transmitted throughout the ancient world in various forms, it would be safe to assume that the Jews knew of the Gilgamesh Epic from sources outside their own sacred texts. It may be possible that the story of Noah was directed as religious polemic against Babylon. Indeed, when one considers the other two cycles of the the Genesis prologue, there is little doubt of such intent. The story of the tower of Babel pours derision upon the Babylonians and the story of creation and the garden of Eden also contrasts other parallel ancient near eastern literature. The story of one supreme Creator in special covenant relationship with an elected people (the Jews) is intended to engage and impact the polytheistic Babylonians, while giving assurance and religious higher ground to the Jews.   Theology in narrative remains the focus of the prologue to Genesis. Polemic is only secondary to the objective of revealing God and his purposes to his own people. The story of Noah is not discredited by the Gilgamesh Epic, in fact the literary historicity of the two are con-substantiated. The comparison of these two narratives provides a unique opportunity to appreciate afresh the God who spared Noah from judgement in order to further his purpose of ultimately restoring fallen humanity to perfection.

Bibliography

 

James Franklin Armstrong, Critical note on Genesis 6:19a, Vetus Testamentum, July 1960. 10:328-333  

Alan Dundes (Ed.), The Flood Myth. University of California Press. 1988.  

E. Fisher, Gilgamesh and Genesis; the flood story in context, Catholic Biblical Quarterly. July 1970. 32:392-403.  

David Noel Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday. New York. 1992. Vol.II.  

Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh epic and Old Testament Parallels. Phoenix Books, University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Seventh impression 1970.  

Paul Jordan-Smith, Living Stories, Parabola Vol.11 No.4, 50-55. 1986.  

Maximillian Lindsay Kellner, The deluge in the Izdubar epic and in the Old Testament, The Church Review. Cambridge. November 1888. 9-30.  

Wilfred G. Lambert, New light on the Babylonian Flood, Journal of Semetic Studies, April 1960. 5:113-123.  

James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament. Princeton University Press. 1969. 72-99  

James A Rimbach, "The gods like flies": no offence intended, East Asian Journal of Theology. April 1986. Vol.4, No.1, 87-97.  

N.K.Sandars, The Epic of Gilgamesh. Penguin Books. London. 1972.  

R E Simoons-Vermeer, Mesapotamian Flood Stories; a comparison and interpretation, Numen (International Review for the History of Religions) April 1974. 21:17-34.  

C C Smith, Knowledge from before the flood, Encounter. Winter 1970. 31:31-41.