No, I did not write this. It is a compilation from academia:
The source of the Gilgamesh Epic
The date of the Gilgamesh Epic seems to be earlier than the reign of Hammurabi when Marduk succeeded to the supremacy in the Babylonian pantheon from Anu and Enlil40 because Anu and Enlil are still described as the chief deities (XI 15–16) in the Epic.41 At the same time, Heidel states, “It has long been recognized that the Gilgamesh Epic constitutes a literary compilation of material from various originally unrelated sources, put together to form one grand, more or less harmonious, whole.”42 Although the Gilgamesh traditions were distributed widely and numerous tablets have been discovered, unfortunately, a complete original text of the Gilgamesh Epic does not exist.43 The text and the date of composition of the extant manuscripts vary widely.44 The oldest version of the Epic, which is inscribed in the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian early in the second millennium B.C., is called the Old Babylonian Version.45 It is extant in a fragmentary state; therefore, its conclusion cannot be ascertained.46 A later version, the so-called “Standard Version,” consists of twelve tablets and is more complete.47 It was composed by Sin-leqe-unninni, a poet-editor who lived around the thirteen century B.C.48 In this version the flood account appears in tablet XI. Moran discusses that account as follows:
It is generally conceded that the Flood was not part of the original epic, which may have referred to it, but only briefly. The long account in Tablet 11 seems to be told for its own sake. It seriously interrupts not only the flow of dialogue between Ut-napishtim and Gilgamesh but the otherwise smooth and natural transition from the end of the Tablet 10, where Ut-napishtim tells Gilgamesh about the assembly of the gods after the Flood, to Ut-napishtim’s rhetorical question. Finally, the story as told here is not an independent account; it draws on an identifiable source, the myth of Atrakhasis.49
Generally, the flood account in the Atrahasis Epic tablet III is regarded as the source of the Gilgamesh Epic tablet XI because of many common elements and wordings.50 Actually, the hero’s name Atrahasis, which denotes “the exceedingly wise,” is used as another cognomen of Utnapishtim, the hero of the flood account in the Gilgamesh Epic (XI 187).51 The date of the original composition of the Atrahasis Epic also seems to trace back to before the reign of Hammurabi because of the superiority given to Anu and Enlil in the Epic.52 Even though the extant oldest tablets of the Atrahasis Epic date to the days of King Ammizaduga (1646–1626 B.C.),53 it is obvious that they are not the original, but copies.54 However, Heidel expresses the opposite view that the flood account in the Atrahasis Epic might have been rooted in the Gilgamesh Epic tablet XI.55 Whether the Gilgamesh Epic was the source of the Atrahasis Epic or the opposite, it is also recognized that the Atrahasis Epic is probably the version edited from various traditional materials.56 Therefore, there seems to have existed an older version from which both accounts derived. Moran also states the reason why the flood account was added in the Gilgamesh Epic as follows:
It is also generally conceded that the one who added the story was the poet-editor of the prologue. He has a manifest interest in, and esteem for, “the knowledge of days before the Flood” that Gilgamesh brought back. He also speaks in the prologue of the secret things revealed by Gilgamesh but with only two formally identified, one of them the Flood Story. If the poet-editor was not the one who added the story, he certainly directs his reader to it and implies its importance.
In the learned world of Sin-leqe-unninni, the Flood Story is certainly important, in that it is knowledge that, were it not for Gilgamesh, would have been lost. And it is not just any knowledge. It is knowledge about the most terrible event in human history. It is knowledge about a terrible truth: the gods can destroy and one may never know why. A wise man, Gilgamesh, should know this.57
No longer can the Gilgamesh Epic be used to discredit the Flood of Noah!
Rex
Christian Answer to Atheist Bible: the Flood
by Rex 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Rex
-
tetrapod.sapien
Rex,
please state your sources. thank you.
TS
-
stillajwexelder
This goes against the flow. most researchers and academics agree Gilgamesh precedes the supposed flood of Noahs day
-
Leolaia
No longer can the Gilgamesh Epic be used to discredit the Flood of Noah!
Because.....????
The article you excerpted discussed the literary history of the various Akkadian and Assyrian versions of the flood myth, and whether there was a more original version of the tale antedating the versions we presently possess. That is a very different issue than asking whether there is a literary relationship between any of the Akkadian versions and much later Hebrew stories -- which is the conclusion of early every scholar on the subject. The Gilgamesh version was very widely diffused and translated, with copies discovered in Turkey (translated in Hittite) and even at Megiddo in Palestine. Gilgamesh is even mentioned in the Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls in a story about the giants before the Flood.
-
stillajwexelder
and BTW the evidence is overwhelming that the flood was NOT GLOBAL
-
peacefulpete
Who's the little girl Leolaia?
-
Leolaia
My lovable, adorable niece. I just spent a week with her and loved being the doting auntie...
-
robhic
I thought you looked awful young to be so smart!!!
-
Rex
>and BTW the evidence is overwhelming that the flood was NOT GLOBAL
Actually, NO it is not. That depends on whether you are naturalistic in your presuppositions or you allow for supernatural events. That comes down to world view. The naturalist world view itself is unsupported by the evidence in the sciences. There is shockingly little evidence in the fossil record to support the claims of evolutionists for instance. Remember the famous Scopes 'monkey trial'? The whole constructed evoutionary evidence for the prehistoric 'man' I question was a single tooth. That tooth was later determined to be from a pig. LOL
As far as the water canopy theory it is even no longer used in intelligent design circles. The rain ncessary could have been caused by catastrophic volcanic activity along with the release of huge volumes of water from the 'deeps' and the mountain ranges we have today would not have existed in the heights we presently had.
Rex -
DannyBloem
Rex,
Lok at some facts without any formed opinion to start with, just be open.
How can you explain 1) the ice date at the poles going back tenthousands of years.
2) the coral islands as the are.
3) three ring dating (no effidence there)
Danny.