by Brian Godawa
Wenham has listed seventeen major correlations between the Genesis Flood and the Gilgamesh Deluge that indicate a strong genetic connection between the two narratives:
1. Divine decision to destroy
2. Warning to flood hero
3. Command to build ark
4. Hero’s obedience
5. Command to enter
6. Entry
7. Closing door
8. Description of flood
9. Destruction of life
10. End of rain, etc.
11. Ark grounding on mountain
12. Hero opens window
13. Birds’ reconnaissance
14. Exit
15. Sacrifice
16. Divine smelling of sacrifice
17. Blessing on flood hero[30]
But Alexander Heidel’s classic The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels has teased out the differences between the two that shed light on their radically divergent meanings.
To begin with, the name for the Flood hero in Gilgamesh is Utnapishtim, which means, “he saw life,” an apparent free rendering of the Sumerian Ziusudra, that meant “he found everlasting life.” In the Flood story most likely borrowed for the Gilgamesh Epic, his name is Atrahasis which means “exceedingly wise.” In Genesis, Noah means, “rest.”[31]
The Sumerian Noah, Ziusudra, was a priestly king of the city of Shuruppak, the tenth in line of the prediluvian Babylonian kings. In Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim is not a king, but a wealthy citizen of Shuruppak. The Biblical Noah is the tenth prediluvian patriarch, but beyond this, we only know he was pious in that he “walked with God” and found favor in his sight.[32] In Genesis, only eight people were in the ark with the animals; Noah, his three sons, and all their wives. In the Sumerian Deluge and Gilgamesh, Noah’s extended family also came along with some craftsmen, and a boatman.
Heidel then points out the theological differences between the narratives regarding the cause of the Flood and the possibility of redemption for humanity.[33] In Atrahasis, the “noise” of man’s overpopulation and “cries of rebellion” awaken Enlil from his sleep to send several plagues and famines without satisfying results before he conspires to send a flood to drown out their rebellious noise.[34] In Gilgamesh, the gods send the Deluge because of an undefined sin of mankind (Tablet XI:180). Utnapishtim lies to his neighbors about the ark because the gods do not want man to know what they are about to do.
Contrarily, in Genesis, the Flood is very clearly a righteous judgment upon an earth that was “corrupted and filled with violence.” “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” God gives man a “period of grace” of one hundred and twenty years with which to repent and obey God (Gen 6:5-6). Though this purpose is not stated explicitly in Genesis, two other passages in the New Testament seem to indicate this notion of God providing such opportunity.
1 Peter 3:19–20
[In the spirit] he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
2 Peter 2:5–6
if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly... making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
Surely, there is an assumption, sometimes explicit, but always implicit throughout the Old Testament that if man repents, God will stay his hand of planned judgment. But the notion that Noah actually “preached” words to the condemned is not necessarily in the text. Some Evangelicals assume that Noah as “herald of righteousness” means he preached sermons like the Apostles in Acts. But this assumes too much. For the context of the New Testament passages are about Noah’s example to us “of what is going to happen to the ungodly” of Peter’s current era.
Jesus in his Olivet sermon uses Noah’s example as a sermon illustration for his coming judgment as well.
Matthew 24:37–39
For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Noah’s preparation for the Flood was a declaratory action that spoke louder than words, and apparently, it was not understood by those who were “unaware until the flood came and swept them all away.”
Another passage sheds light on the notion that Noah’s act of building the boat in anticipation of the Flood was itself the “proclamation.”
Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Though God always seems to give a generation under condemnation an opportunity to repent, he does not always do so with sermons of words, but certainly with examples of actions.
The ark also provides an example of significant difference between the narratives. The length of Noah’s ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a displacement of approximately 43,300 tons. It had three levels to contain the animals, that on the surface of the account is structurally feasible. Utnapishtim’s vessel however, was not so amiable to reality. According to Babylonian measurements, it was supposed to be a square cube of 200 feet on all sides and was divided into seven levels, displacing approximately 228,500 tons, making it a rather questionable sea worthy craft.[35]
In the Biblical story, it is well known that the flood began with rain coming down from the heavens and waters coming up from the deep. The rain storm lasted 40 days and 40 nights, and then after 150 days, the waters began to abate until the earth was dry enough to leave the ark about 360 days or 1 year after the start of the flood. In the Babylonian versions, the flood storm lasts only 7 days and 7 nights, followed by an unspecified number of days for the waters to dry up before Noah leaves the ark.
Upon leaving the boat, Ziusudra, Utnapishtim, and Noah all build altars and offer sacrifices of thanksgiving and appeasement unto their gods. But the theological incongruity between the accounts is spelled out in the divine reactions. In Gilgamesh, “The gods smelled the savour, the gods smelled the sweet savour, the gods gathered like flies around the sacrificer” (Tablet XI:161-163). Of this passage, Andrew George writes,
The simile used to describe the gods’ arrival is famously the image of hungry flies buzzing around a piece of food. This imagery implies a somewhat cynical view of gods, even more disrespectful than the earlier simile likening them to cowering dogs.[36]
Heidel adds a dimension to this zoomorphic (animal-like) denigration of the gods when he suggests that the gods had been without food sacrifice from humans for so long that they were hungry like a bunch of flies dependent on parasitic hosts. Enlil then starts to quarrel with Enki for revealing the secret to Utnapishtim, wherein Enki defends himself with trickery by arguing that he did not reveal it directly to Utnapishtim, but through a dream, thus freeing him from blame.
Contrary to the Babylonian zoomorphic simile of the gods, the Bible engages in anthropomorphism (human-like) in that man is created in the image of God and thus sacrifice is understood in the priestly terms of atonement for sin (Lev. 1:9). God “smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of man (Gen. 8:21).’” Heidel explains
The propitiatory character of the sacrifice is brought out quite clearly in the biblical narrative, where the ascending essence of the burnt-offerings is called a “soothing odor,” or, literally, an “odor of tranquilization.” One purpose of Noah’s sacrifice, as seems to be indicated by what follows, probably was to appease the wrath of God which had been kindled by the sins of mankind
and which Noah had just witnessed. But at the same time it was undoubtedly an offering for the expiation of his own sins and those of his family.[37]
Whereas the Babylonian anthropomorphic descriptions of their deities tended to reflect human weaknesses (hunger) and sin (quarreling), the Biblical account depicts the human-like character traits of God in terms of relationship (propitiation and atonement).
In the Babylonian versions, Noah and his wife are blessed with eternal life after Enlil gives in to Enki’s defensive arguments. They are then taken to a distant place, “at the mouth of the rivers,” probably referring to the Persian Gulf, into which the Euphrates and Tigris rivers opened up. In Gilgamesh, this was the mythical and distant “place where the sun rises,” in the Sumerian version it was the island of Dilmun, now considered by most scholars to be in the area of the Bahrain islands.
The Biblical version is theologically motivated by God’s covenantal nature. God blesses Noah, and then grants him the original charge given to Adam to multiply and fill the earth, and to exercise dominion over the creatures (Gen 9:1-3). As the flood was a return to the chaos waters before creation, so the world of Noah is a new creation with a new Adam. And God reinforces his value of the created image of God in man, by bringing special attention to capital punishment for murdering man, made in the image of God.
The rainbow becomes God’s covenant promise to stay his hand from Deluge judgment, unlike the Gilgamesh Epic, that has a secondary mother goddess claim that a necklace strung with flies will, “remind her of the hungry gods buzzing around [Utnapishtim’s] sacrifice, and ultimately of her special responsibility to her human children” [38] (Tablet XI:165-169).
Comparison and Contrast
The value of comparative religion lies in achieving a better understanding of the historical and cultural context of ancient writings like the Bible. Too often, both religious believers and unbelievers approach the text with their own preconceived modern worldview or political agenda that they project upon the text in order to “use” it for their own purposes, positive or negative. Christians have been guilty of forcing poetic passages into the straightjacket of a hyper-literalistic hermeneutic, or imposing our notions of historical accounting or scientific accuracy upon ancient writers who just did not write with our post-Enlightenment modern scientific or historical worldview.
I addressed the Mesopotamian cosmology in the Bible in an appendix of Noah Primeval to make the point that the Biblical authors were men of their times that could not have possibly been writing Genesis as a scientific treatise on the origin of the material universe, simply because they did not write creation texts with that intent. They wrote them as theological/political documents. When we impose our own modern categories upon the Bible, we are engaging in the worst sort of cultural imperialism, denying the human side of the divinely inspired text.
But it works the other way as well. Modern notions of literary evolution get imposed upon the Bible by detractors who wish to discredit the narrative by reducing it to one of a variety of myths that evolve over time. This modern prejudice also ignores the polemical thrust of much ancient literature that interpreted historical events with divergent meanings, or engaged in retelling narratives through contrary theological lenses. This is not the syncretism of evolutionary plagiarism, but the subversion of worldview polemics.
Another aspect of storytelling where this subversion occurs is in the changing names of characters and locations in ancient narratives. As indicated earlier, the Flood hero has different names depending on which era and culture is composing the text. Some of this comes down to simple translation between languages. Utnapishtim in Akkadian may simply be the Babylonian translation of the Sumerian Ziusudra, which both mean “finding long life” or something similar. Others may be derivative. Some scholars argue that the name Noah can possibly be derived from the middle element of Utnapishtim, as one rendering has it: Utn’ahpishtim.
Other cases illustrate outright changes of names to fit the story to the culture’s paradigm and differing deities. An important Sumerian text, The Descent of Inanna into the Underworld, was literally rewritten by the Babylonians as the Descent of Ishtar into the Underworld to accommodate their goddess Ishtar.[39] The Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish tells the story of the Babylonian deity Marduk, and his ascendancy to power in the Mesopotamian pantheon, giving mythical justification to the rise of Babylon as an ancient world power in the early 18th century B.C.[40] And then when King Sennacherib of Assyria conquered Babylon around 689 B.C., Assyrian scribes rewrote the Enuma Elish and replaced the name of Marduk with Assur the name of the Assyrian chief god.[41]
The Bible contains the renaming of people that often occurred in the ancient Near East with the intent of expressing destiny or identity. Faithful readers are familiar with Abram’s name changed to Abraham to become the “father of many,” or Jacob (“supplanter”) to Israel (“striving with God”), or Saul of Tarsus being changed to Paul, as a possible Romanizing of his mission to the Gentiles.
But the Hebrew writers of the Bible also engaged in the renaming of enemies for polemical purposes. Thus Baalzebul, the god of Ekron, whose name meant “lord of the heavenly dwelling,” was renamed Baalzebub by the author of 2 Kings 1:2-6, which means the derogatory, “lord of the flies.”[42] The wicked queen of Tyre, whose name Izebul meant “where is the Prince Baal?” was renamed by the Jews as Jezebel, which is a slurring wordplay on dung (2 Kings 9:37).[43] Genesis 11:9 even explains its polemical renaming of the city of Babylon (“Gateway of the Gods”) to Babel (“Confusion of Tongues”) .
I sought to capture this historical environment of changing names and concepts throughout the series of Chronicles of the Nephilim by having characters, locations and measurements change in ways that reflected history. Thus, locations like Erech, Aratta, and Shinar in Enoch Primordial (and the Bible) become the later known Uruk, Ararat, and Sumer in Gilgamesh Immortal. The Watchers change their names to Mesopotamian deities, Inanna changes her name to Ishtar, Ninurta to Marduk, and Gilgamesh changes his name, reflecting an important historical theory of the origins of Babylon. Even measurements begin as ancient calibrations like cubits and leagues in Noah Primeval, but eventually become the more modern familiar measurements of feet and miles by Gilgamesh Immortal. I wanted to give the reader the same experience of real world changing identities, times, and cultures.
There is both continuity and discontinuity within comparative religion, that captures both the common understanding as well as the polemical differences that separate and change meaning. A comparison of the Gilgamesh Epic with the Bible bears this out as Heidel concludes,
As in the case of the creation stories, we still do not know how the biblical and Babylonian narratives of the Deluge are related historically. The available evidence proves nothing beyond the point that there is a genetic relationship between Genesis and the Babylonian versions. The skeleton is the same in both cases, but the flesh and blood and, above all, the animating spirit are different.[44]
Uncovering Noah’s Nakedness
One additional significant element of Gilgamesh Immortal requires explanation. In the novel, Noah’s son Ham rapes his own mother Emzara that results in the curse of the fruit of that maternal incest: the child Canaan. This brutal scene is not mere voyeurism of depravity, it is the very theological foundation upon which the rest of the Chronicles of the Nephilim are based. And that foundation is not imagined fantasy, it is the actual Biblical basis of the Jewish claim on the Promised Land of Canaan, as odd and controversial as it may seem. But as previous discussions have shown, Genesis is no stranger to odd and controversial stories.
Here is the text from the Bible:
Genesis 9:20–27
20 Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their
shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.” 26 He also said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.”
Literalists have a difficult time with this passage for several reasons. They do not like to admit the fact that Noah becomes a drunk after being the worlds’ greatest Bible hero of that time. They read Genesis 6:9 that says Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation, and that he walked with God as being a description of Noah as some kind of moral perfectionist one level less than Jesus. But as explained in the appendix of Noah Primeval, they miss the fact that righteousness was having faith, not moral perfection. Secondly, having faith was not perfect faith because all Biblical heroes falter in their faith. Thirdly, “blameless” was a physical Levitical reference to genetic purity (as in “spotless” lamb) that was most likely a reference to being uncorrupted by the fallen Sons of God. Fourthly, walking with God did not mean being sinless. Noah was a sinner with imperfect faith and obedience as every believer is. His broken humanity is how we identify with him and draw our inspiration.
The real problem for literalists who do not consider the ancient Near Eastern poetic language of Genesis is in concluding that an entire nation was cursed simply because one of its forefathers saw his dad without clothes on! While it is certainly possible that ancient Mesopotamians had some holy taboo about a parent’s nakedness that we are simply unfamiliar with, there is nowhere else in the Bible that affirms the absurdity of such a taboo.
