However it did get me thinking. To us, it is the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic that is interesting because of its account of the Flood, better known to us from the Bible. But to the ancients, the Flood story
was just part of the longer epic (there are twelve tablets in all), no
one part of which was more important than any other.
If Elif Shafak can mangle the story of George Smith, even giving him a wholly fictional name and title, the better to fit in with his overall story, why may not the author (or authors) of Gilgamesh have mangled the story of the Flood the better to fit in with the rest of Gilgamesh' adventures?
In other words, whatever differences there are between Gilgamesh and
Genesis may be nothing more than stylistic flourishes introduced by the unknown author and should be ignored, just as I am ignoring the rubbish spouted by Shafak.
Of course, that cuts both ways. Might the story of Noah not be equally fictionalised? Obviously we have no proof either way, but we can say
that the Bible has a good record as far as historical veracity is
concerned. I would not wish to swear that Moses did not compress or omit
in order to fit the story of the Flood into three chapters, but I would
back Genesis against Gilgamesh any day.
You do realise that Gilgamesh predates Genesis don't you?
Or more likely, the Gilgamesh flood (and other flood myths)was copied by
the writer of Genesis with it's own spin related to God.
Moses was still alive in the 9th/8th century BC?Are you under the impression that Genesis was written in the 9th/8th
On 17/06/2026 15:00, John wrote:
You do realise that Gilgamesh predates Genesis don't you?
Of course. Do you realise that the early versions of the epic (Sumerian,
for example) differ considerably from the Assyrian version translated by Smith? Which means that the Assyrians may have incorporated Biblical information into the story.
Or more likely, the Gilgamesh flood (and other flood myths)was copied
by the writer of Genesis with it's own spin related to God.
Why is that "more likely"?
Moses was still alive in the 9th/8th century BC?Are you under the impression that Genesis was written in the 9th/8th
century BC? Otherwise your comment seems the perfect non sequitor.
The earliest written Gilgamesh was written about 2100 BC. It may well
ahve derived from the Sumerian or the Atra-Hasis stories.
Wheras Gilgamesh talks of angry gods, this wouldn't fit the Hebrew
belief of a monothiest God so may well have been toned doen.-a However
the two narratives are similar.-a (Eack kind of animal, specific
dimensions and the relaese of a dove, although Gilgamesh ends after 6 days.
Because the source is earlier (see above and below)
That is the general consensus, with parts of it possibly being as late
as 6th century BC.-a It's also possible that there is more than one
author, which would certainly explain the two different creation
accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 and God saying about 7 of each animal in the
flood as opposed to 2, based on an earlier version of the flood story
(read about that today, but now can't find where)
Perhaps you have better evidence it was written by Moses around 1300 BC?https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/who-wrote-genesis.html
On 18/06/2026 13:50, John wrote:
The earliest written Gilgamesh was written about 2100 BC. It may
well ahve derived from the Sumerian or the Atra-Hasis stories.
I have three versions of Gilgamesh, the earliest of which is Sumerian.
Wheras Gilgamesh talks of angry gods, this wouldn't fit the Hebrew
belief of a monothiest God so may well have been toned doen.
However the two narratives are similar. (Eack kind of animal,
specific dimensions and the relaese of a dove, although Gilgamesh
ends after 6 days.
I suggest you actually read the Epic, particularly the earlier version
is you can find it, before going overboard about the
similarities. There are similarities, but not as great as you appear
to think.
Because the source is earlier (see above and below)
That does not prove that Genesis copied from Sumeria. As was said at
the time of the Epic's discovery, it is most likely to be an
independent account of an event known to both authors.
That is the general consensus, with parts of it possibly being as
late as 6th century BC. It's also possible that there is more than
one author, which would certainly explain the two different creation
accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 and God saying about 7 of each animal in
the flood as opposed to 2, based on an earlier version of the flood
story (read about that today, but now can't find where)
It is certainly the consensus of liberal scholars.
Perhaps you have better evidence it was written by Moses around 1300 BC?https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/who-wrote-genesis.html
The above URL is a reasonable summary. The "this is the generations" statement which is believed to be a quote from Sumerian tablets, the reference to bricks being made with straw, the astonishment at the odd
people who built a tower using bricks instead of stone and bitumen
instead of lime plaster, as well as many other incidental comments,
are most easily explained by the author being Egyptian born and bred.
Not directly Sumerian, but I heard a bbc world service program a little earlier on Hamurabi, (reflecting recent interest elsewhere) and when GilGamesh came up the trope of "Everything in the Bible was taken from
Other Sources" was characterised as antisemitic, towards the end of the
show. I think world service podcasts are available after broadcaset
outside the UK, but I haven't looked for this one yet
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:29:21 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 281,242 |