The Similarities of the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis - Case Study Example

HUMANITIES GENESIS 11 AND THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH In the appreciation of the Christian faith one cannot miss the centrality of Genesis as it presents to us the “patriarchs, the forefathers of the nation.”(Wenham et al li) However, Genesis is not solely the story of the patriarchs but it is also one of those texts that speak of primeval history. Moving beyond its theological underpinnings, Genesis 1-11 give us stories that are “best read as presenting an alternative world-view to those generally accepted in the Near East.”(Wenham xiv) On the other hand, the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the earliest known works of literary fiction, shows a commendable similarity in terms of themes with that of Genesis 1-11. These similarities are so cunning that one may ask one’s self who influence who. As such, in this paper, we will try to go over Genesis 1-11 and the Epic of Gilgamesh and elucidate the similarities and differences inherent in both ancient texts. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES Genesis 1 and 2 is the creation story. It speaks of how the One God has created the world. Remarkable in the story is the fact that the omnipotence of God is manifested by the Word. So much so, that whatever word He utters it comes into being. As such, the formula for the entire creation is “God said”, except for one creature of God and that is man. One will notice that in the creation of man, the “Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life; and man became a living soul.”(Gen 2:7) and that he is also the only creature wherein “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Gen 1:26) The “Lord God therefore molded man out of the dust. But man’s nature is more than molded clay. He owes his life to the inbreathing of the breath of God.” (Wenham 89) Thus, it is not surprising that “the creation of man in the divine image is without doubt the focal point of Gen1, the climax of the six days work.”(Wenham 37) and the primordial interest of most exegetes. Amazingly, the manner with which God created man in Genesis 2:7 is in some ways similar with how Enkidu came into being. In the Epic of Gilgamesh “Aruru washed her hands. She pinched off some clay and threw it into the wilderness” (Tablet I col 2 Lines 34 - 35) However, noticeable in Gilgamesh that Aruru, the creator of mankind, is female. This is basically implied with the use of “her” as signifying to the goddess. While in the Genesis story, though there is the underpinning that the God is not bound by gender discourse but it can be impugned that it has the tone of a male god. More over, in Gen 1- 2 “the concept of man here is markedly different…a man was not created as the lackey of the gods to keep them supplied with foods; he was God’s representative and ruler of God.” (Wenham 37) While in the Epic of Gilgamesh, when Enkidu was created, he was no different from animals,”His whole body was shaggy with hair, he had a full head of hair like a woman, and his locks billowed in profusion like Ashnan. He knew neither people nor settled living but wore garment like Sumukan. He ate grasses with the gazelles, and jostled at the watering holes with the animals; as with the animals his thirsts is slaked with (mere) water” (Tablet I col 2 Lines 36 - 41) Thus, we can see form this brief elucidation that in both texts there is the agreement that man is created by God. However, there is also the existing dissimilarity in terms of appreciation of man’s position in creation: in Gen 1-2 man is the climax of creation. He is created in the image and likeness of God that the Lord God commanded him to “Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air and of every living being that moves over the earth.” (Gen 1:28). But it is not only that, in Gen 2 we read that the Lord is concern with the plight of man. While in Gilgamesh, humans are mere creatures as presented in the creation of Enkidu. Another clear dissimilarity is the gendered language that is attributed to God. In the Epic, the creator is a female goddess Aruru, while, again, in Genesis it is not explicitly gendered but it is implied that the creator is male. Another striking similarity that is present in both texts is the recognition of women. Although both texts recognize the role or function of women, it can be noted that the two texts basically diverges in their appreciation of women function. In Genesis 3, the woman or Eve has been the reason of fall not only of Adam but of the entire humanity. Since she violated the order given by God which is “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”(Gen 2:17) The story made it appear that she has a weak will since she did not fend off the insinuations made by the snake but that she allowed herself to be taken in by its words as such “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Gen 3:6) Because of this, woman is “sentenced to pain and suffering at the center of existence in her distinctive role as mother and wife” (Wenham 89) While in the Epic of Gilgamesh, Shamhat, a harlot, is the caused of Enkidu’s transformation from that of a beast to a man, she performed for the primitive the task of womankind. His lust groaned over her…and had intercourse with the harlot until he was sated with her charms. But when he turned his attention to his animals, the gazelles saw Enkidu and they darted off, the wild animals distanced themselves from his body….Enkidu was diminished, his running was not as of before. But then he drew himself up, for his understanding has broadened….Becoming aware of himself…” (Tablet I col IV Lines 170 - 174,180 – 186) This scenario presents to us the notion that it was only upon an encounter with a woman that a beastly man will be able to remove himself from bestiality and primitiveness and start to embrace humanity. It maybe claimed that women’s, performing her task (?), is the key with which this changed of nature can be fulfilled and attained. This presentation of Shamhat, of women in the Epic of Gilgamesh is a contra position to that of Eve. As Eve is the curse of Adam in particular and men in general, Shamhat is the salvation of Enkidu implying that women are the salvation of men. Another notable similarity between Genesis 1-11 and the Epic of Gilgamesh is the story of flood. On Gen 6 – 10, we will be able to read the story of the great flood. At the center of the story is the One God coming to a decision to destroy humankind and the world because “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”(Gen 6:5) and that “the earth was also corrupt, and the earth was filled with violence.” (Gen 6:11) Then, there is Noah who “was a just man and perfect in his generation and, Noah walked with God.”(Gen 6:9) and not because “he had the luck to pick the Lord as the patron deity.” (Wenham 205) In the Epic of Gilgamesh Tablet XI col I – III Lines 10 – 179, we will also be able to read the story of the great flood with Utanapishtim and his wife as the sole survivors not because they are just and perfect like Noah but because they are lucky to have been worshippers of the God Ea who has warned them about the impending flood. The great flood is said to be caused by no specific reason only that “the hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the flood.” (Tablet XI col 1 Line 17) This may seem arbitrary but if we look at the culture during that time the gods are known to be petty and whimsical for “the gods decree the voyage of all…pain joins the voyager soon.” (Tablet VII col 2 87,81) and also there is the idea that the gods have created human beings as an “afterthought to supply the gods with food.”(A 1.190-191,EE 6:35 37 in Wenham xlix). But that is just where the similarity is – that there is an account of a great flood that killed almost all the people of the earth. More striking is the dissimilarities on the one account of the great flood. The Genesis Story of the Flood presents the conception that there is only one God and that this one God is not arbitrary or whimsical. God undertakes action on the premise that there are compounding reasons that moves Him, like in this case, the wickedness of the people. More over, the Genesis story of flood reveals the power of God as He can destroy everything He created. It also made God’s justice visible as He punishes the wicked, He saves and cares for the just, Noah. And His concern for humanity is palpable in the Story of Flood since in the midst of violence and wickedness He could have destroyed everything and yet many times did He postponed it with the hope that Noah would find others who are not depraved. On the other hand, the Epic of Gilgamesh story of the Flood shows us that during ancient times there were many gods. We read “The gods all gather round.” (Tablet VII col 1 Line 2) and also when Gilgamesh asked Utanapishtim, “…how is it that you stand in the Assembly of the Gods (sic)…” (Tablet XI col 1 Lines 8 -9) These words clearly present the idea of polytheism as being adhered to during the ancient period. Like wise, in the Epic the arbitrariness of gods are perceptible. Just imagine that they (the gods) destroyed the entire earth for no apparent reason. Being such, “The plurality of divinities creates uncertainty about the future of mortals” (Wenham 164). It leaves the idea that the fate of man is decided not on the person’s worth rather on what the gods deemed to be worthy as of the moment. More over, the epic shows that the gods have no concern regarding the happiness of mankind since “the gods decree the voyage of all…pain joins the voyager soon.”(Tablet VII col 2 Lines 87,81) But in the end, from both texts what picture of humanity do we see? CONCLUSION Genesis 1-11 presents to us the close relationship that exists between God and man. It “declares that mankind is without hope if individuals are without God. Human society will disintegrate where divine law is not respected and divine mercy not employed. Yet Genesis so pessimistic about mankind without God is fundamentally optimistic because God created men and women in His own image and disclosed his ideal for humanity at the beginning of time. And through Noah’s obedience and sacrifice, humanity’s future is secured.”(Wenham liii) While, the Epic of Gilgamesh presents to us that although human life is tumultuous and that the gods cannot be trusted, still, the light of humanity shines in human beings themselves. The belief that though bounded by death and lack, humanity can be great by the actions they take, by becoming aware of themselves. In the end, the two great ancient texts provide us contemporary human beings with a paradigm with which we maybe able to understand and apprehend the present human condition. It may not provide us with the scientific clarity and precision of which our genre is afflicted with but it will definitely give us an alternative world view – a belief in humanity, a belief in humanity’s relation with a God and a “triumphant affirmation of God’s power and wisdom” (Wenham 40) . BIBLIOGRAPHY: Wenham, Gordon J. (1987) Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 1 Genesis 1 – 15. Thomas Nelson: Tennessee. “Epic of Gilgamesh.” 16 May 2008. http:// www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamia/gilgamesh. “Genesis”. Genesis Networks – The Holy Bible (KJV) – Genesis. 16 May 2008. http://www.genesis.net.au/̴ bible/kjv/genesis/. Read More