German archaeologist believe they have found the tomb of King Gilgamesh

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
So how would this contradict the flood story in the bible? Maybe Gilagamesh is Noah or something. I think it would validate the flood story if anything.

Who said anything about contradicting the flood story of the bible? He's saying that the story found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as the one found in Genesis could be describing the same natural event.
Surely you didn't think that the Great Flood that owned the entire earth, only had an effect on Noah and his family? Don't you think that an event that large would be recorded by more than one person, in more than one location in the world?

Originally posted by nomp3s
Umm...ever hear of the city of Troy? How about King Arthur? Both myths which were eventually proven history.

Neither have been proven to be history. Schliemann discovered a city that in some ways conformed to what one would expect the legendary city of Troy to be. It might very well be the city that provided some sort of real world basis for the legend of troy, however the troy schliemann discovered is vastly different from the palace laden rich, powerful city of Homer. Not to mention that the 'greek society' in homer never really existed, but was instead an amalgamation of what might've been 'homers' time and some weird holdovers from a distant and dimly rembered past for them.

"King Arthur" has absolutely no physical basis in reality. Supposedly there was some old round fort discovered a while ago, but thats not exactly surprising.

I believe that the fear that some have here would be that if the Tomb of Gilgamesh was found then the story of Noah in the bible will be said to be a copy of the Gilgamesh flood story. Thus Noah and his sons and daughters could not be the only survivors of the flood, if the story was not real, but a copy of a Sumerian story. That will then put speculation into alot more of the later stories in the Bible that use the story of Noah.

Phae

There are more striking similarities between the Summerians and Hebrews than the flood myth.

Both shared the traditions of a form of giant race from the heavens. For the Summerians it was the Annuaki they originally worshipped as Gods. They brought strange technologies that allowed them to work in the dark (etc.) and eventually enslaved the Summerians which fled. (Sounds like the beginnings of the nomadic hebrew people actually).

For the Hebrews these giants were the Nephalim and (as far as hebrew history goes) were always corrupted beings cast down by God.

Jeremiah 10:11, "These gods, who did not make the heavens and the earth, will perish from the earth and from under the heavens."

Finding the actual tomb of Gilgamesh or any Sumer sites of ancient civilization will add fuel to the Alien origin buffs that call these Sky Gods of lore our Alien forefathers.

Regardless, neither version of the story chimes well with creationists.

Originally posted by Phaethor
if the Tomb of Gilgamesh was found then the story of Noah in the bible will be said to be a copy of the Gilgamesh flood story. Thus Noah and his sons and daughters could not be the only survivors of the flood,

Gilgamesh himself has nothign to do with the Flood. The Epic of Gilgamesh, or at least some versions of it, has a partial record of a story told to gilgamesh by a man on a mountain named c.f Utnapishtim. This man was exceedingly old. Gilgamesh sought him out because he was wise and supposedly knew the secret to eternal life or somesuch. Utnapishtim recounted how the Sumerian gods, tired of the noise man was making, decided to wipe them out by flooding the world. The gods were not allowed to warn anyone about this. One god, in order to get around this, went to a wall one day when utnapishtim was on the other side, and told the wall the story. Utnapishtim figured out what was going on, and the rest is similar to the biblical account. Finding a tomb of Gilgamesh has nothing, technically, to do with the flood itself. Gilgamesh is of a much later post flood generation.

The only thing one needs to say that the biblical account is a variant of the Sumerian account is to establish that the two peoples shared a similar culture, (check) and that the sumerian account is recorded first (check). Short of finding an older hebrew account, one can safely say that the biblical account is at most a copy of the sumerian account, and at least (and more reasonably) that the two written accounts are based on a generalized hebrew-sumerian cultural myth.

Originally posted by Nygdan

.......Utnapishtim recounted how the Sumerian gods, tired of the noise man was making, decided to wipe them out by flooding the world. ...

I like that phrase/idea...that man was too noisy...& swoosh!
[[few people are not noisy today- -fewer people are not unpleasant]]
~~~~~~~~~~~

home.comcast.net...

VI. I've heard that there are a lot of Biblical parallels in Sumerian literature. What are they?

also
home.comcast.net...

...Gilgamesh, may have been a historical King of Erech,
during the time of the first Ur dynasty. His Kingship is mentioned
in various places, including the Sumerian King list and he was also...

in citing these documents, FYI, no one is making claims of Noah or
Moses or Hebrews copying from Sumerian stories or myths...
some astute poster already suggested the ideas/storys are universal archtypes,
and i agree.


[edit on 31-1-2005 by St Udio]

Originally posted by Nygdan
=Utnapishtim recounted how the Sumerian gods, tired of the noise man was making, decided to wipe them out by flooding the world.

The only thing one needs to say that the biblical account is a variant of the Sumerian account is to establish that the two peoples shared a similar culture, (check) and that the sumerian account is recorded first (check). Short of finding an older hebrew account, one can safely say that the biblical account is at most a copy of the sumerian account, and at least (and more reasonably) that the two written accounts are based on a generalized hebrew-sumerian cultural myth.

Actually I believe it was just one God, Ea, I think was his name, the guy who got mad at the people for all their noise.

As far as I know Sumerians were the first to record the flood, at least theirs is the oldest copy we possese right now, but I am thinking there are various flood stories in different cultures, we just haven't found them yet.

I don't think that they are myths, but legends based on a single big flood.

Surf

I believe that the similarities in stories is interesting considering the general area that they came from. I BELIEVE that the bible and Talmud are compilations of myths and stories of that regions, specifically Sumerians and Egyptian culture. The names were changed to accomodate the audience that the religious scriptures were sold to. Or for a lack of a better description, they were basically "westernized" for local consumption.

Originally posted by St Udio
I like that phrase/idea...that man was too noisy...& swoosh!
[[few people are not noisy today- -fewer people are not unpleasant]]

It is a rather odd complaint for gods to make right? Not 'bah, these people have lost respect for us, lets smash them' or 'mankind is just downright evil, lets smoosh it and start over' but 'someone tell them to shut the heck up!'

some astute poster already suggested the ideas/storys are universal archtypes, and i agree.

I normally tend to lean in that direction also, however, the hebrews and sumerians, they seemde to share a bit else in their cultures, and, if anything is to be beleived in the hebrew bible, then its got to be that abram is from Ur, a sumerian city, meaning that the hebrews have strong cultural connections with them. I'm not so sure that the archetype needs to be appealed to hear. If Uruk had one version of the story and babylon had a slightly different one, I wouldn't think it necessary to reject that their stories are from the same source. I can similiarly see there being a connection between the hebrews and sumerians.

Of course, I don't think that that can be pushed too far, the Sumerians were not, so far as I understand, a semitic people, or at least didn't speak a semitic language.

Actually I believe it was just one God, Ea, I think was his name, the guy who got mad at the people for all their noise.

Lemme whip it out

Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI Column i John Gardner and John Maier translation from the Sin-leqi-unninni version:
Utnapishtim says to him, to Gligamesh, " I will uncover for you, Gilgamesh, a hidden thing, tell you a secret of the gods. In Shurippak-you know the city, I think- set on the bank of the Euphrates- the city was old and closeto the gods. THe great gods stirred their hearts to make the Flood. Mama was there, and the father, Anu, and their counsellor, the warrior Enlil; their throne-bearer Nunurta; their inspector of cannals Ennugi; [and] Ea, lord of the clear eye was present with them.

Their words he, [Ea,]repeats to the wall of reeds: 'Reed-wall, reed-wall! Wall, wall! Reed-wall listen! Wall, pay attention! Man of Shuruppak, son of Ubaratutu, tear down the house. Build an ark. Abandon riches. Seek life. Scorn possessions, hold onto life. Load the seed of every living thing into your ark, the boat that you will build. Let her measure be measured; let her breadth and length be equal. Cover it with a roof as the abyss is covered.'

I understood. I said to my lord, Ea, 'My lord, what you have thus spoken I will do in praise of you. As for me, I will need to answer the city, the people, and the elders.'

Ea shaped his mouth, saying, saying to me, his servant, 'You, you may say this to them: Enlil hates me - me! I cannot live in your city or turm my face toward that land which is Enlil's. I will go into the Abyss, to live with Ea, my lord. He will make richness rain down on you - the choicest of brids, the rarest fish. The land will have its fill of harvest riches. At dawn bread he will pour down on you - showers of wheat' "

An accompanying note states

...while the Old Babylonian version contained Gilgamesh's journey to Utnapishtim, there is no evidence that it included a retelling of the Flood. The Flood narrative is one of the major additions of the large version to the Gilgamesh.

The Flood itself has a complex history in mesopotamian literature, for which see [The Atra-hasis]

It continues further on as to the rationale the different versions give for the flood

...the late version gives no reason for the Flood. [...]Enlil will be blamed for it by Ishtar and by Ea as an irrational act. Tigay [an author and scholar in more modern times] notes that Anu is exempted from complicity in the Flood. [Norman Habel] distinguishes two accounts in the biblical Flood story, the Yahwist version an the Presitly Writer's version, both of which provide statements about the reason for the Flood, the "wickedness of man" and the corrupt and violent earth. Of course, the monotheistic biblical account makes Yahweh/Elohim the only divine character in the narrative. Of the great gods who decide on the Flood, sic are mentioned, but their degree of complicity is not indicated. Mama is mentioned with Anu, and she may be identified with Ishtar in the late version. Enlil is called both "counsellor" and "warrior," a combination used ironically by Ea later. Ninurta and Ennugi are identified in their tradtional roles as thorne-bearer and inspector of canals. The list ends with Ea....

Ea apparently also known as Enki, an adversary of Enlil, whom the god has utnapishtim use as the one who will 'rain' wheat on the city people.

Conflict between Enki and Enlil is a pattern found in Sumerian myths. In the biblical versions, the conflict is resolved within Yahweh/Elohim, who "remembers" Noah and has a change of heart at the destruction he has caused.

IOW they are positing that the older babylonian tradition depicts it as a struggle between two gods, whereas the biblical version has to conform the myth to fit its theology.

Just one last bit thats intersting. THe italics words are sumerian/babylonian whatever words

The last two lines especially are metaphoric. Line 46 contains a pun on kukku, "bread", and kukku , darkness[with an accent on the last portion of the word]. Similarly kibtu in the last line can be "wheat" but also "misfortune".

I just think that that was interesting because it shows that these tablets and writting can be rather more sophisticated than the somewhat stilted language might appear to modern man.


Well, I think that was a lot, but certainly justifiable, since this is a thread about gilgamesh, to include a bit of his Epic in it.