The Epic of King Gilgamesh is a narrative composed of eleven clay tablets written by Shin-Leqi-Unninni. We find in it a division into what we can consider as two parts. The first focuses on the pursuit of glory by Gilgamesh and his friend Enkidu, while the second is about the pursuit of immortality by Gilgamesh after the death of Enkidu. Tablet VI serves as a bridge between both parts, giving a radical turn to the epic tone. As I mentioned earlier, the original epic consists of eleven tablets, but in the later Ninevite edition, tablet XII was added which deals with the infernal underworld.
Of the entire epic, we will focus on tablet XI, as it is here that the Mesopotamian universal flood is treated and where we will proceed to make a comparison with the universal flood narrated in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.
The similarities between both texts about the event known as the «Universal Flood» have since their inception sparked great controversy, as it was sought to determine which text depended on or drew from the other. Ultimately, it was concluded that the biblical text draws inspiration from its Mesopotamian counterpart. However, it is worth noting that both texts only coincide in certain aspects that we can consider the most basic elements of the narrative and which we will proceed to examine next (Sanmartín Ascaso, 2018, pp. 284-285).
It is worth noting that in the case of the Mesopotamian flood, we find different versions of it such as the Sumerian Flood (Lara Peinado, 2017, pp. 77-82), which differs from the one found in the Epic of Gilgamesh (of Akkadian origin) in small details like the name of the flood hero or the announcement of the flood to the protagonist (Lara Peinado, 2017, pp. 411-416). In the case of the biblical flood, we only find the version written in the Bible.
To begin with the comparison, we will see the causes that led to the flood and the responsible party for it in each of the two cases. In the case of the biblical flood, the sending of this disaster was carried out by a single god and was motivated by what he considered as «the moral depravity of humanity», as mentioned by Kattia Chinchilla (2000: 260). That is, the flood was a means of retribution to correct the sins committed by humanity. In the case of the Akkadian or Gilgamesh flood, we find several deities that took part in sending this event. In the epic itself, no reason is recorded for why the gods decided to send the flood. However, in the Sumerian version, it is stated that the main reason was that humans had multiplied excessively and made too much noise, which prevented the gods from having proper rest. Among all the gods, Enlil stands out as the principal author, with Ea (Enki) being his primary opposition (Chinchilla Sánchez, 2000, pp. 260-261).
As for the main characters, we find in the biblical narrative Noah and his family (consisting of his wife, his sons, and their wives); while in the Gilgamesh version the protagonist is Utnapishtim (Ziusudra in the Sumerian version) and his wife.
In the biblical narrative, the announcement to Noah was made by the same perpetrator of the flood, namely God, who also ordered him to build an ark with the aim of saving what he considered his most just servant. At the same time, He communicated the timeframe for carrying out this task. This period is known as the «grace period», which lasted 120 years. The goal was that humanity would mend its ways. In the case of the Gilgamesh flood narrative, Utnapishtim receives news of this event in a more indirect manner since the deity Ea told the plans of Enlil to a wall, knowing that the hero was listening on the other side. As for the grace period, it is non-existent in the Akkadian narrative. The flood aimed to wipe out humanity entirely, so waiting or warning anyone went against this goal.
The ark built by each hero presents substantial differences between them. While Noah's ark was made of wood from a type of resinous tree (likely pine or cypress), we do not know the type of wood used for Utnapishtim's ark. The dimensions are also different. For its part, the biblical ark consisted of three floors (we don't know how many compartments) and had a door on one side as an entrance and an opening in the roof to allow sunlight in. On the other hand, the Akkadian narrative's ark consisted of seven floors with nine sections (63 compartments divided vertically). Both vessels were coated with pitch or oil to waterproof their structure and make them navigable.
In relation to the above, we can observe another coincidence in the occupants who boarded. On one hand, Noah loaded eight passengers on his ark (his previously mentioned family) and two specimens of each animal, as ordered by God. On the other hand, Utnapishtim loaded different materials such as gold, silver, etc., also his family and friends, and according to Chinchilla Sánchez (2000: 266), a "seed of all living creatures," which can be translated as a pair of each existing animal species. We can observe how both heroes, one by divine mandate and the other on their own initiative, cared about boarding those they loved most and other living beings with the aim of repopulating the world after the flood.
When it came time to disembark, Noah waited for a direct order from God, while the Akkadian flood hero disembarked independently without receiving any orders. Once disembarking was complete, we can observe that there is a similarity in the actions of both men, as they both made sacrifices or libations to their respective deities, which resulted in divine gifts.
Among the gifts granted to Utnapishtim and his wife are immortality and reception by their gods. Also noteworthy is the territory they were given known as "Mouth of the Rivers," which has been theorized to refer to the area of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers when their channels were not separated. As for Noah, among the blessings that God granted him and his family, was the legalization of consuming meat from animal origin, with the aim of avoiding cannibalism and savagery in human society. Following this line of blessing, also noteworthy is the establishment of models of behavior to follow in social environments. In summary, we can affirm that the Akkadian hero received a complete renewal of his knowledge by his gods, while the biblical hero had to learn based on what a mortal life could offer. That is, both received blessings but of an entirely different nature (Chinchilla Sánchez, 2000, p. 272).
In conclusion, and to conclude, we have been able to observe how two texts widely separated in time are partially related by drawing from one another, in this case the Bible from the Mesopotamian narrative, so we should not overlook the fact that every text or narration can draw inspiration from another that preceded it in time and is not entirely unique.
Bibliography
Chinchilla Sánchez, K. (2000). The Flood Narrative: Parallelism between the Old Testament and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Philology and Linguistics. XXVI (2), 259-273.
Lara Peinado, F. (2017). The Sumerian Flood. In F. Lara Peinado (Ed.), Mesopotamian Myths: Heroes, Gods and Fantastic Beings (pp. 77-82). Dilema.
Lara Peinado, F. (2017). The Universal Flood. In F. Lara Peinado (Ed.), Mesopotamian Myths: Heroes, Gods and Fantastic Beings (pp. 411-416). Dilema.
Sanmartín Ascaso, J. (2018). The Universal Flood and the Recipes of the Supersage. Tablet XI. In J. Sanmartín Ascaso (Ed.), Gilgameš, King of Uruk (pp. 283-310). Trotta.
Sen Montero, F. (2004). The Bible and the East. Bulletin of the Spanish Association of Orientalists. XL (40), 173-185.
Comments