The Gilgamesh Epic and the Old Testament, Research Paper Example

Abstract

The article dwells on resemblances and differences of the Gilgamesh Epic and the Old Testament. The books belong to the world’s most valuable ancient literary heritage. The Old Testament possesses peculiar meaning of religious doctrine base. Since that, it cannot be classified as an ordinary story or narrative. The Epic of Gilgamesh meets the characteristics declared by the title; it tells about unusual adventures of an extraordinary hero. The Epic was not connected with any religious rituals of the Sumerian people.

The most obvious parallels are pointed out by means of character analysis, plot lines, motives interpretation, and genre characteristics of both works. Restricted limits of the work do not allow providing the most complete study of the Flood narratives. The latter reveal strong similarities plots, which initiated pursuits of actual base for the events.

The Old Testament, as well as the Epic, reveals the global concepts of mankind creation (making a man of clay or dust), gender attitudes (in the Epic woman is not subjected to man in comparison with Genesis), and other ethical issues.

The Gilgamesh Epic and the Old Testament

Similarity of plot lines, motives, humanity depictions, and narrator’s objective and all-knowing character in the Gilgamesh Epic and the Old Testament provide the justification for comparison. The crucial distinction is in the genre of works named.

The Old Testament, as part of the Scripture, can not be classified as epic under “technical” requirements of the genre; since it is endowed with sacred value and is the symbol of Christianity.

At the same time, the Epic of Gilgamesh complies with requirements of the epic genre. It is a story about remarkable adventures and voyages of an extraordinary character. Gilgamesh is a classical epic hero; he is the king in the first dynasty of Uruk reigning for 126 years. He is a human for one third and god for two-thirds. We do not learn about his past deeds and how he survived hardships. The first tablet represents the King of Uruk “experienced all things”, wise, handsome, but also a cruel ruler oppressing his people leaving “no girl to her [mother]” (Foster 5).

Though gods play a significant role in the Epic, the narrative has particularly secular character. It tells the story of a hero through a number of connected episodes. No evidence of the Epic’s belonging to any religious or ritual exists though it dwells on some believes of Sumerian people, like existence of Heaven and Netherworld.

The Genesis begins with narration about the world created by God. The Epic of Gilgamesh does not convey the myths of origin as most ancient epics.

Both narratives tell about the process of man- formation of a substance relevant to the earth. According to Genesis, “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (New King James Bible, Genesis 2:7). In the Gilgamesh Epic, to comply with requests of the women of Uruk Creator goddess Aruru “gives birth” to Enkidu by pinching off some clay (Foster 6).

One of the most obvious parallels is the narratives of the Flood; their points of the agreement were surveyed in numerous researches. Frank Lorey in the article “The flood of Noah and the flood of Gilgamesh” provides detailed analysis of aspects of parallel and contrast flood characteristics, namely scale, period, reason, sender, the saved, description of the ark etc. He underlines that obvious relationships provide an “excellent evidence for the existence of a great flood from a legal/historical point of view” (Lorey).

The next points to touch on are gender issues regarded from different facets. The Old Testament regards woman as be man’s property. Abram’s wife Sarai could not bear a child. Therefore, she decided to obtain children by her maidservant (Gn 61:1-4). In the Epic we perceive more respectful attitude to woman in comparison with Genesis. Gilgamesh tells his mother Ninsun about his anxiety to fight Enkidu and wants to hear her advice.   In The Old Testament as well as in the Epic woman provokes the fall of man. Being deceived by the serpent, Eve saw “a tree…desirable to make one wise” and she “took…fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” (Gn 3: 6) We should point out the image of cunning serpent symbolizing evil in both narratives. In the Gilgamesh Epic, the snake took the plant called “The Old Man Becomes a Young Man” obtained by Gilgamesh in his pursuit of immortality.

The motive of the fall in the Epic is connected with Enkidu and harlot Shamhat. A savage fellow Enkidu was living in harmony with nature, but he became alien to it after he knew Shamhat (Foster 8-9).  He leaves wild places and leaves for Uruk to challenge Gilgamesh. In the article “The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Old Testament: Parallels beyond the Deluge” Gerda de Villiers interprets the role of woman as initiative:

“to introduce a man to something he was previously unaware of, something that helps him cope with reality beyond naivety. Soon after this introduction the motifs of loss and gain, and of death become evident. Adam and Eve lose the privilege of living in the Garden of Eden in the company of God. (DeVilliers 28)

From the point of literary language, the Old Testament is similar to official style documents enlisting issues claiming to nonfiction character of the text. The Epic uses language full of different poetic devices (hyperbola: Enkidu is the mightiest in the land; Gilgamesh is ideally handsome).

Due to the above-named facts The Old Testament and The Epic of Gilgamesh proves that the texts render both obvious similarities of motives, narrative lines, as well as differences.

Works Cited

Foster, Benjamin R. ed. and trans. The Epic of Gilgamesh. 1^st ed. W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.

Lorey, Frank. “The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh”. 20 June.2010. < http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/>

New King James Bible. Nelson Publishers, 3^rd ed. 1982.

Villiers de, Gerda. “The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Old Testament: Parallels beyond the Deluge”. OTE 19.1 (2006): 26-34.