The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[65][66]In both, a human is created from the soil by a god and lives in nature. He is introduced to a female congener who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former home, unable to return. The presence of a snake who steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity.
I’m not sure what you mean. What don’t you believe about it? Given that it’s Wikipedia, they generally aim to have sources to support their claims. In context, there are two sources listed before your section in italics, so you ought to perhaps consider looking up those sources.
They are:
65. Gmirkin, Russell (2006). Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus. Continuum. p. 103.
66. Blenkinsopp, Joseph (2004). Treasures old and new. Eerdmans. pp. 93–95.
This is going to probably take a while, but I happen to have a PDF scan available through our library of source 65:
Now, there do seem to be several details that are parallels, but if you want to go even further, you’d have to pick one of the sources that Gmirkin references.
Here are his sources for that section:
To be honest, I don’t have a lot of time to walk through the text of the epic of Gilgamesh, but you can read through Tablet 1 if you like and see the story of how the “Eve” figure of the Epic of Gilgamesh does aim to tempt Enkidu and take him away from his original life among the animals.
Our library has a print copy of the second source from the Wikipedia article, but I don’t have time to go there physically today. If you are curious, I can probably find time this week to go and take a picture of that reference.
I went through the tablets and the words Adam, Eve and Eden are not there.
So I assume following the story, the author must mean that Adam=Enkidu and Eve=Shamhat, a harlot who seduces Adam.
What a load of wishful thinking with the intend to discredit the Bible.
Regarding the Flood there are indeed similarities to Gen 6-7 but keep in mind there are flood stories around the whole world each in their own culture.
From what I have read here, if Genesis is a myth it doesn’t discredit the Bible anymore than Jesus telling parables. It would make sense for the Biblical authors to use themes from other known local myths to help make their scriptures more approachable.
Or it seems it predates the Bible, so early Genesis is actually written to discredit the pagan creation stories, that is, as a polemic. It was written to reveal the true nature of God and his relationship with creation, and with us.
There is a really good podcast series by Doug Metzger who got his doctorates in literature called “Literature and History” and he actually touches up on this. I went through several episodes and started over because it was a lot to learn. I also did a post at some point in this I believe. Don’t think it went anywhere but I’ll check anyways .
Looks like the post I did was on another forum or maybe a Facebook group. If you are in America you can probably find several versions of “ The Epic of Gilgamesh” as an audiobook or ebook on hoopla digital. It’s an app generally free to us through the public library. Well worth. I saved close to $3700 last year alone by borrowing their audiobooks and ebooks instead of buying them myself.
From the Wikipedia - The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars. In both, a human is created from the soil by a god and lives in nature. He is introduced to a female congener who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former home, unable to return. The presence of a snake who steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity.
I don’t see any evidence in the Epic of Gilgamesh what is written on the Wikipedia which was my only point.
On a side note, it could be very well true Gen 1-3 (by the lack of writing) was preserved by oral tradition and that the story contaminated and contaminated by different cultures. The estimated date of the epic is closely related to the estimated date of the Flood.
That the Genesis story predates EG is certainly the traditional line of thought by church scholars, but has little to support it in its current written form. It appears to have been written as a response to pagan beliefs, from what I have read. I sort of wonder, especially as the stories of early Genesis seem not to be referenced until later written books. But, that is pretty thin.
this i agree wholeheartedly with…there is great danger in Christians attempting to explain away the Genesis Creation account using a hethen story. I have seen plenty of these kinds of claims being used in this way, the really big problem with any such notion is the internal consistency in the biblical narrative. If it were simply a rehash of hethen cultures myths about their gods, then we would not find such consistency.
Things to keep in mind about the biblical consistency:
the letters that form the bible are written across hundreds of miles
the letters that form the bible are written across hundreds/thousands of years
google did not exist in those days, there were no libraries in the earliest times,
most of the bible narrative was passed on very carefully and strictly through family tradition and education…ie reciting the Torah word for word among hebrews (this part is really significant)
we have sooo many bible translations, and they are all very harmonious. That tells us that any chance of corruption via Chinese whispers is impossible with the biblical narrative
a very large portion of the bible history has been proven through archeological research and discovery. If most of it has been proven literally, then it strongly supports the claim the rest is also literally true exactly as written! That is consistent with current criminal investigative techniques and assumption/conclusion btw.
People these days are so used to having immediate access to information, they forget how impossibly difficult it was 2-3,000 years ago to spin fables and those corruptions not be obvious to us today. The fact they arent there highlights the point that the copying of the bible from things like Summerian mythology stories are false!
Lets also remember, if Christians believe Christ is God, then one has a hard time pretending Matthew 24 is a metaphor:
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Christ is very clearly using an historical narrative of Noahs Flood, because everyone in his day knew of the flood, to explain future world events…in this case the second coming.
jpm, i will challenge the notion it was a response to pagan beliefs…that is highly misleading. Of course the Israelites history shows that they were taken out into the wilderness to be re-educated if you like in the ways of Gods people…400 years of captivity had corrupted them into pagan Egyptians largely. However:
I would ask you to illustrate for us the Old Testament Sanctuary Service model alongside Christ’s ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension.
When you do the above side by side in an illustration, then come back here and tell us that you genuinely believe Moses writings are simply a response to pagan beliefs!
If what he wrote was simply a “made up moral story”, please explain how it is that the Old testament Sanctuary Service model, which is universally agreed to have been written hundreds of years before Christs life and death on earth, lines up so accurately with Christ’s atonement for the wages of sin?
Im sorry, but the Old Testament Sanctuary Service proves that Moses did not simply make up a fairytale in response to pagan beliefs. He was given direct revelation by God “face to face as a man speaks to a friend” Exodus 33:!1 (or do you not believe Exodus 33:11 is real either?)
The point is, Christs own ministry proves you wrong and that is quite simply because Christs ministry accurety fulfills the Old Testament Sanctuary Service model (it does this exactly).
If Moses did not receive this revelation to such accuracy directly from God, how could he have possibly written the OT Sanctuary service model with such perfect accuracy hundreds of years before Christ died on the cross?
If Moses got Christs ministry so perfect, then he cant possibly be wrong about anything in his other books…because God revealed all those things to him directly. The fact Moses was historically accurate when predicting the future ministry and death of Christ means the rest is also historically accurate in the past.
Oh and before performing the illustration above…read Matthew 24:37-39 (Christ/God describing Noahs flood wiping out all life on earth)
Contrary to your claim, i doubt “most scholars” is true and that’s because most “Christian” scholars do not deny Gods statement in Matthew 24!
It is only by straw plucking and leaving out the cross referenced links to bible theology that claims such as yours above can be made. I find it interesting that never are such claims supported by consistent bible references. They almost always have external sources or none at all.
Finally, any atheist will tell you, we don’t need the bible for moral principals. Society evolved those things without God through trial and error. So the idea that the bible is simply a book of moral principals is absurd…it isn’t needed for any such thing, especially given the barbarism in the Old Testament. Clearly the bible exists for a different reason…obviously it outlines something far more complex, and that would be creation, the fall, corruption of sin, Gods plan for redemption, and then the restoration of all creation back to its former glory as it was when first created (that’s the bible story)
You are right, what’s on the Wikipedia is a lie and I have seen that lie repeated multiple times in forum discussions.
Regarding the Biblical flood, there is enough evidence from other ancient writings there was a flood in early civilizations. That Jesus refers to the Biblical Flood as a warning what is upcoming 40 years later, the total destruction of the theocracy Israel ripping out the heart (the Temple) has indeed several similarities -
People did not see it coming, only those who believed Jesus words and were ready like Noah.
And those who were ready (like Noah) were saved from the great tribulation as we notice from the next 2 verses.
Matt 24:40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.
Matt 24:41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left.
Matt 24:42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.
However to say that Jesus believed in a global flood is a bridge too far for me.
Crossing theological bridges can be difficult. Personally, i habe the same problem from the opposite side of the equation. I have a very deep theological knowledge and its extensively intertwined in bible writings. For me that is as difficult to ignore as naturalisms conclusions are scientifically.
At the end of the day, im quite sure that whats important is that we as individuals at least remain receptive to “that still small voice” the very same one who whispered the words “why are you here Elijah” after the prophet ran from Jezebel.
The new covenant promised that instead of being on tablets of stone, he would write his laws on our hearts and in our minds…it is our openness to listening to our conscience that makes the difference no matter whether we are YEC, TE or atheist and Christ said…
“In as much as you do it to the least of these my bretheren, you do it to me.”
I guess I do not see what a lie is about the Wikipedia page. I went to the sources listed on Wikipedia and the first one I copied in the text above highlighted many parallels between the two stories.
I am raised in YEC and had a long struggle with ET whether its worldview or the Christian versions. I rejected ET out of first hand as a lie from hell because millions lost their faith because of it.
And yet, during time, reading others, following the heated debates I got confused, only one side could be right.
On a good day (not so long ago) I was reading Gen 3 for the umpteenth time and (finally) saw it in another light. A&E were living in the presence of God in Paradise, direct communication, no death, a supernatural place without the laws of physics as we know it. A&E lived as it was meant to be, the human race living in the presence of God, as it will be when we die.
But A&E became disobedient, they insisted to know the difference between good and evil. And ironically God gave them what they wanted, He removed them from Paradise, away from His presence and they landed on the evolved earth, a place with a different ruler, but fortunately on a leash from God. And so we learn, both good and evil and everyone will receive its portion, for a short meaningless time in eternity, trillions x trillions x trillions of years. As such I am finally at peace with the issue.
I respect YEC believers, they are faithful and I don’t chase them. Other than that I don’t believe it is a salvation issue, the belief in Christ as savior of the world is, ensuring a return to Paradise for those who believe.
Other than that [2], Genesis 1 is interesting also. First, it’s written in a Jewish framework (work 6 days, rest on the 7th), secondly if you focus on the order of Creation it’s compatible to a great extend with science. Well done science. They confirmed what was written (and thus already known) at least 2500 years ago.
The names Adam and Eve are not in the Gilgamesh. Epic and neither is Noah. They have different names in the Gilgamesh epic. Same for the Atrahasis account.
Scroll down for the garden story and a table from John Walton and one from Pete Enns (modified from Frank Batto). I did my best to list as many as I could find in my readings.
Genesis 1-11 has a lot do the same furniture as other older ANE creation myths. Too much to be coincidence. It just renames and rearranges that furniture. I’d say any theological truth in the details of Genesis 1-11 comes through its polemic aimed at countering or turning co pelting religious views on their head. It’s no more historical than any of the other creation myths that we all readily reject the details of.
This chart form there is by John Walton. He is not trying to destroy or discredit the Bible. He is an evangelical Christian as best as I can tell:
I don’t know you @ProDeo , but I’m going to do something now that might be a waste of my time. For example, I bothered looking up the sources on the Wikipedia page to see if they line up with the claims and gave you several possible avenues to research and explore. You just said:
Now,
The Wikipedia article mentions…
A human is created from the soil by a god
This human lives in nature
The human is introduced to a female congener who tempts him
The man accepts food from the woman
Covers his nakedness
Must leave his former home, unable to return
A snake steals the plant of immortality from the hero
And your analysis is that:
So let’s go through each of the claims one by one and see if “nothing of that” is in the epic.
Now, the Bible is simple enough to identify where each of those comes from, but we are going to take our time with all of these. The only slightly annoying thing is I can’t find a version of the Epic of Gilgamesh with lines labeled but here is the Tablet 1 I am looking at, Tablet 2, and Tablet 11.
A human is created from the soil by a god
Genesis 2:7- then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being
Tablet 1- Aruru washed her hands, she pinched off some clay, and threw it into the wilderness.
In the wildness(?) she created valiant Enkidu
So far 1 for 1.
This human lives in nature
Genesis 2:8- And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Table 1-He knew neither people nor settled living, but wore a garment like Sumukan." He ate grasses with the gazelles, and jostled at the watering hole with the animals
Two for two.
The human is introduced to a female congener who tempts him
Genesis 3:6- So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.
Tablet 1- Gilgamesh said to the trapper: “Go, trapper, bring the harlot, Shamhat, with you.
When the animals are drinking at the watering place have her take off her robe and expose her sex. When he [Enkidu] sees her he will draw near to her, and his animals, who grew up in his wilderness, will be alien to him.”
Three for three.
The man accepts food from the woman
Genesis 3:6 (see above)
Tablet 2- Enkidu knew nothing about eating bread for food, and of drinking beer he had not been taught. The harlot spoke to Enkidu, saying: “Eat the food, Enkidu, it is the way one lives. Drink the beer, as is the custom of the land.” Enkidu ate the food until he was sated, he drank the beer-seven jugs!-- and became expansive and sang with joy! He was elated and his face glowed. He splashed his shaggy body with water, and rubbed himself with oil, and turned into a human.
Four for four.
Covers his nakedness
Genesis 3:7- Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.
Tablet 2- Shamhat pulled off her clothing, and clothed him with one piece while she clothed herself with a second.
Five for five.
Must leave his former home, unable to return
Genesis 3:24- He drove out the humans, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.
Tablet 1- But when he turned his attention to his animals, the gazelles saw Enkidu and darted off, the wild animals distanced themselves from his body. Enkidu … his utterly depleted(?) body, his knees that wanted to go off with his animals went rigid; Enkidu was diminished, his running was not as before. But then he drew himself up, for his understanding had broadened.
Six for six.
A snake steals the plant of immortality from the hero
Genesis 3:1-6
This one is more complicated as everything else prior refers to Enkidu and his journey’s, but this story comes from Tablet XI (the flood tablet) and concerns Gilgamesh- “Gilgamesh, you came here exhausted and worn out. What can I give you so you can return to your land? I will disclose to you a thing that is hidden, Gilgamesh, a… I will tell you. There is a plant… like a boxthorn, whose thorns will prick your hand like a rose. If your hands reach that plant you will become a young man again.” BUT poor Gilgamesh- A snake smelled the fragrance of the plant, silently came up and carried off the plant. While going back it sloughed off its casing.’
Considering the phrasing in Wikipedia that this occurs ‘later in the epic’ I will chalk this up as another correct parallel. Seven for seven.
That took me about an hour to write, but hopefully you or others have found this somewhat illuminating or helpful.
Matthew, thank you for the time and trouble for your detailed review introducing me to what I assume is called ANE here. I put your post into my favorites for investigating the points you made which will take some time to digest.
First comment, read tablet one about the creation of mankind.
Aruru washed her hands, she pinched off some clay, and threw it into the wilderness. In the wildness(?) she created valiant Enkidu,
So in the story Enkidu is supposed to be Adam, a wild man, rigid with fear and miserable to the core. Then we get the harlot Shamhat supposed to be Eve. Who is Shamhat? Did she exist before Enkidu? That’s a contraction in the story.
And so (as I see it) the only connection is the word clay.
But then there are dozens and dozens of creation stories around the world and the creation of mankind.
All in all it’s not very convincing, nevertheless the first point goes to you.
