The Gilgamesh Epic is
considered to be one of the first hero stories of antiquity. Any studious
reader will find the story connected to one of the earliest documented world
civilizations in early Mesopotamia, the kingdom of Sumer namely. Copies of the
story have been found all over the Middle East written on clay tablets, which
may indicate the story has a longer oral tradition. The epic as we have it
today is the result of translation work from various pieces, some of which are
still missing. Scholars admit the story’s development is traceable, so the form
in which we have today represents the work of collected fragments. One curious
note is that some ancient recorders seem to favor some stories over others,
giving greater attention to details others completely ignore. Perhaps the
greatest “claim to fame” of the Gilgamesh epic is the story of a great flood
that seems to parallel that of the great flood recorded in the Bible. Some
suggest in an attempt to discredit the Bible that the Gilgamesh Epic existed long
before Moses was inspired to record the event. We should comment on this in
another entry.
The epic recounts the
exploits of a Sumerian King with a bad reputation. The Sumerian gods respond to
complaining people by creating from clay Enkidu, who matches Gilgamesh in every
way with the purpose of punishing or perhaps replacing Gilgamesh. The difficulty
is that Enkidu is more animal than man. Truly the wild, he is found with the
beasts of the field and one shepherd notices this magnificent person is out of
place so he searches out a way to make a man out of Enkidu. The solution: enter
“harlot,” stage left. In short, she bares herself to Enkidu and after
significant time together, the animals want nothing to do with Enkidu, who
finds himself to be a man.
I want to stop right here
and reflect on a few things that stand out to me. First, the Gilgamesh Epic is
often touted a the source of the Bible; that is, the Bible borrows material.
This means that the epic should be known for more than the Flood narrative. For
example: Adam was made from clay, as was Enkidu. Adam found himself among the
animals as did Enkidu. One may may the argument of borrowing here. One problem
is that other people were in existence before Enkidu, enough for their to be
kingdoms and kings. No person preexisted Adam.
Second, the Bible is often
accused of being against women. The Gilgamesh epic presents women in a
particular way that will receive comment later, but suffice this comparison and
contrast: Adam found himself among animals only to discover there was no mate
for him and one was provided. Don’t read that too fast: Adam is man, not
animal, so he does not need to be transformed into man from an animal. He finds
no companion for himself with animals.
Also, consider the
treatment of the woman so far: a woman of ill-repute is brought to the animal
in order to make him a man. What does the Epic say of women so far? They are
disgusting and can be used, without dignity. Furthermore, she is expected to
have sex with an animal, which is deeper degradation of the woman. The Bible
give a higher place to the woman, speaking of her creation after man (not an
animal) and from the man. She is presented to her husband by her Creator, not a
shepherd.
So far, Gilgamesh is more
of a piece of ancient literature, but a commentary of society. It can also be a
benchmark to see which direction is favored when one attempts to discredit
scripture.
