Is the Bible account of a global flood plagiarism? Does it matter that a flood story predates the Bible?

Question

The reason I ask is because I've just found out that in 1872 the British Museum examined fragments of Cuneiform writing which tell the story of a global flood - only the clay tablets pre-date the Genesis account. The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh epic is very similar to the flood narrative in Genesis 6 to 8.

Bible chronology places the Flood circa 2,500 BC. Moses is attributed with writing Genesis circa 1,400 BC. Does it matter that an account of a great flood existed before Moses got round to writing Genesis?

Can anyone can shed light on when the Gilgamesh epic was written?

Answer 1

The flood is not an earthly one but a spiritual one. Man is still confined in the ark, he has lost his natural connection with the outside world.

Answer 2

Yes, Gilgamesh predates Genesis with a flood story.  It's Sumerian lore.  There are also flood stories from most of the cultures in Asia, Africa, & the Middle East.

In other words, it adds weight to the idea that something happened involving a lot of water.  It adds credence to the Torah...well, if you read it Jewish style, which is to look for levels of meanings from each story to guide one's life...not to "believe" it as item to item literal fact and insist everyone else does too.  So apparently the Torah flood story has some basis in reality.

I'm Reform Judaism, & it's apparent to me that the writers were good at crafting a story & did a little dramatization from time to time, or compacting of a complicated happening.  However, even Orthodox Jews read it for meanings, & as history, but don't take it to neccessarily be a literal, literal account but more like a poetic attempt to describe the events.  Consider trying to describe the big bang theory or tusamis or global warming (possible source of water rising), to people in those days?

Since Abraham was Sumerian, naturally he would have been familar with the Gilgamesh tale.  Interestingly, while this is borrowed, the more mythological aspects of the Gilgamesh tale were not borrowed.  The tale very clearly implies some of it's stories (it's a very long tale) are "once upon a time myths" to explain life & not attempts at real life events.

The rest of Genesis then starts talking about Jewish people's history itself, starting with our patriarch Abraham & his journey.  (Side note: Abraham wasn't technically the first Jew, since that couldn't exist until we got Torah at Mt. Sinai.)  These stories too have an intriguing twist historically.  Up until that point, mere individual non-God Ruler people were considered too insignificant to write about.  The Torah is very unique for it's times in that way.  The Sumerian culture logged endless business exchanges, but not the lives of mere people.

=====

All of Torah as borrowed -

I find it frustrating when people insist the whole history of the Jewish people in Torah was borrowed by comparing to Eyptican book of dead & other works.  In fact, I looked at those & other than similar writing STYLE, the contents are very, very different.   The key elements of the Jewish stories, 1) to move forward & be life affirming religion, 2) for morality laws to apply to all equally 3) monotheism of a abstract non-human, non-ruler of country God...can not be found in other religions of the time.  

I looked at zoasterism & the ideas weren't borrowed into Judaism.  Those ideas such as h**l aren't a part of Judaism but rather made it into Christianity.  Considering the Jewish Talmud was written in Babolyon, one can not argue that we picked up ideas there, but excluded them in our big summary literature & never used them before or after.

People are so dogmatic, that they've turned their athiestism into a dogma of attacking, that spills over onto Judaism.  Even though, they don't understand how Jews read the Torah & that it's differently than many Christians, nor do they allow for ANY new thought to have come through in the Bible.  It's hard to read accurately when you're dogmatic.

Answer 3

It is a fact that the Gilgamesh account of a flood is far older than the Biblical one. Some Biblical scholars believe that this and many other flood stories refer to regional flooding rather than worldwide flooding, as these accounts are taken from cultures whose important centers of civilization were built next to rivers. If all the world that you knew was this valley where you lived and that set of hills over yonder, and if your region was flooded, it would seem like the "whole world" to you, wouldn't it?

Many cultures carry the myth of some worldwide flood. They have different details, but the general theme is the same, so some people believe the Biblical account was copied from other sources.  

Answer 4

No it does not matter.

Some read things and cannot go beyond the literal;  while others find hidden meanings for themselves.

I am not a scholar regarding spiritual matters as I believe that personal experience has been my main teacher.

I have been drawn to hindu culture and there are several stores and epics which seem to be the same as in the bible.

The Vedas seem to me to be the basis of all our so called religions. Also Hindu writings I believe predate most spiritual written experience.

Answer 5

No, it does not matter, I have read that there are stories of a world wide flood in most cultures and this only strengthens the possibility of the flood.

Answer 6

Because Noah's flood was global, there should be accounts of it other than just in the Bible, and there are other accounts of such a flood. One such account is the story of Gilgamesh. Such other stories of a global flood are evidence in support of the Biblical account. There is other physical evidence as well, and quite a bit of it, for such a flood but those who deny the flood are forced to postulate other explanations for the evidence instead of just accepting the facts. When it comes to Gilgamesh, the tactic of those who deny the flood is to caste doubt by claiming plagiarism. If it were plagiarized then there would be much more of the story of Gilgamesh in the Bible but there is nothing at all except the flood account, clearly saying that there was no plagiarism. They both talk about a global flood because there was a global flood.

Answer 7

Get Gilamesh on internet.

On tale of flood compare to Genesis and you notice a serious difference.  The Babylonian version has no mention of the scientifically accurate eruption of the ocean floors, where water shoots out of the ground undersea, as the Bible has.

Answer 8

Geologists who examined the sphinx state that the obvious water erosion on it could only have occurred about 10,500 years ago.The Sphinx then being aligned on LEO ,and originally carved with a lions head.It certainly predates the Egyptian period for monumental masonry and could explain their pre-occupation with monumental structures.As to legend and myth, thats just mans wish to remember, but embellish, stories from their past,every civilization did it and still does.

Answer 9

Just 2 view points of the same event. moses wasn't alive at the time of the flood, which means he couldn't have written about it until later.

Answer 10

no...that and many other stories saying there was a flood only makes the flood being more plausible...Moses was in charge of writing the origins of everything in writing Genesis and things that followed...you would have to prove that Moses did know of those other stories before He wrote Genesis in order for it to be called plagiarism...

Answer 11

No. I think it makes flood story more believable

Answer 12

Genesis is not a daily diary. It's a historical document. History is an interpretation of are events which happened in the past. No two histories are the same though they may record the same events. This is not plagiarism.

Answer 13

No Flood story predates Noah's Flood in 2348BC

The Gilgamesh Flood story wasn't written until 2000BC, that's 348 years after Noah's Flood.

Answer 14

If I am understanding your question correctly you are stating that the gilgamesh epic "predates" Moses' account, then you are asking for a "date" of the gilgamesh epic. May I ask you how you formed the opinion that it predates his account if you don't know the date of the epic?