Well the answer, surprisingly, is both the "fall of Adam" and the Flood story. The story of Shamhat's seduction of Enkidu has multiple points of contact with the story of the garden of Eden. The main difference is that the "civilization" of Enkidu is presented in a very positive way, whereas the "fall" of Adam and Eve is described in terms of loss and punishment. This may reflect different attitudes to sexuality and to the attractions of a very powerful and sophisticated mesopotamian culture on the part of the biblical writer.As for suggestions that the biblical flood story must have come first or that it is "purer", virtually all scholars of ancient near eastern literature agree to the priority of Gilgamesh. And no, the "standard" version of the epic was not being modified in 500BCE. The so called "standard" version took its final form around 1300 to 1000BCE and scholars believe that this is when the long version of the flood story was incorporated into the epic. However, the flood story in Gilgamesh is based almost word for word on the still older flood story found in the epic of Atrahasis. This earliest copy of Atrahasis dates to 1700-1800BCE. So the Mesopotamian story is definitely older than even the most conservative dating of the book of Genesis (though most suggest that Genesis in its current form was written around 600-500BCE - the time of the Babylonian captivity). Furthermore, any suggestions about oral prehistories of either story must remain completely in the realm of conjecture: in literary terms the biblical story was not the first.There are also several good indications that it was the mesopotamian flood story that influenced Genesis and not the other way around. Firstly, greater societies generally influence lesser societies. For example, I suspect that people in many countries around the world would be at least partly familiar with north american history (the pilgrim fathers, the civil war, the battle for the plains, etc) due to the enormous influence of American popular culture. On the other hand I wonder how many US citizens are aware of the history and mythology of Scotland, or the Congo, Australia, Thailand or Spain. Secondly, Mesopotamia (literally the "land between two rivers") was prone to constant flooding whereas Canaan was not. Thirdly, the only geographical landmark mentioned in Genesis is the Ararat mountains in norther mesopotamia. Finally, the epic of Gilgamesh was a widespread "classic" in the ancient world due to the fact that it was used as a standard text for students of cuneiform. Fragments have even been found in northern Israel. There is no such evidence for the influence of the book of Genesis from this period.Additionally, it is not enough to say that many cultures have flood stories so that any similarities between Gilgamesh and Genesis are inconsequential. It is well documented that no other flood story has such close parallels to Genesis as that recorded in the epic of Gilgamesh. They use exactly the same basic framework of events, with some very minor differences in detail, in exactly the same order. The main difference between the two is theological. One is monotheistic, the other polytheistic. Genesis introduces the idea of a covenant or contract between God and humankind that is absent in Gilgamesh. Christians like to think that the biblical version is more moral since God sends the flood due to human wickedness and violence. Personally I rather like the Babylonian version where the flood is seen for what it really is - mass murder. In this version the gods lament the overwhelming loss of life and the god who is the main instigator of the flood is condemned for his actions. On the other hand Utnapishtim is given immortality because he has preserved life.Incidentally, although flooding of the cities of Mesopotamia was not infrequent, there is no historical or archeological evidence for a flood that affected the whole region at the same time. It is usually surmised that, in typical middle eastern hyperbolic fashion, the experiences of local floods were exaggerated or extrapolated back to a primeval universal flood myth. For discerning readers, the lessons of this ancient myth are in no way dependent upon its historicity and can, in fact, be completely missed by those who like to wave the banners of biblical inerrancy and construct fantastically misguided theme parks....
Show More