Babylonians from an original — probably oral — source.
The first is the immortality of the hero and his wife. Now, I am not suggesting that divine beings should not be able to bestow immortality on people …not at all. It seems realistic that they should be able to bend the laws of nature. However, if these people
were
truly immortal, then we would expect to see them around today. The simple fact
is
that we do not. I have not been able to locate any Utnapishtim who survived the global Deluge, nor have I seen
any record
of this hero alive today. There simply seems to be no Utnapishtim. Right there, we have a
serious historical contradiction
in the literature.
Is
it possible that Utnapishtim is still alive somewhere in the Middle East, hiding out with his wife? Because of the severe apparent lack of evidence of the Flood hero today, I can say, with sureness and confidence, that the Babylonian version is inaccurate on this point.
The second problem that arises in the text is the
size
of the craft. The vessel appears to be a perfect cube, measuring 30 cubits on each side. Because a cubit is roughly 1'4", that means the vessel has only some 64,000 cubic feet of space. Utnapishtim is instructed to bring a pair of every living thing, along with his family and provisions. That, simply, is not enough space, particularly when contrasted with the Genesis vessel's nearly 1.1 million cubic feet of space.
Genesis tells us that the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits tall. That converts to roughly 400 feet by 60 feet by 40 feet. Noah is instructed to build three levels, giving him a total of 79,200 square feet of usable floor space. Each level would have been some 13 feet tall, allowing plenty of room for stacking provisions, cages, and so forth. Even if Utnapishtim's vessel also had three levels, that would have allowed only 4,800 square feet of usable floor space, or about five percent of the space in the Genesis vessel.
John Woodmorappe, author of
Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study
, actually breaks down the various details of the story — including the number of animals possibly on the ark (he estimates approximately 16,000 animals on board 2 ) — looking at it from a purely statistical standpoint. His argument, though it has several critics, is extremely thorough and well researched. Without being able to prove the Genesis account (he was not there, either), he goes a long way toward lending it credibility.
Right here, we find two severe problems with the Gilgamesh version. The first is the apparent historical inaccuracy involving the hero. The second is nothing more than a feasibility problem. What about the Genesis version, though? Other than cargo and size, can the Genesis version be trusted? Well, that version seems the more logical of the two, for many reasons.
First, the size of the vessel in reference to the cargo is more reasonable. Secondly, the fact that Noah is treated, from beginning to end, as a human — without gaining "immortality" — seems more in line with what we observe today. Lastly, Noah's crew members are identified and their lineage given — a lineage that can be traced, historically, to various parts of the world.
Placed next to the Genesis version, the Babylonian version
sounds
more like a fairytale. This is not to say that the Babylonians
made up
their version. Not at all; the two versions are far too alike to be independently invented. The changes and distortions we see are, most likely, the result of the dispersion. Telephone mythology shrank the size of the vessel, turned the monotheistic Noah into a polytheistic Utnapishtim, and the rainbow — a natural occurrence after rain — became the jeweled necklace of Ishtar.
If the dispersion happened in the Mesopotamian region, then we can expect one of these two versions to be the original, "source" version. Comparing the two stories, basing our judgments solely on the text, the Genesis version seems to be the more logical of
The first is the immortality of the hero and his wife. Now, I am not suggesting that divine beings should not be able to bestow immortality on people …not at all. It seems realistic that they should be able to bend the laws of nature. However, if these people
were
truly immortal, then we would expect to see them around today. The simple fact
is
that we do not. I have not been able to locate any Utnapishtim who survived the global Deluge, nor have I seen
any record
of this hero alive today. There simply seems to be no Utnapishtim. Right there, we have a
serious historical contradiction
in the literature.
Is
it possible that Utnapishtim is still alive somewhere in the Middle East, hiding out with his wife? Because of the severe apparent lack of evidence of the Flood hero today, I can say, with sureness and confidence, that the Babylonian version is inaccurate on this point.
The second problem that arises in the text is the
size
of the craft. The vessel appears to be a perfect cube, measuring 30 cubits on each side. Because a cubit is roughly 1'4", that means the vessel has only some 64,000 cubic feet of space. Utnapishtim is instructed to bring a pair of every living thing, along with his family and provisions. That, simply, is not enough space, particularly when contrasted with the Genesis vessel's nearly 1.1 million cubic feet of space.
Genesis tells us that the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits tall. That converts to roughly 400 feet by 60 feet by 40 feet. Noah is instructed to build three levels, giving him a total of 79,200 square feet of usable floor space. Each level would have been some 13 feet tall, allowing plenty of room for stacking provisions, cages, and so forth. Even if Utnapishtim's vessel also had three levels, that would have allowed only 4,800 square feet of usable floor space, or about five percent of the space in the Genesis vessel.
John Woodmorappe, author of
Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study
, actually breaks down the various details of the story — including the number of animals possibly on the ark (he estimates approximately 16,000 animals on board 2 ) — looking at it from a purely statistical standpoint. His argument, though it has several critics, is extremely thorough and well researched. Without being able to prove the Genesis account (he was not there, either), he goes a long way toward lending it credibility.
Right here, we find two severe problems with the Gilgamesh version. The first is the apparent historical inaccuracy involving the hero. The second is nothing more than a feasibility problem. What about the Genesis version, though? Other than cargo and size, can the Genesis version be trusted? Well, that version seems the more logical of the two, for many reasons.
First, the size of the vessel in reference to the cargo is more reasonable. Secondly, the fact that Noah is treated, from beginning to end, as a human — without gaining "immortality" — seems more in line with what we observe today. Lastly, Noah's crew members are identified and their lineage given — a lineage that can be traced, historically, to various parts of the world.
Placed next to the Genesis version, the Babylonian version
sounds
more like a fairytale. This is not to say that the Babylonians
made up
their version. Not at all; the two versions are far too alike to be independently invented. The changes and distortions we see are, most likely, the result of the dispersion. Telephone mythology shrank the size of the vessel, turned the monotheistic Noah into a polytheistic Utnapishtim, and the rainbow — a natural occurrence after rain — became the jeweled necklace of Ishtar.
If the dispersion happened in the Mesopotamian region, then we can expect one of these two versions to be the original, "source" version. Comparing the two stories, basing our judgments solely on the text, the Genesis version seems to be the more logical of
Similar Books
