The Iliad Book 1 and Book 22

Reading the Illiad surprised me because of all the violence it had. I had always heard it was an epic, and a huge famous story but I suppose it makes sense. I had just read the Aeneid for class so I can see many connections.

One thing that fascinates me is how borrowing, or jumping on an already famous story, was not considered bad. Originality was the problem. Virgil writes The Aeneid long after The Illiad and continues the story after the fall of Troy. The famous story of The Inferno by Dante Alighieri speaks of Virgil as well as his characters in The Aeneid, so it was common practice to do that.

Reading The Aeneid was not my only time I had been exposed to such work. I had watched the movie Troy before and I must say, things are kind of different. The epic itself is big on describing the violence and the gods interfence, but the movie does no such thing. Finally it is interesting to note that although Achilles is supposed to be the hero in The Illiad, in The Aeneid he is portrayed as savage.

The Iliad, Yeonsoo Kim

I love the story of Iliad, not because of its fame throughout the world but its contents dealing with the problematic issue from both human and god. I feel like ancient people felt much closer to god than contemporary people. They prayed for their needs asked for help very directly and they believed that gods feel the same way as human do. As this story mainly focused on the war between Troy and Greece, it contains many consequences among the characters. Like they struggled for achieving the glory in war at the same time they longed for peace for themselves. I think the reason why the Iliad is so well-known is that it is all about our life. We can read the Iliad and also feel sympathy for oneself.

Iliad, Santigui Tounkara

I found the readings way more easier to understand than the last three readings we had to deal with.It was also very pleasent to read Iliad because I knew a bit about the story because I've seen the movie Troy.If I compare the readings to the movie, the readings as more interactions with the gods than the movie. Everything that any character would do was based on what the gods would tell them to do.In the movie Troy, Agamemnon and Archilles don't really interact or beleive in the Gods.Overall, I think the readings had a lot more details than the movie which made it really interesting to read.

Iliad

the Iliad was a very interesting book that had lots of violence and drama. One thing I found very interesting about it was how the Gods in it were responsible for much of what happened in the story like how Athena made Hector fight Achilles. Another thing very unique about it was how the Gods took sides between the Trojans and Greeks and how different Gods wanted either the Greeks or Trojans to win. It was like th war was a game to them and they got amusement from it. Another aspect I found interesting was how much of it was dialogue.

William Chiu

The Iliad's plot was very entertaining to follow. The prose version of the poem appealed a lot more to me because of the fluidity of the words as spoken language. The verse version is harder to understand in that the poetic content forces me to focus more on interpreting its words and less on the events occurring in the story. The story's hero Achilles, is very commonplace in that there is a flaw in the hero' character such as in many other tragedies. But nonetheless I was intrigued by the way one man can make such a change in the outcome of a war. This story and the past two other stories also incorporated a lot of gods. I wanted to know why the authors in those Greek times decided to make the gods appear to be such flawed deities. Why do they all exhibit characteristics which lessen their view as the all powerful who know appear stern and wise in the sculptures and paintings. The gods however do play the role as comedic relief, such as when Zeus and Hera have their husband and wife arguments. the reader cannot help but think how they are like their parents.

Iliad and its heroes

Iliad by Homer is very well known epic that we may hear at least once in our lives. As I read this epic, it was more like reading mythological stories unlike the first three literatures I read in class. It is interesting that the Gods and Goddesses play great roles in human society and have characteristics like human beings. By reading Iliad, we can find out how the war of Troy has developed and the conflict between the heroes although I was unclear that who is the main hero of the story, Achilles or Agamenmnon? Who is the good and bad? Iliad focuses on the war that lasted for 10 years. And it shows that how mistakes in the past can have great impact on future. It is a tragic story but tells interesting interpretation of human natures.

The Illiad

I found the Illiad was much easier to comprehend, compared to the other epics, which is why I enjoyed reading it. The conflicts and confrontations were interesting to watch unravel and play out, for instance the argument between Agamemnon and Achilles (who I found to be an intriguing character because of his passion and talent). I took special notice to the interactions between the humans and the gods; the humans would pray to the gods and the gods would respond to them favorably or not, but the exchanges were obvious. I was surprised at how upfront the gods were with some things they would say, especially Hera and Zeus when they argued; she never hesitated to confront him on anything, and he never hesitated to say what was on his mind as well. This epic was entertaining, it kept me wanting to read on to watch the next conflict unravel.

The Iliad Books 1 & 22

Books 1 and 22 of the Iliad were more interesting to read and definitely a truer portrayal of the anthropomorphisms of the Greek gods. The one thing that struck me as being a common trait of the gods was just how capricious they were. Hector is the son of the king of Troy; he is noble, a good warrior, a good husband and father, yet Zeus decides to let him die because he doesn't want a quarrel with his daughter Minerva, who wants Troy to fall. Athena herself is petty and jealous. She decides to avenge her losing a beauty contest by completely destroying the man who chose Aphrodite over her, as well as his entire city and his father's kingdom. I felt a lot of pity for Hector while reading of his death. He didn't do anything wrong, he was just trying to defend his city and protect his people and he ends up dying because someone up there felt like it.
Another thing that struck me while reading the Iliad is just how long winded everyone is. It seems like each character has the ability to extrapolate for hours and fight simultaneously. For example, Achilles' and Hector's exchange about what will be done with Hector's body seems like it went on long enough that maybe someone could've shot Achilles from the walls of Troy. A little unrealistic. Also, at the very end of Book 22, where Hector's wife is expounding upon the various trials and tribulations her fatherless child will now face, it seems a tad long winded for someone who just fainted and fell off a battlement. All in all, rather amusing.

Courtney Lum

Although in epic form, I felt as if the Iliad Books 1 and 22 were much more interesting and easier to read than our previous texts from class. What I found intriguing was the way that the gods of Greece played such an extensive role in the human world. I was surprised to see how vindictive and vain the goddess Athena was in the epic, and how she ignored Troy and Paris when they needed her most during the war just because she was jealous Paris chose Aphrodite over herself. Unlike the other epics and texts we have read in class, the gods and goddesses in the Iliad play a much larger role in the world of humans, and possess the same characteristics as those they control, making them unpredictable at times, prone to mistakes, jealous, compassionate, and greedy individuals.
Also having seen the movie “Troy”, I was quite surprised to see many similarities between the Iliad and the movie; however I feel the movie didn’t mention the gods and goddesses who played a major role in the actual story making the movie less accurate and detailed.

John Torres "Illiad Book 1 and 22"

The story about the death of Hector (Book 22) caught my attention. I have seen the movie "Troy" which is obviously very different than the story of Hector's death but, was similar in that both stories discuss elements of the Trojan War. The main difference that I noticed was the use and interference of the gods in Book 22 than compared to that in "Troy". Book 22 makes the fight between Hector and Achilles more epic and impact full because the way it is described. It was also interesting to see how in the end Hector is killed for being brave and fighting an opponent in Achilles whom he knows is a great warrior. He is punished by the gods for not acting in a noble way but then is killed for being braved.

Illiad Books 1 and 22

I really liked reading the Iliad because I used to read Greek mythology a lot when I was younger. I read the story of paris choosing between the Goddesses and how he chose Aphrodite causing the war of troy. I also know some of the other stories about Zeus from Metamorphoses, even though his roman name is Jupiter or Jove. I wonder what was more of the actual history between Greece and Troy. It is hard to believe that only one woman caused an entire war! Both Agamemnon and Achilles are jerks. Agamemnon steals Achilles prize, and Achilles brutally kills Hector and then drags around his body. There was no need for that brutality. I also knew the legend of Achilles, that he was dipped in something magic that made him invincible, but he was held by his ankle, and this was the only part of his body not made invincible, and it is his only weakness. I would be interested in reading the rest of the Iliad.

The Iliad Books 1 & 22

As I was reading, I had a really difficult time keeping track of characters names, who they were, who they were related to, etc. I felt like I was constantly looking back to previous pages to reference who they were. It also was confusing because the names were all similar and became really confusing. It also did not help that I do not have a background of Greek Mythology and characters. After finally getting all the characters straight in my head and how they were related to one another, I couldn't decide who was the main hero of the story. Is it Achilles or Agamenmnon?

I enjoyed read the two books of The Iliad more so than the other three stories we have read in class. I think as we move on through the semester, the stories will gradually become more interesting and easier to read and I gain experience in reading world literature.

Felicia Ooi; The Iliad Books I and XXII

I read the Iliad - Books I and XXII in prose and I found it a very interesting read, even more so than Metamorphoses was. The story involves both gods and mortals and it shows us how the lives of the mortals are so easily altered on the whims and fancies of any and every one of the gods. Even gods have favorites among the mortals and Achilles is portrayed as one of those favored semi-mortals, the son of a mortal (Peleus) and a nymph (Thetis).

The epic started in midias res, as is typical of epics. Book I is mainly about the rage of Achilles, as mentioned at the start of the text, and how this rage of his affected the relatoinship between Achilles and Agememnon and how it ultimately affected the Trojan War. In this first book, Achilles is shown to be the perfect Greek hero who takes great pride in his strength and self-worth. Book XXII also is about Achilles, but this time it focuses on the "battle" between Achilles and Hector. Achilles ends up killing Hector, once again with the help of Athena, and Achilles shows absolutely no sign of mercy towards Hector, despite pleadings from Priam and Hecuba (rulers of Troy and Hector's parents).

I liked the way the story flowed smoothly, even though there were so many different characters. Homer makes this epic a very grand one, with a very interesting storyline.

Iliad, Ralph Monfort

The Iliad by Homer is an epic poem talking about the conquest of Greece. The story begins with the kidnapping of Helen of Sparta by Paris, Prince of Troy. Agamemnon uses this reason to go on a full out war against the city of Troy. He brings along one of Greece's most famous warriors, Achilles. Achilles along with the rest of the men ransack Apollo's temple and captures the priest's daughter. Achilles is a man that prides himself on his conquest and abilities. This makes him a very vain person. Because of this trait, Achilles engages in a heated argument with Agamemnon over the fact Agamemnon took his "prize". This results in Achilles refusing to fight for Agamemnon until the death of his cousin by the hands of Hector.

Iliad Book1

The Iliad recounts the events when the Greek siege of the city of Troy during the final year of Trojan War. The epic begins with the conflicts between Achilles and Agamemnon. At the beginning, Apollo sent the plague onto the Greek army due to his priest, Chryses was insulted by Agamemnon. Agamemnon refused to release his daughter Chryseis. Achilles then summoned an assembly to figure out the reason. Calchas, the prophecy interpreted what must be done to appease Apollo, which including release Chryseis to her father. Agamemnon was unwilling to retrocede the girl but he was forced to do so to end the plague. To make up the reward, Agamemnon took away Achilles's concubine Briseis, which lead to the rupture between Achilles and Agamemnon. Achilles was furious and he decided that he would not involve into the war anymore. He also felt that he should not deserve less than Agamemnon. Therefore, Achilles prayed to his mother, the goddess of the sea, Thetis for revenge. Thetis then interceded with Zeus in Olympus. Recalled that Thetis once helped himself, Zeus promised to help Achilles to be an indispensable person in Trojan's success.

Willie Ho

After reading The Iliad books I and XXII, I couldn't help but think about how most of the characters are portrayed to be pompous and overconfident individuals who shouldn't be because they probably are not capable of anything. Agamemnon was arguing with Achilles in Book I about how he deserved whatever amount of profit whenever there was a battle won. Achilles was angered than he and the other troops did all the fighting yet Agamemnon took all the loot/credit. Achilles was ready to kill Agamemnon but then he didn't because Minerva came down and basically told him there is no point in killing Agamemnon because he will perish later. It seems that Achilles is full of rage at all times in The Iliad. In Book XXII, he is on a rampage and just wants to fight everything and everyone. All he cares about is fighting and fighting efficiently. He chases down Hector, who is known to be quite powerful as well. Hectors attempts to flee from Achilles but is tricked by Minerva, who appeared and came to help Achilles again. After defeating Hector, he dishonors Hector's death by allowing the Achaeans to stab and spear at his body. He then ties his body to a horse and drags it to Hector's parents. I did not like the character of Achilles. He is a monstrous powerful and abusive warrior, much like a big bully. On top of that, Minerva keeps assisting him in his rampage of rage.

The Illiad Book 1

I thought that reading Book 1 of the Illiad was much more enjoyable than the other three literary works we have read so far. It seemed to follow the formula of most ancient epics, which is something we also went over in class this week. The poem begins with Homer invoking the muses to assist him in telling the story about the rage of Achilles during the Trojan War. An invocation to the muses is characteristic of how mostly all epics begin. All throughout Book 1, there is constant quarrel (rage) between two of the main characters, Achilles and Agamemnon. Agamemnon has abducted the daughter of a god’s priest, Chryseis, and has refused to return her to her father (Chryses) despite the generous ransom he has offered. Enraged Chryses’ prays to Apollo and asks for divine intervention in the form of plague and terror on the Archaen army. These first few events lead to, and are mainly the cause of what occurs throughout the rest of the epic.
It was interesting to see the struggle for supremacy between both Agamemnon and Achilles, and to see how they both prioritized their individual glories over the well-being of the Archaen army, ultimately jeopardizing the efforts in war.

The Illiad

I enjoyed reading the Illiad and I think it has been my favorite reading so far. I like it because it is like a soap opera of Gods. It is interesting, to me, to look at something that was a source of great entertainment for people such a long time ago. (Not that it still isn’t a source of great entertainment.) There are many things in this story that I find particularly intriguing. One such thing is that, in Book I, when Achilles’ mother goes to Zeus to ask for help for her son, Zeus says that he must first respect Hera’s wishes overall, but that he will do what he can. However, later on when Hera confronts Zeus about why Achilles’ mother was there he tells her he will do what he wants.

The Iliad

The Iliad, Book I and Book XXII were both very interesting literary works to read. They weren't overly worded or too ancient to understand like past texts we've been reading in class. While Book I tells us about the disagreement/the bone of contention, Book XXII provides us with the resolution. However i do not understand why Achilles is fighting with Hector in Book XXII when he had a problem with Agamemnon in Book I. Achilles is the definiton of an epic hero due to his charisma and his love to win wars for the glory of his name. One thing i found weird was how the fight was portrayed in Book XXII. The writer stops in the middle of a fight scene and starts to talk about somehting totally outside of the battle scene. This tends to take away from the fight and might not make a reader take the fight seriously or understand the gravity of the fight.

Book 1

The first book of the Iliad was an interesting deviation from most of our reading materials. The main difference lies in the fact that this is not a creationist myth, but instead an epic poem told about the conquest of Troy via the poet Homer. The Iliad serves as a back story for the later poem, The Oddessy, which switches the focus from Archilles and Agamenmon to Odysseus.

In the First book of the Iliad, the main characters and background is established, via a type of prologue to the main action of the Iliad. Agamenmon is asked by a priest to return his daughter, and when he refuses, Apollo punishes the Greeks by sending down a plague upon his people. When Agamenmon finally relents and surrenders his prize to her father, he takes Archilles's trophy woman instead, to which Archilles becomes angry and wrathful; pulling back from the conflict that Agamenmon so desires to be fought.

Overall, this story has played an integral role in all societies since it's recording, and still holds up as a riveting tale today.

Jenelle Fiori; The Iliad

After reading “The Iliad”, I can better understand the structure and dynamic of the epic. First, as we learned in class, there is a single person going on a mission that usually explodes into something more than it should be because someone alternated fate. In this particular epic, Achilles and Agamemnon are arguing over the prize of a girl. In real life, this is a very immature rivalry, especially when portrayed in the gods, who are supposed to be perfect leaders and the image of society. Instead they ironically commit the seven deadly sins; such as the lust after Helen, the egotist Achilles greed for his prize and his jealousy of Agamemnon. It is very hypocritical. I also find the symbolism of the gods and battles in relation to the Crusades and the Trojan War. I especially like knowing the background stories of each battle and seeing how everything in interconnected. The most interesting use of symbolism was when Achilles chases Hector in line 150, which symbolizes the fall of Troy. The final thing that I notice about “The Iliad” is the use of defining traits and long monologues that show the importance of the gods and still expose their flaws, such as Achilles’ ego. All in all, I find that this epic was very interesting, though semi difficult to read at first, and I look forward to reading further into the Greek tragedies.

The Iliad: Books 1 and 22

Books 1 and 22 of The Iliad consist of captivating accounts of the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon as well as the death of Hector, the mightiest warrior in the Trojan army. It seems that pride and honor are most valued among the warriors and gods in the tale, and that anyone who dares to injure or violate someone’s pride prompts a response of great wrath and vengeance. I found it rather foolish of Agamemnon to take away Achilles’s prize, Briseis, when it is bound to incur Achilles’s anguish and rage. Achilles, though he is egoistical, is able to control his anger through Athena’s calming words as well as those of his mother’s. However, in Book 22, he is cold and shows no compassion for Hector’s wish for Achilles to send his body home for proper burial.

One question I had in my reading arose during Achilles’ speech, “If down in Hades men forget their dead, even there I will remember my companion” (line 389, Book 22). Why do the characters assume they are going to hell? Do they not believe in forgiveness or the possibility of salvation? By being warriors and killing others, do they automatically accept their fate?

The Iliad, Jordan Hernandez

I definitely enjoyed reading the Iliad, much more so than the previous 3 narratives that we had to read. I read both versions in verse. In the Iliad, book 1, the story begins with the invocation to a muse. Next we learn the Agamemnon, son of Atreus, the king of men, has offended the god, Apollo. This is because he kidnapped the daughter of the gods priest. Achilles and Agamemnon begin to argue; Agamemnon agrees to return the priests daughter, however, Achilles must give up his prize in return. Achilles then prays to his mother, the goddess Thetis, for revenge. The book concludes at the banquet of the gods where Queen Hera learns and becomes angered over Zeus' promise to Thetis to avenge the loss of Achilles prize. I usually do not like reading passages in verse, or reading things for english in general, but I found this pretty easy to read and understand, which is probably why i enjoyed it.

The Illiad, Book 1

I really enjoyed reading the prose version of Book 1 of the Illiad. It was easy to understand. The most confusing thing was that the author switched between referring to a character by their actual name and saying "son of ..." it was difficult to remember who was son of who. Agamemnon seems like kind of a jerk, holding people's daughters hostage and then stealing Achilles "prize". Obviously in this day and age it is strange to hear about a woman being given as a prize, but no matter what the actual prize was, that is a serious sign of disrespect from Agamemnon to Achilles. I am interested to keep reading and see what happens. I have only read the Oddessy before and it felt like it was a lost harder to get through, but that may have been due to the translation I was reading.

Metamorphoses, Ralph Monfort

Ovid's Metamorphoses was written in dactylic hexameter which gives the myth an epic poem feeling to it. Ovid stresses throughout the myth, how things came to be through a gradual metamorphoses. In the description of the how humans were created, he writes that air, water and fire combine together eventually become man. In the second creation, the surviving humans had to throw stones behind their backs which in time transformed in human being. Also, Ovid depicts the gods to have human-like emotions. For instance, he gives the gods emotions such as jealousy, lust, anger and love. I feel that its interesting that the myth opens up with the idea of nature creating the world rather than talking about an all powerful god creating the world. This separates Metamorphoses from Genesis and Gligamesh.

Metamorphoses, Yeonsoo Kim

It was definitely harder to focus on following story line than the Gilgamesh. I guess because it is more likely written as a poem that is called “dactylic hexameter”. The repeating pattern was getting me bored and making story seemed quite scattered itself. But I liked how Ovid described gods have emotion like human. Jealousy, depression, and love… Since they are the most common topic in the literature, I cannot say the story of creation and the origin of human should be different somehow. I wonder how it would feel reading Metamorphoses with novel version. I think it could be much more interesting. Sometimes the structure or style of writing determines the mood that is present in the story.

Metamorphoses

Reading Metamorphoses Book 1 is an interesting departure from the previous two creation myths and flood stories. It is definitely different in the sense that the narrative as a whole does not follow the actions of one hero or group of people. In Book 1, there is a conglomeration of many smaller stories, including the creation of the earth, the flooding of the earth by Jove, the transformation of Daphne into a laurel, the transformation of Io into a heifer, and so on. The common theme of all the stories is, of course, metamorphosis. In the creation story, chaos transforms into an ordered world and in the flood story, the world full of cruel, unrighteous people transforms into a fresh, clean world inhabited by the two most righteous people. I found the creation story fascinating in the respect that it didn't discuss any god, but stressed Nature being the orderer. This seems like a pretty advanced concept for that period in time, and definitely looks like the precursor to the modern theory of evolution.

William Chiu

Book 1 of Metamorphoses seemed like a confusing, dull and long text upon reading the first few stanzas, however the poem progresses into an interesting plot which even includes comical events. Ovid's terminology and sentence usage with the object of the sentence used first made reading a hassle early on. However the appearance of many gods with different characteristics made the poem a more enjoyable read. It was fascinating how the gods possessed human-like characteristics which diminished my outlook of them as almighty beings who are always stern. The king of the gods, Jupiter or Jove demonstrates that even figures of authority can lack the ability to pass fair judgment as he causes the earth to flood because of the disrespectful actions of one person of the human race. In addition to the vices of the gods, Apollo brings the story into a funny perspective when he gropes a laurel tree which is actually a transformation of Daphne brought upon by denied lust. Metamorphoses greatly differed from the previous two creation/flood myths. The main focus of this story shifts away from the flood and leans towards the relation of gods and the inhabitants of the earth. Perhaps there is an internal message to look at the gods and laugh at their actions so a understanding can be reached that people should behave in a manner which is opposite that of the unrighteous gods, in their societies.

Metamorphoses

In the story Metamorphoses, by Ovid, Nature is emphasized and spelled with a capital N. I was surprised the author decided to emphasize Nature because the other two flood epics do not. For example, in Genesis nature is not mentioned at all. People are created from the "breath of g-d". In the Epic of Gilgamesh, people are placed on Earth by the "spit of g-d". In Metamorphosis, people were first born out of nature and by the elements. I enjoyed the twist in the stories when nature was used instead of G-d. I found it interesting that the author chose to stress this difference. Overall, Metamorphosis is not identical to the two other epics.

Metamorphosis

Metamorphisis was very interesting story and was very different from the other creation stories in many ways. one way in which it was different is that it lots of unrelated stories in it like the flood portion and the part about Io. lots of creation was also very funny like when Io was turned into a cow or when nymph was turned into a tree so she dint need to have sex. There were also lots of similarities like the presence of powerful deities and major floods that covered much of the earth.

Metamorphoses

Metamorphoses, although similar to the other creation stories, presented some differences. The story describes the forming of the earth, to the times of corruption and follows through the ‘remake” of mankind and what follows after. It presented the gods in a more vengeful and unforgiving light. I found it interesting that after flooding the earth and wiping out mankind, for the most part, Jupiter was not remorseful at all; he was quite content with the fate that was the flood and the annihilation of the inhabitants of the earth. This is also different in the sense that it is more for storytelling, as oppose to Genesis which is more didactic and used for moralistic teaching. The subtle comparisons to real life issues were interesting to break down and relate to the story, one example being the comparison of Julius Caesar to mankind.

Metamorphoses

Unlike the Bible and the epic of Gilgamesh, I have had hard time reading Metamorphoses. It was very different in a way that it was written as a poem making hard for me to understand the flow of its story. Interestingly, in Metamorphoses, Gods like Jupiter, have human-like characteristics who feel anger, envy, greed, lust, etc. Since it was written under polytheistic culture, the gods have families and god society. The god in the bible had ultimate power to himself. However, Jupiter and other gods in Metamorphoses shares power with given title such as “god of seas, god of sky and etc” This balance of Power led to have caste system within gods, one with stronger or more effective power plays bigger roles in the society. Many intriguing differences can be found in Metamorphoses compare to the Bible and the epic of Gilgamesh.

John Torres "Metamorphoses Book I"

Metamorphoses book was intriguing to me because it describes the different phases of the earth that lead to the eventual flood. The story begins describing how the earth was created and was a beautiful place. It then goes on to describe different eras in which people become corrupt and violent to finally how the humans upset the gods to the point of the flood. The ending paragraphs which described cupid and the different love stories were very confusing to me. However, it was interesting to see the different elements in the story. It was also interesting to read literature from the ancient Greek time period and compare it to other writings from that time. The style of poetry was a different writing style that helped deliver the meaning in a different way.

Three Flood Stories

Even though the flood story in "Gilgamesh" was thought as a pioneer related to many other flood myths, the reason why the Gods inflicted the flood and how the heroes were selected to survive were quite different in these three epics. In "Genesis", the God decided to destroy human mainly due to his dissatisfaction of the sinners, and Noah was selected because of his faith. "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." (Genesis 6:9) Compare with this, the reason for the occurrence of the flood in "Gilgamesh" was explained as the overpopulation. Unlike Noah, Utnapishtim survived just depended on a random selection. When it came to "Metamorphoses", Ovid explained that the flood was the consequence of human and giants' irreverences. "They, like the seed from which they sprung, accurst, Against the Gods immortal hatred nurst, An impious, arrogant and cruel brood." In my opinion, Deucalion and his wife finally survived should just be another random selection. "But, two, the best of either sex, surviv'd" somehow implied that their survival was not that random enough as I thought. By noticed that Deucalion was a son of Prometheus, he probably had been warned and aided by his father.

Metamorphoses

Metamorphoses, by Ovid, is unique compared to both Genesis and Gilgamesh for a number of reasons, despite it being a creationist story and featuring a flood. Primarily, the location differs greatly from Sumeria or anywhere in the middle east, but instead comes from Rome. The change in location switches the pantheon to the Greco-Roman Gods, such as Jove. One of the more interesting facets of this story was how humanity repopulated the Earth, which involved the two survivors of the flood threw stones over their shoulders, and from which people would spring fully formed. Ovid points the reason for this occuring was due to the Earth Mother having unlimited potential for giving life.

Another interesting aspect of this story was the amount of unnatural acts perpitrated by the Gods against the mortals. While all stories featured the Gods punishing humanity as a whole, Metamorphoses was the only story that seemed to blame the Gods with attacking individual mortals. It seemed to make these Gods more relatable, since they too can fall prey to petty squabbles and fallacies that plague mankind as a whole.

Metamorphose, Santigui Tounkara

I found the reading really hard to uderstand. From what I understood , I concluded that the story was way less interesting the other ones. However, by founding sources for the essay, I read the story from someone else and it was way more easier to understand. I finally changed my opinoion. I thought that the story was pretty interesting. After I read book one, I was so into the story that I wanted to keep reading and go on to book 2.The story began with by describing how the world was created out of air,dust and other materials. It then goes on by describing the different ages before Jove decided to bring the flood on earth.Finally,following the flood, there was only 2 survivors wich were Deucalion and Pyrrha. They were the one in charge of restoring the manking.

Courtney Lum

In Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the text was much different than the other texts we have read in class pertaining to the flood and creation myths largely due to the satirical tone found in much of the story. For instance the story was written in dactylic hexameter, similar to epics, however Ovid strayed from such form at times making it not quite epic form. Also we see in the beginning of the story a very real, natural creation theory explaining how the world came to be in a very factual tone, unlike Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh myths which claimed gods and mystical heavens were the reason the world came about. However, the main reason for the claim that Ovid was poking fun at the epics and other stories of creation and the flood was because of the way he described the second creation of humans. Instead of retelling the factual, elemental version of creation, Ovid describes an extremely different version of creation, stating humans were created through the throwing of rocks behind gods’ backs. The sudden change from realistic to fantasy can be perceived to be Ovid poking fun at texts such as Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, and their telling of mystical, fantastical creations of the human world.

Metamorphoses

I enjoyed reading Metamorphoses by Ovid. I found it to be more entertaining then the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis. I think that the may be because, at least in the case of Genesis, there was no religious background or meaning to it really. Since Metamorphoses was meant more as fiction and not religious instruction it was more appealing and intriguing. Also, Greek and Roman mythology is very interesting to me and I enjoyed the intertwining of the actual facts of Caesar into the story. I found it difficult to compare this story to the flood myths of Genesis and Giglamesh mostly because I felt that the background for it was entirely different. I also think that it was difficult because the flood story that is included in Metamorphoses is short and is almost like a passing thought in a much larger story.

Willie Ho

I did not enjoy reading the Metamorphoses by Ovid. Not only was its length intimidating, but its text was awfully unusual. Out of the three stories we have covered so far, I am sure to say that this was probably the worst. Our theme between the three stories focuses on flood-myths. However, in the large scale of words in the Metamorphoses, only a small portion of it has anything to do with the flood. It is only a brief mention of why the flood was started (Jupiter) and who (Deucalion) was responsible fore saving life from the flood. Deucalion, like Noah and Utanapishtim from The Genesis and The Epic of Gilgamesh, built an ark to preserve life from being wiped out by the flood. The difference was that only Noah and Deucalion built floods, since Utanapishtim built a boat. Although there existed a few detail differences, the main plot of the story were alike throughout all the myths. Though reading the three texts did spark a few questions left unanswered in my mind. Did all three texts make reference to the same flood? Hypothetically, if these myths were true, were Noah, Utanapishtim, and Deucalion actually the same person? Lastly, what goal did the writer of these myths have in mind? The writers of the Genesis probably had some ambition of promoting a certain morale through the text. But the reason for writing the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Metamorphoses is something I cannot understand or predict.

Ovid, Metamorphoses

Metamorphoses by Ovid was a little confusing to read because of its length and the way the story is worded. It is the creation story of how earth, man, and the world we live in today was made from nature. It is very descriptive and scientific that anyone in this modern day can relate to it and believe it. It doesn't talk about any God but only about nature. It also talks about a flood story where Jove gets angry and causes a flood because of what lycaon did. Unlike Noah's story and the Epic of Gilgamesh, the flood is not the main theme of this story. Apart from the creation and the flood, it was hard to follow the rest of the story. From "The Transformation of Daphne into a Lawrel" it was as if the story lost its main focuse.

Metamorphoses

I did not enjoy reading Ovid’s epic poem Metamorphoses. I found its text rather confusing and difficult to understand while reading along, more so than Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis. Near the beginning of the poem, Ovid begins his tale of transformations by describing how the earth, the heavens and the rest of life were created out of Chaos. This leads into the story of creation and the flood. He describes the progression of mankind to be degenerative as time advances from Gold to Silver to Brazen to the Iron Age. This notion of the progressive deterioration and corruption of mankind is interesting, as I feel it can be paralleled with modern-day man. The appalling behavior of man instigates an attempt by the giants to seize the heavens. Jove’s response to all this corruption is to unleash a great flood onto the earth, which eradicates all living things except one pious couple, Deucalion and Pyrrha. After the flood recedes, this couple repopulates the earth by obeying the commands of the goddess Themis and throw rocks over their shoulders. These rocks then transform into a new “brood” of men and women. The epic then reveals more story lines, such as Daphne and Io, creating even more confusion in my mind. It moved all over the place and seemed like it was never going to end. However, the epic did share striking similarities to the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis.

Jordan Hernandez, Metamorphoses

Metamorphoses by Ovid begins with the creation story. It is said that the earth and the sky are created but there is some uncertainty concerning how man was created. The story progresses by introducing and explaining the different ages of mankind, including the golden, silver, bronze and iron ages. With each successive age, humanity becomes more and more corrupt, which angers the gods, particularly Jove, or Jupiter. The impression left upon him by Lycaon incites him to unleash the flood that destroys life on earth except for Deucalion and his wife. They are then left with the responsibility to repopulate the earth. The story goes on to describe the fate of Daphne and Io, who were each transformed into a laurel tree and cow respectively. This is why I did not enjoy this story. I felt as though it dragged on and the story line was all over the place. I was expecting it to concentrate on the flood and the reasons for the flood and Gods wrath, like genesis and the epic of Gilgamesh. I guess I just wasn't that interested in the rest of the story once the flood story was over. This week in class we discussed the the many similarities and differences amongst the three creation myths. It was definitely interesting to draw comparisons between each story.

Margaret Yoon

I greatly enjoyed reading Book I of Metamorphoses because I found the literary style of the text quite appealing. By utilizing dactylic hexameter, the narrative flows beautifully, making the text pleasurable in auditory terms. Also, the text does not have much repetition, unlike Genesis or Gilgamesh, which directly connects to the different purposes of the creation myths. Unlike the Bible’s intentions of spreading Christianity and acquiring followers or Gilgamesh’s objective to reinforce a sense of community and collective culture, Metamorphoses functions simply as a story and for recording. The flood stories vary in cause and reason, for God is punishing mankind for his sin in Genesis, Enlil is bringing the disaster for a greater necessity in controlling the population growth, and Jove is exercising his power, encouraged by Lycaon’s disrespect for him. Even though they have concrete differences, a notable similarity is that the survivors of each flood embody devotion or virtue, gaining a divine power’s favor. By receiving blessings from a higher power, they are able to survive and continue their lives after the calamity.

Felicia Ooi; Metamorphoses

I found Ovid’s Metamorphoses to be a poem that was really very interesting. Besides the creation story and the flood myth, Ovid gave us an insight into the lives of the gods of Lycaon’s time. A similarity to Gilgamesh would be how the many gods in both texts are portrayed as having very human-like tendencies, whereas a marked contrast with the Bible is that God is the one and only divine being who is omniscient. God in the Bible is a loving and kind God who is merciful. In constrast, the gods of Metamorphoses and Gilgamesh are a discontented and fractious bunch, and they are in constant opposition of each other. The gods in Ovid’s literary masterpiece are shown to be almost human, and Ovid writes stories about how the gods seduce humans/nymphs and turn them into non-human creatures based on their whims. Clear examples are Daphne being turned into a laurel bush and Io into a heifer.

I also found that the reference made to Caesar by Ovid piqued my curiosity. It gave me a reason to research Roman and Greek mythology and I was then able to picture the kind of comparison Ovid was trying to make between Caesar and Lycaon. Overall, I preferred reading Metamorphoses to reading Gilgamesh.

Jenelle Fiori; Metamorphosis

This week we finish reading “Metamorphosis” and wrote an essay comparing the three epics. The plot to “Metamorphosis” is very interesting and the pattern of words helps keep a tempo; however, it was more confusing than the other works of literature. I think my problem in understanding the epic poem can be blamed on the multiple gods mentioned in the poem. The most interesting thing that I found, as learned in class, was that certain characters represented historical figures, such as Caser. Writing the essay was also a difficult thing for me to do because I was very confused by the language used for each of the poems and I don’t feel as though we went over it in class as thoroughly as we could have. There were so many scattered similarities and differences that it was hard really focus on just one thing, especially when there are three vast stories. In spite of all the difficulty and confusion, I feel that this was a good essay to start with because it gives a small insight into what Greek literature is like.

Lillian Lai, Gilgamesh & Genesis 6-9

Even though both Genesis 6-9 and the Epic of Gilgamesh have a flood in their stories, there are still many differences between them. The first is the duration of how long the flood lasts. The flood in Genesis 6-9 lasts for 40 days and the other one lasts for about 7 days. Between the two, it seems that it’s illogical to have a 40 day flood which shows that the Epic of Gilgamesh is more realistic. Not only that, both Gods in the stories have different intentions of for bringing about the flood. In Genesis 6-9, the God depicts human’s hearts as evil inside and out so he wanted to wipe out all his creations with a flood. On the other hand, God in Epic of Gilgamesh wanted all the gods to disappear because they are lazy so he thought of creating a flood to wash them all away. Even though they have a lot of differences, there are still some similarities in their stories. Both include details about the ship that the protagonists build to escape the flood. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, it even includes the exact measurements of the ship. Not only that, both poems include how God smelled the “sweet savor” which leads to God realizing that the flood was a wrong move.

Lillian Lai, Genesis 6-9

After reading Genesis 6-9, I feel that God’s view of humanity has changed drastically. In the beginning, God felt that all human’s hearts have evil intentions and that there was not one ounce of good in them. Through Noah’s actions, God slowly realizes that humans aren’t entirely evil and even regrets starting the flood. The flood lasted 40 days and wiped out all mankind and animals except Noah’s ark. This is a display of God’s power and control of Earth. Not only that, the Genesis insinuates that God will not hesitate in using his power to punish humans when they do bad deeds. In conclusion, Genesis 6-9 teaches that a level of respect of understanding is necessary for humans to coexist on Earth.

Ralph Monfort, Gilgamesh

In the epic of Gilgamesh, I found it interesting that there are a large abundance of Gods. However, in the Bible there was only one almighty God. Which means that at any moment in time any god could be upset with the earth and decide to destroy it without the consent of the other gods as seen in the flood. For example, all the gods decided to unleash a great flood to destroy the world but one god helped create a boat to save as much life from the world as possible. This is similar to the Bible in the fact the Gods and the bible God are very wrathful and seek very dangerous ways to unleash their angers. Another similarity to the bible is that the use of a dove and a raven.

Gilgamesh I and XI / Genesis 6-9

In the epic of Gilgamesh it is told that a huge flood had nearly destroyed the entire world. The greater gods had been unsatisfied with Earth but one god had made a boat which preserved life. While in the Bible there is only one God and worshipping anything else would be a sin, in the epic of Gilgamesh it seems there are an abundant number of gods, each with their own forte.

On the other hand, there are many similarities between this story and the story of Noah's ark. What is the significance that both of these stories of origins, both of these stories involving some greater being(s) discontent with the world and attempting to purify via flood? As I have stated in my first post, this could be for a number of reasons. Water, while having the ability of being extremely destructive, is also associated with life. Second, perhaps this can be seen as a cleansing of the world.

It is an interesting note that both stories have "flood stories" and how the two are so similiar. Both involve building ships with the most specific requirements, and sending out birds to survey the land.

Yeonsoo Kim, Gilgamesh

When I was reading Gilgamesh, I could find some similarities with the Bible. Firstly, there are a lot of names appeared. I tried to color or highlight people’s name while reading it and to distinguish who is who, but I got so exhausted after few pages… not only the number of names, but it was repeated at least 3times for each name.
The second similarity was narrative setting throughout the whole content. Most of the sentences are short, and its meaning was directly presented. Even though the translation made me hard to understand what it’s about, but I can tell this literature wants clear spread out of story line.

William chiu

Both stories encompassed the use of a flood over the world as a means to extinguish life upon earth. The two origin and creation myths have their similarities and their differences. The differences between the Epic of gilgamesh and genesis could be based on the time period which the stories were told. Gilgamesh was told in 2700 B.C. while genesis was not created till much later. The early time frame of Gilagamesh reminds me of Greek mythology where there are many gods all of whom have loose relations with on another. The gods rarely see eye to eye with one another and often quarrel to the point of violence. In Gilgamesh the many gods come to an agreement to flood the Earth to cease the overproduction of living things. Genesis however follows a monotheistic path with one god who feels the need to cleanse the earth. The morality in genesis differs vastly compared to Gilgamesh. Once again I feel the time frame makes all the difference. In Gilgamesh the gods and people do not follow codes of conduct and exhibit the sinful characteristics of human beings. Clearly genesis promotes the people to live and act the way Noah had done because genesis was written for the bible.
One similarity I found interesting was how both stories paid great detail to the dimensions of the boat. The reasoning behind which I can only guess as to the purpose. Both stories also use a dove and a raven to scout for land. However it is the raven which is able to carry out its task in Gilgamesh. This I found very fittings for the tone of the story because the raven is associated with bad omens in folklore.

Epic of Gilgamesh, Santigui Tounkara

The Epic of Gilgamesh was a more interesting story than the Genesis I tought so. There was more detail and more background in the epic of Gilgamesh than in the Genesis.Gilgamesh was sent by the gods to save his civilization just like Noah in Genesis.However, Gilgamesh was half human half god whereas Noah was only human. Just like in the Genesis, Gilgamesh was seen as a leader or an hero.Although, the purposes of Gilgamesh to save his civilization is defferent than in the Genesis. In the Genesis, Noah had to clean the earth of corrupted humans and the evil where in Gilgamesh, he had to clean up the earth because the earth was too populous and also for the fun of doing it.

John Torres "Gilgamesh Tablet I and XI"

Tablet I of Gilgamesh describes how Gilgamesh is a superior being. He is more than human but not quite fully a God. Gilgamesh is looked upon as a hero or leader to the humans while Enkidu is looked as a hero or leader to the animals. Both creatures were created as superior beings to be leaders. The ironic part is that Gilgamesh dreams that he will be friends with Enkidu while Enkidu does not bring any help to humans (because he destroys animal traps that were destroyed by hunters). Tablet XI compares Gilgamesh to Noah because both were picked by the Gods to be saviors of their civilization. Both characters were to restart the earth after a serious flood. They differ however because unlike Noah Gilgamesh feels he was not given a fair chance by the Gods.

william chiu

Genesis 6-9 tells of the story of the great flood which is familiar to many. However to people such as myself, the exact details of the story are unknown. After reading the passages, it is apparent that the story is meant to invoke a sense of morality into human beings. It forces the readers to wonder how they can achieve mercy from the almighty god the way Noah was spared from the flood. what duties should one perform? what attributes or characteristics should one posses or strive to posses? I was also able to see a similarity in the method of using a natural disaster to carry out a certain purpose in these passages and films and even the extinction of the dinosaurs. Many times have I seen films where a natural disaster strikes an area or earth. But all is well in the end when the natural disaster has cleared leaving the those who survived with a bright future in store. The extinction of the dinosaurs left the earth barren and uninhabitable. However out of such despair arose life forms which blossomed into the world we live in today. Perhaps the moral of genesis 6-9 is to always have faith and hope for the best.
Although the story is easy to follow along, I could not find the link between the ending of part 9 and the rest of the story. Why did Noah curse canaan? What is the significance of Noah's nakedness in the presence of his son?

Anna Tsukroff

Gilgamesh and Genesis both contain very interesting versions of the Flood myth. There are many parallels between the two, such as detailing the specific dimensions of the craft and having the protagonist send out birds to test whether the waters had receded yet. The Gilgamesh story is very different from the Genesis story, however, in the light it displays the Gods in. There is only one God in the Genesis story, and he is an all-powerful vengeful (and later forgiving and fatherly) deity. The Gods in the Gilgamesh story are much more anthropomorphized in the respect that they tend to squabble and disagree with each other. They go behind each others' back to thwart the others' plans, such as how Ea told Utanapishtim to save himself and a few of each type of living being so they could survive the flood that Enlil brought about specifically to annihilate everyone and everything on Earth. The Gods are not focused on humanity in the Gilgamesh story, the Flood is not brought about by wickedness or cruelty as it is in the Genesis story. The catastrophe is released more as an arbitrary whim of Enlil than in response to anything mankind has done. Humans have much less control over their fate in that tale; the Gods do whatever they please, rather as the elements of nature they represent seem to do. Overall, I found the Gilgamesh story to be much more detailed and interesting than the Genesis story, though neither seem likely to have happened in the manner described in the myths. I definitely do think that these stories were based on some sort of catastrophic flood that happened in the fertile crescent region at some earlier point in time, though. There is actually scientific evidence that a flood of that catastrophic nature occurred around 5500 BCE when the Mediterranean Sea is theorized to have basically dumped into a freshwater lake that turned into the modern-day Black Sea. It would make sense for a number of different cultures to have Flood myths that have so many parallels originating from this event, since the flood was supposedly incredibly widespread and devastating.

Comparison

There are many differences and similarities between Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh. For instance, some differences include the detailing of Genesis, which was written for the bible ( a religious book followed by so many people that devote themselves to the teachings) while Gilgamesh was purely for storytelling, so Genesis had the noble and spiritually devoted Noah. However the epic contained imperfect people like Utanapishtim who was said to go against the god’s wishes to ignore wealth and seek living things while preparing for the flood. This is so because the bible is to instill certain morals into the readers and to do so it must present people who do the right thing getting rewarded while the wrongdoers get punished. Another difference I noticed was that in Genesis, which speaks of one God, God came around to the idea of forgiveness by himself; he was able to promise to take care of the inhabitants of the earth from the flood on. On the other hand, in Gilgamesh ( polytheistic), Enlil needed the other gods to tell him of his wrong doing and help him to come to terms with forgiving the inhabitants of the earth.

There are also similarities between the two stories. For example, both stories are very detailed when describing the building of the boat and the occurrence of the flood. Not only are the stories detailed, but they are also repetitive; this is done so the stories will stick as time goes on.

Courtney Lum

Even though Genesis and the epic of Gilgamesh dealt with the theme of flood, each had their own variances pertaining to why the flood was put into effect and how the matter of the flood was dealt with. In Genesis, God believed the human race had been living in a manner of sin and corruption, and therefore needed to be washed away from the earth. But God didn’t want to completely erase all life on the earth, just the evil and corrupt; which is why He chose righteous Noah to pave the path for new life. By creating a peaceful, righteous world void of corruption, God was renewing life; the world was being reborn.

In Gilgamesh, the Flood was also an act of cleansing, but for no such reason other than the gods (particularly Enlil) were annoyed by the noisy, overpopulated humans. Unlike the Genesis God who is omniscient and omni-benevolent, the gods in Gilgamesh possess more human-like qualities and therefore are capable of being irrational, which is why the decision to completely erase all humanity was quick and poorly planned. While the Genesis God has complete control over the flood, the gods from Gilgamesh didn’t which is what led to such frightening, catastrophic storms like tsunamis and tectonic plate movements.

Gilgamesh

The epic of Gilgamesh is an ancient epic where there is a flood caused by Gods that destroys much of Earth except for a few survivors that survive on a boat they built. In this way it is very similar to the story of Genesis in the bible. The two stories were also very different. In Genesis God creates the flood because man became wicked and evil and in Gilgamesh the Gods created the flood because they found the human race annoying. I feel like in genesis God thought he was making the world a better place by causing the flood and did it as a selfless act and in Gilgamesh the Gods did it for a selfish reason. Another difference is that God felt remorse for causing the flood in Genesis.

Gilgamesh/Genesis

The two Great Flood stories, also known as origin/creation myths, are similar in so many ways, but the motivations behind the Great Floods were vastly different. In the story of Noah’s Ark in Genesis, God deemed in necessary to cleanse the Earth from the evil and corrupt human race. God chooses Noah to build the Ark and basically “restart” the human race with all of the character and morals he possesses. However, in the epic of Gilgamesh, Anu and other gods plan to destroy the human race simply because of overpopulation and for amusement. No one is chosen to be the hero for any reason; Utanapishtim overheard Ea talking to the reed house about the flood and how to prepare for survival. But I find the fact that Ea, in a sense, purposely allowed Utanapishtim to overhear him, quite interesting. I’m not sure if he does this because he has a good heart and wants to see someone survive, or if he is simply doing this because he can’t keep a secret.
In both of the stories the dimensions of the boats to be built are very specific; however the shapes of the boats are different. In Gilgamesh, the boat is square, whereas in Genesis it is more like a rectangle. The lengths of the floods are different as well. In Gilgamesh, the flood lasts 7 days, whereas in Genesis it lasts 150 days. I think this is important to the reasoning behind the floods. God in Genesis is aiming to destroy and punish all life except for everything on The Ark and a lengthy flood is necessary for this. Since in Gilgamesh the Gods just want to have fun and kill humans for no real reason a shorter flood will suffice.
Some interesting symbolism I saw in both stories was that of peace and hope. In the Christian religion a dove symbolizes peace and hope, and after the flood in Genesis, Noah releases a dove (and a raven) in hopes of finding out the flood is over and they can leave the Ark. In Gilgamesh a dove, raven, and swallow were released for similar reasons.

Gilgamesh and Genesis

The differences between the epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible's Genesis are numerous, but the similiar theme allow for comparisons between the two. While the Bible uses the theme of the flood as a punishment in order to cleanse the sinning humanity, the epic of Gilgamesh is decidedly more vague on this point -- the exact reasons for instigating the flood seems to be not the wronging of humanity, but instead on a whim of the gods. The differences between the two could possibly indicate differences in ideologys between the two cultures, whereas the western, Christian world holds themselves accountable for all acts that occur to them; the middle eastern kingdom of Sumer however blames acts of wonton destruction on the gods and not their actions.

An interesting sidenote is the fact that the epic of Gilgamesh also utilizes a dove in order to discover land, but unlike in the Bible the bird is unsuccessful, instead the raven discovers the end of the flood. The raven is often characterized as a dark and mysterious bird, usually indicating a bad omen. Again, this could indicate differences between the two cultures; the importance of peace in the christian world while the Sumerian lands trumped the unexpected and dealing with the unknown.

Gilgamesh and Genesis

Gilgamesh and the Genesis are two stories with the same basic concept but with a lot of differences. One of the main differences between the stories is the reasoning that is given behind choosing who builds the ark. In Genesis it is stated that Noah is chosen for his character and for the quality of human being that he is, which shows to the reader that he is chosen so that this is what the human race will become, or at least what it will hopefully become. In Gilgamesh, no reason is given. There is also no reason for why the flood was brought about in Gilgamesh whereas in Genesis it is stated that the flood is brought about due to human corruption.

The Bible, Gilgamesh and the Flood

The story of the Great Flood can be found in many ancient texts such as the Bible and the epic of Gilgamesh. However, the stories in different texts have similarities and differences as we can see in the Bible and the epic of Gilgamesh. The major similarities that I found in the two texts were that the dimension of the Arks are very specifically defined in measurements and described in details. Because of these specific descriptions, readers can imagine what it was like and shows some kind of evidence of this event. Nevertheless, we can easily notice the big difference of these two stories which are not about the characters of the story or the places, but the purpose of these two events. The Mighty God in the Bible decided to bring a flood on Earth to cleanse the sin of mankind such as, violence and crime, and gave men a second chance to be prosperous on Earth. In the epic of Gilgamesh, the god Enlil wipe down the Earth with flood to keep mankind and other living creatures from overpopulating. I think that the God’s purpose was more philosophical and idealistic than Enlil’s purpose which is more realistic to understand. These differences exist because of the stories were originated from different cultures with different philosophical backgrounds.

GIlgamesh

Gilgamesh is really confusing to read. It is understandable because it is a translation of an ancient text, but it is hard to relate to. There are a lot of different Gods in this story, unlike in the Bible where there is only one God and it is a sin to worship anything else. All of the different Gods is very confusing, it seems like it isn't exact how many Gods there are and new Gods were being imagined all the time. This is comparable to Greek Mythology where there are hundreds of Gods who overlap in what they have control over. I am also confused as to why there was a flood at all in Gilgamesh, it just says "The hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the Flood" but doesn't way why. This could be that the Gods are so great that humans aren't meant to know why. It is interesting why there are different versions of the flood story, is it possible that a flood actually did happen that started all this story telling that branched off into different religions? Or is it merely symbolic and was only used as a scare tactic to keep members of the religion in line? It makes me curious about how much of the bible is actually historically accurate.

The Flood

Both of the stories of "Genesis" and "Gilgamesh" have mentioned the legend of the flood, and both contributes a lot to describe the scene vividly. The flood in both stories are talking about how the Gods intend to destroy human and how the heroes survive with a boat at the end.
According to the data, "Gilgamesh" is the first great heroic narrative of world literature, which has existed in 2700 B.C. Compare with that, the "Pentateuch"(first five books of the Bible) does not appear until 539 B.C. Therefore, the flood stories in "Genesis" and "The Epic of Gilgamesh" are very similar but still have some bifurcations due to the development of the civilization.
The difference between "Genesis" and "Gilgamesh" can be concluded as the following points. First, there exists a very different attitude about the God. It is obviously to see that the sole god in "Genesis" has absolutely centred power. Compare with that, "Gilgamesh" has variety gods in diverse positions with very similar power. Second, the reason why God inflicts the flood are quite different. Anu and other gods intend to destroy human just simply because of the overpopulation while the God in "Genesis" inflicts the flood due to his dissatisfaction with the sinner. Third, the selected heroes are different. Utanapishtim is a random selected human but Noah is selected because his faith.

Felicia Ooi; Gilgamesh - Tablets I & XI

I found reading Genesis 6 - 8 a lot easier as compared to Gilgamesh Tablets I & XI, both in terms of actually reading it as well as understanding it. There are indeed similarities between the two texts, yet at the same time they are vastly different.

Genesis 6 - 8 was primarily about God sending the flood to purify the earth of all the unclean and unrighteous people and it tells us about how Noah was the one chosen to carry out God's wishes. In that way, Noah was the clear "hero" of the story. There is a flood story in Gilgamesh as well. However, it was not Gilgamesh himself who was the hero who saved humanity from the flood; it was Utanapishtim who was chosen by Ea to save humanity and he was recounting the flood story to Gilgamesh. I felt that the main story in Tablet XI was actually Gilgamesh on a quest for immortality and the flood story was merely an explanation of how Utanapishtim attained immortality.

A similarity would be the element of repetition in both texts, though it is much clearer in Gilgamesh as many verses are repeated several times throughout the text. Reading the same phrases several times did not make the meaning of the phrases any clearer to me though. In addition to that, both texts contain very specific instructions as to how the vessel of humankind's salvation was to be built.

Only a small part of Tablet XI is actually about the flood. After the recounting of the flood, the focus of the story shifts back to Gilgamesh's quest for immortality that takes him to the ends of the earth to look for a plant that could restore youth.

The Bible is an obviously religious text that depicts God as wrathful, but also loving and merciful. Gilgamesh, on the other hand is not a religious text. It is instead a collection of stories about Gilgamesh, a cultural hero of his time and the stories are just that - stories. They have no religious basis and were possibly intended as mere entertainment for the people of that time.

Epic of Gilgamesh

Epic of Gilgamesh is almost like the story of Noah where there is a flood and a main hero (Noah/Gilgamesh).
These two stories however differ in many ways. While the story of Noah is from the bible thus teaching about the power of God and calling people to believe in God, Gilgamesh on the other hand is an epic - a mere story for fun - and it is not calling anyone to believe in any God. Another difference is that in the bible, the main reason for the flood is given as due to the sins of man from the generations of Adam and Eve but in Gilgamesh, it doesn't say explicitly the reason for the flood. Utanapishtim just tells Gilgamesh to build a boat.
These and many more can be seen as the differences between these two stories

Jenelle Fiori; The Epic of Gilgamesh

To be completely honest, I was and still am totally confused by this week's reading of The Epic of Gilgamesh Tablet I and XI. I think the majority of the confusion is from the difference in culture and the reference to religions that are beyond my understanding.

Despite the perplexity, there are still some things that I can pick out from the story, some of which I can relate to the story of Noah’s Ark, such as the specific references to the dimensions of the ship. For one thing both are such powerful and known pieces about a rebirth of a society, each depicting a huge devotion to a god. In Genesis, Noah had a devotion to one God, one who was loving, peaceful and perfect in every way. In Gilgamesh, there was evidence of a polytheistic religion where there was more than one god, none of whom were perfect and forgiving. This is also important to the relation nature to this story, evident in the description of Gilgamesh’s physical attributes; as if he were a bull and all other people were also animals for a more delicate type. Another similarity between the two is the image of immortality, such that Noah had lived for nearly five hundred years and that Gilgamesh was searching for immortality and the secrets of the gods.

The difference between the two stories is the way and reasons for the rebirth story. In Genesis, God chooses Noah to build the ship for his distinct goodness as opposed to the other evil lingering within all other human beings. The reason behind Untanapishtim getting chosen in the story of Gilgamesh is not as clear; however it seems that the reason for the gods flooding Earth is to reduce the population size and just for sheer entertainment. Each story is known for the symbolism of a bird as hope, seen in Genesis when Noah sends out a raven and two doves, the last dove returning with an olive leaf, and seen in Gilgamesh when Untanapishtim sends out a swallow, a dove and a raven, the last of which does not come back because it has found sustenance. Despite the many differences in each, the story remains relatively the same about renewing life on Earth.