There exist many similarities between “Genesis” and “The Epic of Gilgamesh”. One of those similarities is the use of a female figure as the cause of enlightenment between good and evil. This similarity is shown by the lines “The women, whom you gave by me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate” (A, 23) from “Genesis” and “Eat the food … as is the custom of the land” (A, 65) from “The Epic of Gilgamesh.” In “Genesis”, Eve offered Adam the apple from the forbidden tree and Adam ate it. Eating the apple expose Adam and Eve to the good and evil that exists in the world. Similarly, the Harlot’s offering of the bread and wine eventually lead to Enkidu being “enlightened” of the good and evil that exists in the world, when previously, he had only the instinct to survive.
There is also a difference between the losses of paradise cause by a female figure. Eve was tricked into taking the apple from the forbidden tree by a snake. Her driving force in taking the apple and eating it was due to her curiosity to know whether God or the snake was right. The Harlot was sent by Gilgamesh for the purpose of “civilizing” Enkidu. The major factor in the Harlot’s success was her capability to take advantage of Enkidu’s sexual urges and using it to gain his trust.
Does Enkidu consider his animal state a paradise? Does he believe that Shamhat has caused him a great loss? He considers these questions at the moment of his death on pp. 80-81; you might want to review those passages before claiming that Enkidu lost a paradise.
Does Shamhat, or anyone else in the text, perceive having sexual relations, wearing clothes, eating bread and drinking wine — the human and civilized conduct into which Shanhat initiaties Enkidu — as evil?
It is certainly correct to say that “the wild” in the epic of Gilgamesh is anything but paradisiacal. Neither is civilization, as embodied in the city state of Uruk, viewed as evil.
That’s all fine, so long as the obvious connection between the two texts is not denied. While it would be overstating the case to claim direct dependence, we find a very similar cluster of ideas and themes in the two tales.
Firstly, Enkidu is a primeval man like Adam, created by the gods. Secondly, his relationship to animals is highlighted. Thirdly, he moves from one state of being to another as a result of his temptation by the woman. This state is described in both texts as “[becoming] like a god”. Both texts speak of the man becoming “wise” as a result. Fourthly, the man and woman both clothe themselves after their experience. Fifthly, the woman invites the man to eat food that he has not tasted before. Finally, the couple move from one realm to another as the episode comes to a close.
Like the flood story, it seems that Genesis is in dialogue with an older Mesopotamian tradition. Whereas in Gilgamesh the journey away from the wild to the city is viewed as a great step forward, in Genesis when the couple leave their “garden” home it is depicted as a tragic loss of innocence. The city in Genesis is embodied in the tower of Babel and later on in the national story as a place of captivity and hardship. The serpent in the biblical story has lied and Genesis has turned the Babylonian template on its head.
Incidentally, frequent scholarly suggestions of sexual innuendo in the story of the garden of Eden seem to be supported by its links to Gilgamesh.