[sineaste]

Dduckwessel hi,

You seem to be assuming that Adam, Eve, and Moses are historical figures and that the stories of the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan are factual. On the contrary, there is absolutely no archeological or independent historical evidence that these events ever occurred. Rather, the archeological evidence contradicts these stories. I notice that elsewhere you expressed interest in the "Bible's Buried Secrets" series and I would encourage you to view this again as the scholarship is generally quite reliable and up to date on these issues.

Most scholars, apart from highly conservative or fundamentalist commentators, date the final redaction of the Pentateuch to the time of the Babylonian Exile or shortly after. Even if we allow the traditional date for a figure called Moses actually writing Genesis (the text nowhere claims this) around 1500 BCE, the Mesopotamian flood story in the Epic of Atrahasis (c1700 BCE, and reused in the Epic of Gilgamesh around 1300 to 1000 BCE) is clearly older. Please note that we have cuneiform manuscripts dated to the above periods, but the earliest manuscripts of the Pentateuch are no older than the first to second centuries BCE (the Dead Sea Scrolls).

Among Assyriologists and scholars of the Tanakh it is widely recognized that the Genesis story of the flood is based on the older framework of the Mesopotamian flood story. Similarly, there are numerous parallels between the story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve and prior Mesopotamian works such as Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh. If you have been following this thread you will have encountered the very useful observation that Genesis did not simply "copy" or "borrow" myths from other cultures, but modified them for specific theological and polemical purposes. If the present shape of Genesis came about during or just after the exile, then there is every reason to believe that it functioned as subversive, resistance literature designed to counter Babylonian national and mythological pretensions. We shouldn't forget that the Enuma Elish is essentially a paean to the supremacy of the warrior Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, over all other gods. It's message is clear: Babylon is now the seat of kingship - the ruling power in Mesopotamia - and the centre of Mesopotamian religion. Genesis rejects the sophisticated urban culture and religion of Judah's overlords and turns stories like the civilization of a primitive (Enkidu and Shamhat), a creation story (Enuma Elish) that concludes with the elevation of Marduk and the building of a Babylonian temple, and a flood myth in which the gods destroy their captive slave workers, on their heads. This tendency is further underlined in subsequent tales of the city and ziggurat of "Babel", a patriarch who abandons a great southern Mesopotamian capital, and a national hero who leads his people out of slavery and captivity.

In summary, the key issue in the question of the close relationship between the stories of Genesis and Mesopotamia is not priority or plagiarism or historical/scientific accuracy. It has nothing to do with relative literary merits and it is not about canon or authorship or inspiration or inerrancy. However, it has everything to do with real historical circumstances and a vital message that allowed Israel to retain its unique culture and religious convictions at a time when they were in danger of being completely obliterated. Once the question of genre is better understood, it becomes obvious that Genesis was never designed to convey dry, encyclopedic information about human or even national beginnings. The truths it teaches us are those that emerge from its stories and the way they are told. It is far more humanistic than many of the Babylonian myths and, from my perspective, like any human document it is also flawed. While I may shudder at the genocidal god who sends the flood, I also understand what is happening when we are told that this god sends a flood to punish the giants and mighty ones, and that it is not just generic "wickedness" but overwhelming "violence" that prompts such drastic action. When the primitive man Enkidu is seduced, clothed, fed and generally civilized by Shamhat in the Epic of Gilgamesh he is told that he has become "wise" and "like a god". In Genesis, these words are put in the tongue of the serpent, the creature that steals the king's last chance of immortality in the older Mesopotamian epic. One is a story told by the most powerful and advanced civilization of its day, the other is told by a race of migrants, aliens and slaves. Rather than simply reject any connection between these stories out of hand, it is only when we place them side by side that we begin to appreciate the real colour, depth and distinctiveness of the biblical texts.

[dduckwessel]

sineaste, on 29 June 2011 - 02:00 AM, said:

Dduckwessel hi,

You seem to be assuming that Adam, Eve, and Moses are historical figures and that the stories of the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan are factual. On the contrary, there is absolutely no archeological or independent historical evidence that these events ever occurred. Rather, the archeological evidence contradicts these stories.

I have been looking at the archeological evidence and wondering... I don't know if you noticed on another thread (I will try to find it) someone presented a well-made documentary video. Recent archeological evidence was found (on a stone) mentioning Israelites specifically, as well as evidence for 'the house of David' and 'stone gates that Solomon had built'.

Quote

Most scholars, apart from highly conservative or fundamentalist commentators, date the final redaction of the Pentateuch to the time of the Babylonian Exile or shortly after. Even if we allow the traditional date for a figure called Moses actually writing Genesis (the text nowhere claims this) around 1500 BCE, the Mesopotamian flood story in the Epic of Atrahasis (c1700 BCE, and reused in the Epic of Gilgamesh around 1300 to 1000 BCE) is clearly older. Please note that we have cuneiform manuscripts dated to the above periods, but the earliest manuscripts of the Pentateuch are no older than the first to second centuries BCE (the Dead Sea Scrolls).

http://www.bibleorig...lanomalies.html

Yes, 'the flood' appears to be a popular story of ancient history.

Quote

Among Assyriologists and scholars of the Tanakh it is widely recognized that the Genesis story of the flood is based on the older framework of the Mesopotamian flood story. Similarly, there are numerous parallels between the story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve and prior Mesopotamian works such as Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh. If you have been following this thread you will have encountered the very useful observation that Genesis did not simply "copy" or "borrow" myths from other cultures, but modified them for specific theological and polemical purposes. If the present shape of Genesis came about during or just after the exile, then there is every reason to believe that it functioned as subversive, resistance literature designed to counter Babylonian national and mythological pretensions. We shouldn't forget that the Enuma Elish is essentially a paean to the supremacy of the warrior Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, over all other gods. It's message is clear: Babylon is now the seat of kingship - the ruling power in Mesopotamia - and the centre of Mesopotamian religion. Genesis rejects the sophisticated urban culture and religion of Judah's overlords and turns stories like the civilization of a primitive (Enkidu and Shamhat), a creation story (Enuma Elish) that concludes with the elevation of Marduk and the building of a Babylonian temple, and a flood myth in which the gods destroy their captive slave workers, on their heads. This tendency is further underlined in subsequent tales of the city and ziggurat of "Babel", a patriarch who abandons a great southern Mesopotamian capital, and a national hero who leads his people out of slavery and captivity.

I think you misunderstand me. I use a brand-new method for interpreting Bible and some Apocryphal writings (see thread on Theology, 'Method for interpreting the Bible...').

Due to the interest here I have just begun to retranslate Exodus using this method. It has taken me almost 20 years to retranslate a tenth (I think) of the Bible so far and what I have discovered is nothing like what has always been taught in religious circles. As a result of that work I can state emphatically that the OT and the NT are the same information.

Quote

In summary, the key issue in the question of the close relationship between the stories of Genesis and Mesopotamia is not priority or plagiarism or historical/scientific accuracy. It has nothing to do with relative literary merits and it is not about canon or authorship or inspiration or inerrancy. However, it has everything to do with real historical circumstances and a vital message that allowed Israel to retain its unique culture and religious convictions at a time when they were in danger of being completely obliterated. Once the question of genre is better understood, it becomes obvious that Genesis was never designed to convey dry, encyclopedic information about human or even national beginnings. The truths it teaches us are those that emerge from its stories and the way they are told. It is far more humanistic than many of the Babylonian myths and, from my perspective, like any human document it is also flawed. While I may shudder at the genocidal god who sends the flood, I also understand what is happening when we are told that this god sends a flood to punish the giants and mighty ones, and that it is not just generic "wickedness" but overwhelming "violence" that prompts such drastic action. When the primitive man Enkidu is seduced, clothed, fed and generally civilized by Shamhat in the Epic of Gilgamesh he is told that he has become "wise" and "like a god". In Genesis, these words are put in the tongue of the serpent, the creature that steals the king's last chance of immortality in the older Mesopotamian epic. One is a story told by the most powerful and advanced civilization of its day, the other is told by a race of migrants, aliens and slaves. Rather than simply reject any connection between these stories out of hand, it is only when we place them side by side that we begin to appreciate the real colour, depth and distinctiveness of the biblical texts.

And you're quite correct, I shouldn't judge the Epic of Gilgamesh so quickly for there are obvious parallels between it and the OT. I spoke out of frustration as it seemed obvious to me that Turtle had started the thread to correct me. I had actually taken another look at the Epic of Gilgmesh and was intending to take a closer look at it and other related texts but re-translation work takes up much of my time.

As I mentioned in my thread 'Method for interpreting the Bible...', a distinctive feature is the obvious figurative meanings and it seems to me that all Bible writings and matching Apocrypha follow that rule. I will post my findings but honestly it won't be in the very near future for it took me 10 years just trying to understand the translation method itself as it appears to have a duality (figurative and non) to it. I get better at it as time goes on but it is very tedious work nonetheless.

[Turtle]

dduckwessel, on 29 June 2011 - 06:01 AM, said:

...And you're quite correct, I shouldn't judge the Epic of Gilgamesh so quickly for there are obvious parallels between it and the OT. I spoke out of frustration as it seemed obvious to me that Turtle had started the thread to correct me. I had actually taken another look at the Epic of Gilgmesh and was intending to take a closer look at it and other related texts but re-translation work takes up much of my time.
...

i started the thread to stop you & your ilk from trashing our board with this mystic crap. honestly, for all the insight you claim you don't understand this simple admonition!!?? that you mention me specifically is a provocation i won't take with impunity. get out!! don't respond; just get out.