• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Bible Allegorical or Literal?

joelr

Well-Known Member
I don't say that the Bible flood story came before the Gilgamesh tale. I just say they both recall a gigantic flood.
I do deny that the completely different creation story of Genesis (and yes there is only one creation story there) is a copy of the Babylonian Enuma Elish and was not written in the Exile. The writing in the Exile comes from believing there was no conquest (dealt with in last post to you about the different archaeological conclusions about Jericho) and the documentary hypothesis which seems to be still around even though I thought it was debunked ages ago.
PhD OT experts all agree the intertextuality demonstrates that Genesis was written in response to the Mesopotamian myths.
They also agree that there are 2 creation and flood stories. There are no archaeological conclusions that disagree, source an archaeologist.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Right, like I said, that isn't what it means - "The formal meaning does, though, help us get to the origin of the phrase itself."
beg the question is a phrase from formal logic. We have Aristotle to thank for it—or, actually, an anonymous 16th century translator who took Aristotle's phrase petitio principii and rendered it in English as "beg the question." A better translation would have been "assume the conclusion," as linguist Mark Liberman at Language Log explains; petitio principii is used to name the logical fallacy in which an argument assumes the very thing it's trying to prove. Here's an example:
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I don't believe that. I think Mesopotamian stories are more probably reworking of the stories that are collected in the Bible. And also, it may be that the stories are independently done without reworking.
It's the consensus among biblical scholarship. Not believing something doesn't make it true. Have you studies what work scholarship has done, have you even looked at other myths?

Was Genesis "Stolen" from Pagan







5:30 -
2 stories from Gilamesh widely considered by scholars to have variously influenced Genesis


6:19 - obvious literary parallels


7:29 - wouldn’t a simpler explanation be that there were just a few similarities? No and this is a ridiculous caricature of consensus scholarly views about Genesis.


9:25 - techniques for understanding borrowing (not with point by point precision), scholars study clever and more subtle use of language. Must recognize how authors intently and unintentionally crafted narratives.


Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method







10:45 snake in Eden is a standard literary device seen in fables of this era


(10:25 - snake not Satan, no Satan in Hebrew Bible)





14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story





25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons


26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)





36:20 2 flood stories in Genesis, or contradictions and doublets.


Yahweh/Elohim, rain/cosmic waters flowing,





40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured


Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.


Genesis 1/2 use different terms for gender


Genesis 1/2 use different names, description and style for God





Both stories have distinctive styles, vocabulary, themes, placed side by side. Flood stories are interwoven.


Genesis to 2nd Kings entire historical saga is repeated again in Chronicles.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I don't believe that. I think Mesopotamian stories are more probably reworking of the stories that are collected in the Bible. And also, it may be that the stories are independently done without reworking.

Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary


Thomas L. Brodie


Abstract -

(3) Genesis illustrates intertextuality; its sources include extant documents, especially from Mesopotamia, from Judea (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel), and from western Asia (Homer's Odyssey).




Genesis/Enuma Elish

The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.


Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.


Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.




Myths


Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages.


The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim—properly griffins rather than angels—was known to the Canaanites. In the Bible, however, this mythical garden of the gods becomes the scene of man’s fall and the background of a story designed to account for the natural limitations of human life. Similarly, the Babylonians told of the formation of humankind from clay. But, whereas in the pagan tale the first man’s function is to serve as an earthly menial of the gods, in the scriptural version his role is to rule over all other creatures. The story of the Deluge, including the elements of the ark and the dispatch of the raven and dove, appears already in the Babylonian myths of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. There, however, the hero is eventually made immortal, whereas in the Bible this detail is omitted because, to the Israelite mind, no child of woman could achieve that status. Lastly, while the story of the Tower of Babel was told originally to account for the stepped temples (ziggurats) of Babylonia, to the Hebrew writer its purpose is simply to inculcate the moral lesson that humans should not aspire beyond their assigned station.
 
Top