G
grannymh
Guest
Downgrading is when one reduces the flood to something symbolic.
For additional information, please see previous posts, including post 17.
Blessings,
granny
Eternal life for humans is more than a symbol.
- Status
For additional information, please see previous posts, including post 17.
Blessings,
granny
Eternal life for humans is more than a symbol.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Who is reducing the flood to something symbolic?
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for these wonderful citations. These provide a valuable perspective
to Hebrews 11:1-7. which begins: “Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.” The nitty-gritty of faith is “Therefore, stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come.” (Matthew 24:36-44)
Knowing that the flood is an actual event helps tie together the message of the Bible which is known as “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth”.
Blessings,
granny
Eternal life for humans is more than a symbol.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, there is no contradiction between saying that “Noah’s flood refers to an actual historical event” and that there is no scientific evidence that it covered the entire globe.
G
grannymh
Guest
If possible, would you please go back to the informative posts on the difference between local and global regarding the Flood? It would be so much better if you looked at the original discussions. Otherwise, I simply agree to disagree about the logic so presented since it does not represent what I said. Thank you.
Blessings,
granny
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, I don’t know to which posts you are referring. A global flood would cover the earth in 29,052 feet of water (fifteen cubits over the top of Mt. Everest); a local flood would not.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, as you know, in pre-literate cultures (including those of the Ancient Near East), oral tradition was the way in which stories, laws, customs, and other units of cultural heritage were passed down from generation to generation. One such unit descending from pre-literate, pre-historical culture was the Babylonian flood story. As different cultures inherited this story, they modified it to fit their own cultural histories. And as literate cultures developed, they modified and wrote down the flood story. What the Hebrew authors did was to retell the flood story in a way that incorporated it beautifully into the ongoing Hebrew religious experience, their theology of salvation history, or God’s saving acts for God’s people.
StAnastasia
G
grannymh
Guest
What makes Noah’s Flood different is that the Flood event is unique to a specific geographical area involving a specific group of people who have a specific role in the economy of Salvation along with their specific relationship with the Creator.
The Hebrew authors didn’t retell any old flood story nor does the New Testament refer to any old cultural flood story. There was no need to incorporate the Babylonian story or any other story. One needs to remember that the Hebrew religious experience was based on real events and real people.
Catholicism is real.
Blessings,
granny
E
edwest2
Guest
The Hebrew authors were not just integrating stories into their own experience of religion but were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. If the Hebrew writers were just writing down their own thoughts that would be one thing but all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Jesus refers to the days of Noe in the New Testament so the reference and linkage matters. He also tells us that Moses wrote concerning Him.
“Genesis does not contain purified myths.” Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909.
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I’m sorry, Granny, but they did retell the story. The beauty of it is in the Hebrew retelling of the Babylonian story.
"The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Bablylonian God Ea had decided to eliminate humans and other land animals with a great flood which was to become “the end of all flesh”. He selected Ut-Napishtim, to build an ark to save a few humans, and samples of other animals.
The Babylonian text “The Epic of Galgamesh” 1,8 and the Hebrew story are essentially identical with about 20 major points in common.
Their texts are obviously linked in some way. Either:
Genesis was copied from an earlier Babylonian story, or
The Galgamesh myth was copied from an earlier Hebrew story, or
Both were copied from a common source that predates them both.
In both the Genesis and Galgamesh stories:
The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.
The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).
The ark would be sealed with pitch.
The ark would have with many internal compartments
It would have a single door
It would have at least one window.
The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.
A great rain covered the land with water.
The mountains were initially covered with water.
The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.
The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
bullet God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.
The hero was blessed.
The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.
The were a number of differences between the two stories:
Noah received his instructions directly from Jehovah; Ut-Napishtim received them indirectly during a dream.
Noah’s ark was 3 stories high and rectangular in shape. Two estimated dimensions are 547 x 91 ft. and 450 x 75 ft. The Babylonian ark was 6 stories high and square.
Ut-Napishtim invited additional people on board: a pilot and some skilled workmen.
Noah’s ark landed on Mt. Ararat; Ut-Napishtim’sat on Mt. Nisir; these locations are both in the Middle East, and are located few hundred miles apart
In the Bible, some of the water emerged from beneath the earth. And the rains from above lasted for 40 days and nights. A 40 day interval often symbolized a period of judgment in the Hebrew Scriptures. 2 In the Babylonian account, the water came only in the form of rain, and lasted only 6 days.
Noah released a raven once and a dove twice; Ut-Napishtim released three birds: a dove, swallow and raven."
religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Ed, of course the Hebrew authors “were not just integrating stories into their own experience of religion.” They were doing much more. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Hebrew authors worked both with existing tradition and with experiences of God unique to the Hebrew tradition. The Bible is a composite document composed of literary units from many different sources. Taken as a whole, it tells the Hebrew – and later the Christian – story of salvation history.
StAnastasia
G
grannymh
Guest
Catholic teaching is that the Hebrew writers were inspired by God.
So what would be the reason for choosing pagan legends?
How could they choose pagan legends and still be faithful to God?
What does choosing pagan legends imply about pagan idols?
What is the rationale for saying that a pagan legend is part of God’s plan for salvation?
Of course, StAnastasia, I respect your right to your own personal worldview just as I respect other worldviews whether they are theist or non-theist. Consequently, I explored the link you provided.
According to the link, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is the independent group which maintains the website. Here is the first part of their statement of belief: “We are a multi-faith group. As of 2009-NOV, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters …” This is the last line from a paragraph about accuracy in the essay: “We do not regard any essay as fixed or complete.” This paragraph also encouraged readers to e-mail reports regarding errors.
In my humble opinion the essay on Noah looked like a personal summary using eight references. It did present opinions attributed to conservative Christians, liberal Christians, Agnostics and Atheists. It did not present evidence which precludes a flood in the area described by Genesis. Pagan legends should not be confused with scientific evidence. Both pagan legends can exist and the Flood can be a real event.
In my humble opinion, religious tolerance is a good thing. Learning about other people’s beliefs is a good thing. But this does not mean giving up one’s own faith in the process. Catholics must stand firm on what is taught on this link:
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Blessings,
granny
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, Im not sure where your confusion lies. No one has said there was not a flood in Mesopotamia. In fact, such a major flood could very well have been the source of the oral tradition upon which the authors of both the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Hebrew story drew.
StAnastasia
G
grannymh
Guest
Briefly. When a person denies the reality of the Flood event, I simply want proof that it was impossible for a Flood to occur. You are absolutely right, no one has said that there cannot be a Flood in the Hebrew area of the world. This means that the Flood can be a real event in the specific Hebrew area.
By the way, the provided link says, regarding the reason for the pagan flood: “In the Babylonian story, they [mankind] were too numerous and noisy.” That is quite a bit different than mankind choosing to leave God’s friendship via sin and wickedness.
The oral tradition of the Epic of Gilgamesh is pagan. So what would be the reason for choosing a pagan legend as a basis for God inspired Scripture? I know. It is because there were rain and floods in the pagan area of the world.
Everyone is free to choose their own worldview. This is one of the many spiritual truths in the story of the Flood.
Blessings,
granny
www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org
www.CatholicsComeHome.org
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You’re quite right. The rationale for the gods sending the flood in the *Epic of Gilgamesh *appears to have been quite trivial compared with the rationale for God sending the flood in the Hebrew recension of the story, where the authors have integrated it seamlessly into salvation history
C
crazzeto
Guest
God being the author, it’s natural that it would fit so seamlessly in to salvation history
L
lao_tzu
Guest
Hello Krazy,
I share you interest in other thoughts on this new translation. I’ve taken the liberty of searching out the responsible curator at the British Museum listed in the article and sent off the following email a few minutes ago:
Hello Dr. Finkel,
I ran into a news story with the above title last week, as reported in Sphere (an AOL news organization) and linked on an online discussion board. The article itself, by Theunis Bates, is almost painful to read, with its numerous novel spellings of Atra-Hasis, and lack of meaningful detail.
It does mention you, however, and it does mention that the tablet, newly translated, was “passed to the museum by the son of a British Air Force man, who picked it up while serving in the Middle East during World War II.” This caught my eye, as it doesn’t fit the description of the early 20th century digs, with artifacts split between the University of Pennsylvania and a Turkish museum, as described by Samuel Noah Kramer, which served as the source for his accounts of the earliest versions of the epic.
Now I’m a huge fan of the late Professor Kramer’s books, and generally interested in all things Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Gutian, and Babylonian, but I’m afraid too much of my information about this history is taken from wikipedia and the internet. I’m especially interested in the most ancient writings. I was hoping you might be interested in lending a hand to an amateur. As much as I’d like to spend more time on my “Sumerian” hobby, I really can’t afford to spend much time with primary literature, and my own searches for popular literature too often turn up either extremely dated material from the early 20th century or “new age” dreck. Would it be possible for you to create a “top ten” reading list to help me fill in some gaps?
Bates writes, “While translating a 3,700-year-old clay tablet inscribed with Babylonian cuneiform script …” This sounds like something that might have come out of Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh, portions of which I believe are in the possession of the British Museum. Is Bates’ account accurate? Was it written in “Babylonian”? Using what alphabet? How was it dated? (I suspect those last two questions are linked.) Is this an entirely new translation or is it an expansion on earlier attempts? How many other versions of this epic have been found? I’m not quite sure where my questions begin, but I’d be grateful for any additional detail you could give me. If you’re writing this up for a journal or have already published it, I’d very much like a copy of either the article or a preprint.
I’d also like your permission to share any details you choose to share with me about this new translation if the opportunity arises.
Best regards,
Jesse [deleted to preserve anonymity]
I’m hesitant to speculate further at this point, but “fools rush in,” so they say. My impression is that this new translation is from a variation of the Epic of Atrahasis, and the author substituted a coracle for the standard “hyper-barge” described in other versions. This tale featuring Atrahasis, “the most wise,” is linked with the ancient city of Shurrupak on the Sumerian King’s list, which was also the location of the very earliest version of the flood tale. The Epic of Ziusudra originated a full millennium earlier than the Babylonian versions, written in a language from an entirely non-semitic family and a widely divergent script, and is also linked to Shurrupak. Some version of both of these found their way into the Epic of Gilgamesh as well.
Whether one believes, as I do, that these tales are the progenitors of the biblical tale, it’s hard to argue that the common details we use to link the ancient Mesopotamian tales together aren’t convincing. Virtually none of the fine points of these tales, from the original godly warning to the final sacrifice on a high place, are duplicated in any of the other flood tales around the earth. The boat itself, the gathering of animals and family, the single door, the window used to release birds — these are all there in all of these tales, and only these tales. And the biblical tale, too, of course. Nearly all include directions for the building the boat, and the one that does not, the earliest, has an eroded section spanning about 37 lines where that description would be. This tale got around.
It was common religious practice in the ancient near east to take an existing story and “re-purpose” it to serve the needs of a new religious community. I can’t think of any reason why this wouldn’t have been true of the early Israelites as well. Moreover, I don’t believe there’s any theological necessity to show otherwise. These tales served as extended idiom for the original authors, no more notable for the relative inaccuracy of their details than we note that the sun “rises,” when in fact it is the earth that turns. The story remains a story of a relationship between man and the divine that does not require “historical accuracy” any more than one of Jesus’ parables.
It’s how they talked back then. It doesn’t have much relation to what they were saying. Frankly, I expect people back then were just as sceptically sensitive to tales from far away and long ago as we are. When you or I speak of King Arthur, there’s an academic interest in knowing if such a king actually existed, but it doesn’t interfere with appreciating the sentiments it expresses. If the bible is inspired, the inspiration is directed elsewhere, not toward removing or supporting false histories and cosmogonies, but toward preserving the spiritual bond between humans and their gods.
As ever, Jesse
I share you interest in other thoughts on this new translation. I’ve taken the liberty of searching out the responsible curator at the British Museum listed in the article and sent off the following email a few minutes ago:
Hello Dr. Finkel,
I ran into a news story with the above title last week, as reported in Sphere (an AOL news organization) and linked on an online discussion board. The article itself, by Theunis Bates, is almost painful to read, with its numerous novel spellings of Atra-Hasis, and lack of meaningful detail.
It does mention you, however, and it does mention that the tablet, newly translated, was “passed to the museum by the son of a British Air Force man, who picked it up while serving in the Middle East during World War II.” This caught my eye, as it doesn’t fit the description of the early 20th century digs, with artifacts split between the University of Pennsylvania and a Turkish museum, as described by Samuel Noah Kramer, which served as the source for his accounts of the earliest versions of the epic.
Now I’m a huge fan of the late Professor Kramer’s books, and generally interested in all things Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Gutian, and Babylonian, but I’m afraid too much of my information about this history is taken from wikipedia and the internet. I’m especially interested in the most ancient writings. I was hoping you might be interested in lending a hand to an amateur. As much as I’d like to spend more time on my “Sumerian” hobby, I really can’t afford to spend much time with primary literature, and my own searches for popular literature too often turn up either extremely dated material from the early 20th century or “new age” dreck. Would it be possible for you to create a “top ten” reading list to help me fill in some gaps?
Bates writes, “While translating a 3,700-year-old clay tablet inscribed with Babylonian cuneiform script …” This sounds like something that might have come out of Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh, portions of which I believe are in the possession of the British Museum. Is Bates’ account accurate? Was it written in “Babylonian”? Using what alphabet? How was it dated? (I suspect those last two questions are linked.) Is this an entirely new translation or is it an expansion on earlier attempts? How many other versions of this epic have been found? I’m not quite sure where my questions begin, but I’d be grateful for any additional detail you could give me. If you’re writing this up for a journal or have already published it, I’d very much like a copy of either the article or a preprint.
I’d also like your permission to share any details you choose to share with me about this new translation if the opportunity arises.
Best regards,
Jesse [deleted to preserve anonymity]
I’m hesitant to speculate further at this point, but “fools rush in,” so they say. My impression is that this new translation is from a variation of the Epic of Atrahasis, and the author substituted a coracle for the standard “hyper-barge” described in other versions. This tale featuring Atrahasis, “the most wise,” is linked with the ancient city of Shurrupak on the Sumerian King’s list, which was also the location of the very earliest version of the flood tale. The Epic of Ziusudra originated a full millennium earlier than the Babylonian versions, written in a language from an entirely non-semitic family and a widely divergent script, and is also linked to Shurrupak. Some version of both of these found their way into the Epic of Gilgamesh as well.
Whether one believes, as I do, that these tales are the progenitors of the biblical tale, it’s hard to argue that the common details we use to link the ancient Mesopotamian tales together aren’t convincing. Virtually none of the fine points of these tales, from the original godly warning to the final sacrifice on a high place, are duplicated in any of the other flood tales around the earth. The boat itself, the gathering of animals and family, the single door, the window used to release birds — these are all there in all of these tales, and only these tales. And the biblical tale, too, of course. Nearly all include directions for the building the boat, and the one that does not, the earliest, has an eroded section spanning about 37 lines where that description would be. This tale got around.
It was common religious practice in the ancient near east to take an existing story and “re-purpose” it to serve the needs of a new religious community. I can’t think of any reason why this wouldn’t have been true of the early Israelites as well. Moreover, I don’t believe there’s any theological necessity to show otherwise. These tales served as extended idiom for the original authors, no more notable for the relative inaccuracy of their details than we note that the sun “rises,” when in fact it is the earth that turns. The story remains a story of a relationship between man and the divine that does not require “historical accuracy” any more than one of Jesus’ parables.
It’s how they talked back then. It doesn’t have much relation to what they were saying. Frankly, I expect people back then were just as sceptically sensitive to tales from far away and long ago as we are. When you or I speak of King Arthur, there’s an academic interest in knowing if such a king actually existed, but it doesn’t interfere with appreciating the sentiments it expresses. If the bible is inspired, the inspiration is directed elsewhere, not toward removing or supporting false histories and cosmogonies, but toward preserving the spiritual bond between humans and their gods.
As ever, Jesse
L
lao_tzu
Guest
Hello granny,
This specific Hebrew area, meaning early Israel at the time the bible was written, is a long way from Mesopotamia physically, but remarkably close culturally. At one time or another during the course of biblical history, they were under the control of the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and even the Persians. Only briefly could they claim to have been independent. They knew each other’s tales and borrowed from them freely.
The reality of any proposed flood event matching the biblical flood story depends on where, exactly, such a flood occurred in place and time, and the limits of its extent. The biblical timeline suggests a flood somewhere during the middle or late third millennium BCE, between 2400 and 2200 perhaps. If transmitted through an actual Abraham of Ur, the flood plain between the Tigris and Euphrates is the likely location. While there are numerous large floods in the region during this period, the continuity of settlement in the cities of the area shows that the extent must have been quite limited. It’s difficult to imagine that the tale of such a limited flood could have displaced the widely known Mesopotamian flood tale that is situated instead at least five hundred years earlier.
The last truly devastating floods in the region occurred in the late fourth millennium.
While the Epic of Gilgamesh undoubtedly began as an oral tradition, it did so inside a literate society and survived fairly intact over many centuries, transmitted and recopied within their temple schools.By the way, the provided link says, regarding the reason for the pagan flood: “In the Babylonian story, they [mankind] were too numerous and noisy.” That is quite a bit different than mankind choosing to leave God’s friendship via sin and wickedness.
The oral tradition of the Epic of Gilgamesh is pagan. So what would be the reason for choosing a pagan legend as a basis for God inspired Scripture? I know. It is because there were rain and floods in the pagan area of the world.
I agree that’s a far different “purpose” for the biblical tale, and I suspect that’s sufficient reason for including it. When everyone “knows” a flood occurred in the past because people had become too numerous and noisy, and one wants to tell a different story about the relationship between humans and the divine, there’s some re-education required. Abraham’s family was pagan, too. This is where they came from. This is what they “knew.”
Perhaps, if it was written today, the priesthood of Israel would send out some archaeologists to determine if the flood of Shurrupak ever happened, but at the time it made more sense to simply incorporate it with a lesson about a new spiritual understanding. The muslims do this, too, in the qur’an. But their primary message in their take on the flood is that Nuh (Noah) was only interested in proclaiming that “God is one.” Their idea of the great “sin” of his people was that they ascribed “partners” to their god.
As ever, Jesse
G
grannymh
Guest
Briefly.
I am looking forward to the reply to your e-mail.
I am not sure that Abraham’s family could be considered pagan unless the old definition–a person living outside of one’s own village-- is applied.
The more I read about the different floods, including a reference to a flood story in a compilation of Alaskan native legends, the more I think that there is a universal link beyond rain and flowing water. Maybe the link is the universal human nature which seeks understanding of what is beyond human nature.
I am rereading, etc,. Post 38.
Blessings,
granny
Eternal life is the goal of human life.
E
edwest2
Guest
It is not valid to compare the Bible to pagan accounts. It was written by men guided by the Holy Spirit. If other cultures wrote of this event, fine, but that is outside of its purpose from the standpoint of transmitting truth from God.
Peace,
Ed
- Status