What does Christine Hayes have to say that is of value to the Archaeology discussion? Are you actually going to answer a question and engage in a discussion this time?
I finally finished the paper a few weeks ago. My doc tried to switch my blood pressure meds from pills to a patch. I had an adverse reaction that put me down for too much time.
One of the greatest things I learned was how much later the writing was done than I had before imagined. The first few chapters of Genesis assumed the form in which we have them today after the Judean scholars had been carried off in 587 BCE. In some respects, the creation accounts in Genesis 1&2 are refutations of the Enuma Elish, which the exiled scholars would have seen performed every New Years Day during the 70 years they were in captivity at Babylon. The Enuma Elish was the Mesopotamian creation myth.
While the Judean scholars were writing about the tower of Babel, they were right there in Babylon, seeing the great ziggurat before them every day. The last night before finishing my paper, I found a copy of a Mesopotamian story called Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. Enmerkar was the founder of a small Mesopotamian empire... a city that ruled over several smaller towns. (There was no Nimrod in the historical records. Nimrod was a generic example of the multitude of founders of city states in the Land of Shinar. Enmerkar was such a founder.) Enmerkar was building a ziggurat, and he needed to get materials from one of his vassal towns, a place called Aratta. Enmerkar sent a messenger to the boss-man of Aratta saying "Send me this stuff I need." One of the things Enmerkar did was have his messenger sing the Incantation to Nidimmud, asking the god Enki to restore linguistic unity to the land of Shinar.
What this tells us is that the rulers of city-state empires in Mesopotamia were having trouble whipping their subjects into line because of the linguistic differences within their empires. The fellow whole wrote the account in Genesis of the tower of Babel must have been poking his finger in the eyes of the gods of Mesopotamia, Nidimmud and Enki in particular, saying "It was OUR GOD who confused YOUR languages, just to give you trouble!"
I see no reason to believe that any of it ever happened. Maybe when we start getting into Abraham, but anything before that comes off as entirely mythical. No? Is there evidence to suggest it's anything other than myth?
Myth is truth expressed through simile and metaphor rather than through propositional statements. Myth expresses poetic knowledge.
Depending on how a person defines "accuracy", poetic knowledge is more accurate than propositional knowledge because it is closer to human experience than propositional knowledge is. For instance, science can only speak about experiences that are repeatable, but reality is that nothing is ever genuinely 100% repeatable. In some very important respects, there are some aspects of ordinary human experience that science cannot address at all, or has very difficult times addressing. An example is neuro-chemisty. There are a number of illnesses categorized as mental. There are a number of drugs that do various things with the balances of neurotransmitters. Yet there is no way to "scientifically" match the drugs with the illnesses. To arrive at the proper prescriptions, the doctors have to resort to trial and error, and they have to rely on the patients' descriptions of their experiences (through simile and metaphor) to arrive at the proper drug and proper dosage. And it's DIFFERENT for EVERY patient!
You make a distinction between myth and history. That's valid, but what is our definition of "history"? Have you ever heard of The Doomed History of the Deuteronomist? I can't say that I know much about it, but the Deuteronomist had distinct views about what constituted history that probably did overlap with ours in certain ways, but differed in others.
For instance, there is no "Nimrod" in the historical record, but there must have been scores if not hundreds of Enmerkars. If the Deuteronomist rolled all those Enmerkars into one Nimrod, can we truly say then that there is no historical basis for Nimrod?
I agree with you that Abraham is probably the first human being in Genesis that we would characterize as "historical", but I think there was an historical basis for the story of the flood, though not a worldwide flood of "Biblical" proportions. Sometime after the last ice age, Lake Agassiz flowed out and raised the level of the oceans by many meters. Doggerland in northern Europe was flooded and the basin of what is now the Black Sea may have been filled by a catastrophic inrush from the raising sea level. That event may have been the basis of the flood legends in Mesopotamia and Europe. The protagonist of the Mesopotamian myth (Mesopotamia is the land of Shinar in Genesis) was a fellow named Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh epic. The protagonist of the Greek myth was Deucalion. I think Noah was a mythic refutation of the myth of Utnapishtim. I think it would be wonderful if a bunch of fundamentalists found an ark on top of Mount Ararat, and the name plate on it said "Utnapishtim" or "Deucalion."
I agree with you very much that the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis is very, very wrong, but I think there are other ways to interpret Genesis that can be very, very right.
I like you, Raf, and value your input! You raise questions we all need to consider deeply. The fact that we may come to different answers to those questions doesn't detract from their value!
Love,
Steve
P.S. - If you can describe quantum reality in terms other than those of mathematics or myth, I'd like to read what you come up with!!! :-)
P.P.S. - I have some notes in my possession that I made some 40 or so years ago, when I was actively involved in the US Navy Nuclear Power Program, a good five or six years before I ever even heard of TWI, regarding the relation between myth and math!
I find the bulk of this discussion unnecessarily complicated. Enjoy pursuing it if you must. I think you answered my question in simple terms, and I'll just be satisfied with leaving it at that.
I just don't think my question was so ethereal that it required the word "quantum" to answer. Everyone knew what I meant, the answer was obvious, and everything else is smoke and mirrors. Sorry, but it's frustrating.
Understanding that Genesis is not history but mythology changes things for a lot of Christians, who now have to ask, "well, in what sense is it true?" THEN you can get into all of the business we're talking about here.
The notion that the Biblical flood was inspired by something that actually took place... I mean, come on, no duh! 95 percent of fiction fits that category. That doesn't mean it deserves the label "based on a true story." The question being raised (mostly on another thread) is whether the flood described in Genesis actually happened, not whether some other flood happened that inspired the writer of Genesis to plagiarize write a fictional account featuring a 600-year-old ship builder and his childbearing age daughters-in-law.
I'm going to stop writing before I get rude and/or off-topic.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on your achaeology class, Steve.
Recommended Posts
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Steve, is this in response to the recent movie on Noah?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Thomas, look at the dates. Steve posted well before Raf's latest thread on Genesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Any updates?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Study Christine Hayes view on how the bible was written.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Will there be refreshments?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What does Christine Hayes have to say that is of value to the Archaeology discussion? Are you actually going to answer a question and engage in a discussion this time?
Interesting article by Christine Hayes regarding the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I finally finished the paper a few weeks ago. My doc tried to switch my blood pressure meds from pills to a patch. I had an adverse reaction that put me down for too much time.
One of the greatest things I learned was how much later the writing was done than I had before imagined. The first few chapters of Genesis assumed the form in which we have them today after the Judean scholars had been carried off in 587 BCE. In some respects, the creation accounts in Genesis 1&2 are refutations of the Enuma Elish, which the exiled scholars would have seen performed every New Years Day during the 70 years they were in captivity at Babylon. The Enuma Elish was the Mesopotamian creation myth.
While the Judean scholars were writing about the tower of Babel, they were right there in Babylon, seeing the great ziggurat before them every day. The last night before finishing my paper, I found a copy of a Mesopotamian story called Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. Enmerkar was the founder of a small Mesopotamian empire... a city that ruled over several smaller towns. (There was no Nimrod in the historical records. Nimrod was a generic example of the multitude of founders of city states in the Land of Shinar. Enmerkar was such a founder.) Enmerkar was building a ziggurat, and he needed to get materials from one of his vassal towns, a place called Aratta. Enmerkar sent a messenger to the boss-man of Aratta saying "Send me this stuff I need." One of the things Enmerkar did was have his messenger sing the Incantation to Nidimmud, asking the god Enki to restore linguistic unity to the land of Shinar.
What this tells us is that the rulers of city-state empires in Mesopotamia were having trouble whipping their subjects into line because of the linguistic differences within their empires. The fellow whole wrote the account in Genesis of the tower of Babel must have been poking his finger in the eyes of the gods of Mesopotamia, Nidimmud and Enki in particular, saying "It was OUR GOD who confused YOUR languages, just to give you trouble!"
Well, it's been a lot of fun!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I see no reason to believe that any of it ever happened. Maybe when we start getting into Abraham, but anything before that comes off as entirely mythical. No? Is there evidence to suggest it's anything other than myth?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
What IS myth? And why should it be inferior to propositional knowledge?
And apart from the language of mathematics, can quantum reality be expressed as anything other than myth?
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Myth as opposed to history.
George Washington, first president of the United States, is history.
George Washington, confessed to chopping down his dad's cherry tree, is myth.
Yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Myth is truth expressed through simile and metaphor rather than through propositional statements. Myth expresses poetic knowledge.
Depending on how a person defines "accuracy", poetic knowledge is more accurate than propositional knowledge because it is closer to human experience than propositional knowledge is. For instance, science can only speak about experiences that are repeatable, but reality is that nothing is ever genuinely 100% repeatable. In some very important respects, there are some aspects of ordinary human experience that science cannot address at all, or has very difficult times addressing. An example is neuro-chemisty. There are a number of illnesses categorized as mental. There are a number of drugs that do various things with the balances of neurotransmitters. Yet there is no way to "scientifically" match the drugs with the illnesses. To arrive at the proper prescriptions, the doctors have to resort to trial and error, and they have to rely on the patients' descriptions of their experiences (through simile and metaphor) to arrive at the proper drug and proper dosage. And it's DIFFERENT for EVERY patient!
You make a distinction between myth and history. That's valid, but what is our definition of "history"? Have you ever heard of The Doomed History of the Deuteronomist? I can't say that I know much about it, but the Deuteronomist had distinct views about what constituted history that probably did overlap with ours in certain ways, but differed in others.
For instance, there is no "Nimrod" in the historical record, but there must have been scores if not hundreds of Enmerkars. If the Deuteronomist rolled all those Enmerkars into one Nimrod, can we truly say then that there is no historical basis for Nimrod?
I agree with you that Abraham is probably the first human being in Genesis that we would characterize as "historical", but I think there was an historical basis for the story of the flood, though not a worldwide flood of "Biblical" proportions. Sometime after the last ice age, Lake Agassiz flowed out and raised the level of the oceans by many meters. Doggerland in northern Europe was flooded and the basin of what is now the Black Sea may have been filled by a catastrophic inrush from the raising sea level. That event may have been the basis of the flood legends in Mesopotamia and Europe. The protagonist of the Mesopotamian myth (Mesopotamia is the land of Shinar in Genesis) was a fellow named Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh epic. The protagonist of the Greek myth was Deucalion. I think Noah was a mythic refutation of the myth of Utnapishtim. I think it would be wonderful if a bunch of fundamentalists found an ark on top of Mount Ararat, and the name plate on it said "Utnapishtim" or "Deucalion."
I agree with you very much that the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis is very, very wrong, but I think there are other ways to interpret Genesis that can be very, very right.
I like you, Raf, and value your input! You raise questions we all need to consider deeply. The fact that we may come to different answers to those questions doesn't detract from their value!
Love,
Steve
P.S. - If you can describe quantum reality in terms other than those of mathematics or myth, I'd like to read what you come up with!!! :-)
P.P.S. - I have some notes in my possession that I made some 40 or so years ago, when I was actively involved in the US Navy Nuclear Power Program, a good five or six years before I ever even heard of TWI, regarding the relation between myth and math!
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I find the bulk of this discussion unnecessarily complicated. Enjoy pursuing it if you must. I think you answered my question in simple terms, and I'll just be satisfied with leaving it at that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
As they say on another popular web site, "Explain it like I'm 5."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I just don't think my question was so ethereal that it required the word "quantum" to answer. Everyone knew what I meant, the answer was obvious, and everything else is smoke and mirrors. Sorry, but it's frustrating.
Understanding that Genesis is not history but mythology changes things for a lot of Christians, who now have to ask, "well, in what sense is it true?" THEN you can get into all of the business we're talking about here.
The notion that the Biblical flood was inspired by something that actually took place... I mean, come on, no duh! 95 percent of fiction fits that category. That doesn't mean it deserves the label "based on a true story." The question being raised (mostly on another thread) is whether the flood described in Genesis actually happened, not whether some other flood happened that inspired the writer of Genesis to plagiarize write a fictional account featuring a 600-year-old ship builder and his childbearing age daughters-in-law.
I'm going to stop writing before I get rude and/or off-topic.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on your achaeology class, Steve.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.