4 ms·
My current stance on that is that the account in Genesis is older than the Babylonian version, despite not having yet discovered any written record of the forme
by elwell 7y ago
My current stance on that is that the account in Genesis is older than the Babylonian version, despite not having yet discovered any written record of the former older than the latter. And again, that the Genesis story was passed orally for some time, and many cultures appropriated and molded it to reinforce the divine power of their government. As discussed in the previous post, I'm biased because of personal experience. Though for precedence, consider how the 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls brought a written record that was a millennium older than any other known at the time (I don't know much about archaeology, but I think that's accurate).
And another example of archaeological discovery affirming Biblical accounts after a period of doubt (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Biblical_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Biblical_background):
> Before the archeological discoveries that revealed the Hittite civilization, the only source of information about the Hittites had been the Old Testament. Francis William Newman expressed the critical view, common in the early 19th century, that, "no Hittite king could have compared in power to the King of Judah...".[10]
From the link you shared, this theory would be interesting to explore:
> Based on an analysis of proper names in the texts A.T. Clay proposed that the Enuma Elish was a combination of a Semitic myth from Amurru and a Sumerian myth from Eridu—this theory is thought to lack solidity, and specifically any historical or archaeological evidence.
- eesmith 7y agoIt feels like you've shifted the topic. Earlier you wrote "simply the fact that Genesis 1 describes a process at all, seems like a prescient paradigm." I commented that it cannot be seen as a prescient paradigm because earlier texts describe a similar paradigm. You correctly point out that the Genesis story can be older than Genesis 1. Which I agree with, since I think the Enuma Elish is the same Genesis story. Or rather, the Genesis account "[borrowed] themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapt[ed] them to the Israelite people's belief in one God" ( Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative ). I also agree with the concept since the Biblical flood narrative is believed to have been written nearly 1,000 years after older written Mesopotamian flood myths - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Mythologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Mythologies . Any argument for older precedence must also consider that Mesopotamian mythology is also almost certainly far older. However, you still can't argue that the Genesis 1 description seems a prescient paradigm. At best you can say is that you believe there are centuries older accounts which match the Genesis 1 description and which, if found, would be a prescient paradigm. But the complexity of that statement doesn't fit your "simply the fact" comment. > And another example of archaeological discovery affirming Biblical accounts after a period of doubt (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Biblical_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Biblical_background): Was all of The Illiad correct because Troy was found? Note also that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hittites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hittites comments about ongoing "debates about possible identities between the Anatolian Hittite Empire and the biblical Hittites".