Originally posted by WulebgrFrom http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm
I did not claim the tablets are older than oral accounts. I claimed the Babylonian tablets are older than any written Hebrew texts. Both sets of texts are based on oral traditions. Of course the oral traditions are older than the texts.
Your requests for more examples of Hebrew borrowing would take more time than I can give it today; perhaps another day. ...[text shortened]... cularly when plagues, famines, and wars strike, with the accompanying socio-cultural disruption.
Which Came First Noah or Ut-Napishtim?
The Babylonian tablets which contain the full story of the flood have been dated circa 650 BCE. However, portions of the story have been found on tablets from about 2000 BCE. A study of the language used in the tablets indicates that the story originated much earlier than 2000 BCE. Variations of the original story have been found translated into other ancient languages.
Many conservative Christians believe that the flood occurred in 2349 BCE, and that the account in Genesis was written by Moses in the 1450's BCE, shortly before his death. Thus, the Babylonian text must be a corrupted version based on a Paganized adaptation of the true story in Genesis. Alternately, it might be an independent attempt at describing the world-wide flood.
Liberal theologians, noting the different names used to refer to God, and the different writing styles throughout the Penaeuch (first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures), believe that Genesis was assembled over a 4 century interval, circa 950 to 540 BCE by authors from a variety of traditions.
Since conservative Christians consider the the flood to have occurred in 2349 BCE, the story,
necessarily cannot be older than that. However, written accounts of the Babylonian
version come from ~2000 BCE. One can safely assume that the oral tradition is much older
(as it is in the Christian understanding). So, conservative Christians have to either conclude
that the Babylonians wrote down the story in a corrupt form a few hundred years after it
happened, or question the dating for the stone tablets upon which the story is found.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Wulebgr
I did not claim the tablets are older than oral accounts. I claimed the Babylonian tablets are older than any written Hebrew texts. Both sets of texts are based on oral traditions. Of course the oral traditions are older than the texts.
Well granted 🙂 The masoretic text for instance originated only in 1000 AD, the Septuagint, 300BC. The Oral tradition obviously pre-dates any written scripts, yet we know the tremendous emphasis placed on accuracy of transmission. There is no doubt, nor do I believe there ever was any doubt over whether the first of Noah's accounts would have been transmitted via the Oral Tradition.
Your requests for more examples of Hebrew borrowing would take more time than I can give it today; perhaps another day.
That is perfectly alright. I've probably read the most obvious one's already. I take more interest in Gilgamesh than some of the others stated (eg: by Homer), particularly due to relative accuracy of Gilgamesh.
If you have some extra-biblical evidence to support your claim that the Hebrew oral tradition is more ancient than Babylonian oral traditions, post it. So far your claims have been rooted in your understanding of the biblical texts, not in evidence for the antiquity of those texts.
The majority of Biblical scrolls have been incorporated into the Bible. As such, you may struggle to find references to Jesus not already in the Bible. Due to the nature of the Oral tradition, needless to say, clearly it is impossible to date it back to a particular century. The evangelical belief is that the Deluge accounts were passed down by the patriarchs after Noah.
You seem willing to accept that the story of Noah derived from an oral tradition, so perhaps you are not clinging too strongly to the myth of Moses' authorship.
It would be rather arrogant of me to categorically state either opinion. As it plays little part in my faith, I tend not to dwell on it.
In any case, if you make a study of other oral traditions among peoples where that is still, or until very recently was, the primary mode of transmitting culture from generation to generation (and here I am something more than a hobbyist), you will quickly learn how easily oral traditions borrow from one another, most particularly when plagues, famines, and wars strike, with the accompanying socio-cultural disruption.
Yes that is true. Indeed one of the reasons I believe God to forbid the Israelites from 'mingling' with any of the nations they concoured, was precisely to preserve the Israelite way of life and prevent such an integration of beliefs. We know cases where this happened and God dealt with it severely. The general evangelical belief again is that the Noah/Gilgamesh account derived from the same source, however that the Noah account was the accurate one. The simularities afterall were rather striking and IMO adds weight to the historicity of the Bible. Ofcourse my opinion will be one of possible bias, yet the belief that the borrowing was done from the Hebrew and not the other way around seems to be enforced by the stringency of the Judaic religion in not 'poluting' itself with other beliefs. That combines with the tremendous emphasis on accuracy, the Oral tradition indeed (as shown in the Masoretic text) was very succesfull.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspian'Relative accuracy?'
I take more interest in Gilgamesh than some of the others stated (eg: by Homer), particularly due to relative accuracy of Gilgamesh.
You are approaching this from the a priori standpoint that
the 'perfect' rendition is the Bible's! Thus, we can conclude that
in the face of any archeological or redaction-critical evidence that
the Gilgamesh Epic is in fact older, you will necessarily take the
opposite stance.
Bravo.
Nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspianOne of the important features of oral traditions that help preserve their accuracy is the malleability of the tradition. Its essential truths can be preserved despite the inevitable growth and evolution of a people's language, or the corruption of that language as we see today. It should go without saying that such stories, once written down, cannot disclose their truths when they are dissected by literalists who hang on every word.
Well granted 🙂 The masoretic text for instance originated only in 1000 AD, the Septuagint, 300BC. The Oral tradition obviously pre-dates any written scripts, yet we know the tremendous emphasis placed on accuracy of transmission. There is no doubt, nor do I believe there ever was any doubt over whether the first of Noah's accounts would have been transmitted via the Oral Tradition.[/b]
The story of Noah is clear about a few things: there was a catastrophic flood, many people and creatures died, the remnant of survivors were able to save some creatures and they, or their descendants, perceived the flood as an act of divine retribution, while perceiving themselves as somehow blessed.
The detail that seven pairs of every clean animal, as well as a pair of every unclean animal reveals that the survivors had a clear preference as to which creatures they protected most, and also that they recognized some value in creatures that were not for their food. One might even be tempted to perceive an effort to protect greater genetic diversity of their favored creatures, and perhaps even an incipient ecological consciousness in their efforts to preserve what they considered unclean. But no one really thinks a craft a mere 300 cubits in length could hold sevens and twos of all the world's creatures. Clearly, most of the details are rhetorical figures.
Originally posted by WulebgrThe number of creatures was also limited to kinds as well. So for
One of the important features of oral traditions that help preserve their accuracy is the malleability of the tradition. Its essential truths can be preserved despite the inevitable growth and evolution of a people's language, or the corruption of that language as we see today. It should go without saying that such stories, once written down, cannot disclos ...[text shortened]... ens and twos of all the world's creatures. Clearly, most of the details are rhetorical figures.
example there would not be two or a variety of dog kinds, just two
dog kinds. That two drops the number down quite a bit.
Kelly
Originally posted by pcaspianMy CPU is painted in camo, I store Ford parts where the second hard drive could go, and I call the pointing device a critter; does all this indicate a lack of branches in my family tree?
Originally posted by Brother Edwin
[b] Then all animals/people are inbread.
Yes but some more inbred that others 😉[/b]
Originally posted by SkamzThe question is rooted in certain assumptions that need identification. It was posted in a debate forum: an appropriate location for laying bare unexamined assumptions.
I think this question is supposed to be more thought provoking for personal reasons, instead of being used on a public forum.