The Book of The Dead

[shernren]

Only by comparison.

More wilful misreading of what I write.

We are not talking about "couldn't possibly", we are talking to a virtual certainty because folks like you confuse speculation with proof of the origins of scripture. Get your terms straight. And we are not talking about "influences", we are really talking about borrowing fiction from other cultures.

Seriously. If you think our thesis is that the Israelites (or God, in inspiring them) borrowed wholesale the fiction of other cultures then you are proposing something that nobody here really believes. Burn strawmen all you want, all you'll get is lots of smoke, a bad cough and a black face.

One of my favorite words to describe this is that God subverted the literary stories of the Israelites' contemporaries to impart His truth. (And C.S. Lewis has called God subversive before I was even born; I am simply standing on the shoulders of giants.) Did He copy them wholesale? Certainly not; and yet by incorporating familiar elements from familiar stories He got them to think sharply and critically about how God had theologically set them apart from other cultures.

Think for example about one of the climactic events from the epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh hears of a plant that renews youth at the bottom of a lake; he ties stones to his feet and sinks to the bottom of the lake and successfully retrieves it. But he puts it on the bank of the shore where a serpent steals it and renews its youth by shedding its skin, and Gilgamesh returns to find the plant of renewing of youth gone.

Compare this to the story of Adam and Eve. This time there are two trees; the serpent doesn't steal the Fruit of Life, but instead offers the fruit of knowledge; Adam and Eve don't have to quest for the Tree of Life, but instead have free access to it - until their disobedience casts them out.

The comparison much more forcefully brings out the deep truths of Genesis, in a way that no creationist or ID reading has ever come within ten feet of. In Gilgamesh, immortality is the result of painstaking human hard work; the serpent triumphs only because of man's carelessness; and Gilgamesh's quest is looked upon with favor, telling us that we should all strive after eternal life with the same vigor and spirit. But for Adam and Eve, immortality would have been the result of divine grace; the serpent triumphs only in inspiring active disobedience from God; and Adam and Eve would not have needed to strive at all for the fruit of life, but are now barred from it forever by simple divine decree. The pale pagan source brings the divine retelling into fresh, powerful light, a light that you creationists would smother by denying us any comparison with the fertile, fallen imagination of Israel's contemporaries.

How about this, if we all concede that there is at least decent chance that God wrote all or most of the Torah at Mt. Sinai, then we can put the modern critical dogmas in proper perspective. And maybe I am just wrong about the jealous nature of modern critical dogma, but I don't think so.

Sure, why not. As a matter of fact, let us suppose that God periodically rains down little black leatherbound KJVs from heaven just to make sure people know He wrote it. So what? Nothing of the text changes, and everything we need is the texts. There are plenty of modern scholars who are conservative by almost any measure you could define (other than, of course, the measure to which they agree with you) and who still acknowledge the tremendous similarities between the Old Testament and the contemporary literature of its time. We are not saying that God and His scribes were mindless plagiarists; no scholar will deny that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is unique to Judaeo-Christian thought and really occurs nowhere else in any world culture. But by the same token no scholar can deny that a Tree of Life exists in almost every creation myth known to man.

I've watched you squirm over in the thread where ClearSky has been talking about God changing, choosing your words carefully so that you can scold him while still appearing to be on his side. But like it or not, ClearSky recognizes that God allows contemporary culture to influence people's perception of Him. How many modern Christians still mentally conceptualize, in this day and age of professional militaries and modern conflict, God as "Lord of the armies of Israel"? ClearSky clearly doesn't, and yet he takes Genesis literally. Would an Israelite think of God as "potentate of the rolling spheres", and would anyone today think of God's wrath as a fire burning "to the very roots of the mountains" - what are those?

Paul walked into the Areopagus and bested Greek philosophy with quotes from their own prophets - and he was just a man with a mortal mind. If even a man can accomplish such things, what gives you the right to limit God to anything less than the subversion of an entire era's mythology to bring Himself praise?

And by the way, "compile" is a dodgy word, if not a deliberate attempt to avoid commitment. It means anything you want.

You'd certainly know all about making words mean whatever you want ...

 

[Assyrian]

Not at all.

The commonality of mesopotamian culture is the (bad) theory. It has to be because there isn't other proof. So, where is the Book of the Dead in the OT, or the NT for that matter?

The commonality as you call it, with Gilgamesh is based on them sharing common features. How exactly is a lack of common features with the Book of the Dead supposed to say anything about the common features Genesis shares with Gilgamesh? It is a non sequitur BD.

 

[Tinker Grey]

For starters.

And then, the thing on Mount Sinai is the premise for the Torah.

You have to make certain assumptions to get that these verses refer to the contents of the OT. E.g., that the book of the Law is any one of the books of the OT. If it is the Torah, which parts of it did Joshua write?

Other parts of the Torah suggest that what was in the Ark was the 10 commandments, a jar of manna, and Aaron's staff. So was the book of the law the 10 commandments? Which commandment did Joshua write?

I have to concede however that some form of God's law is claimed to have existed prior to the time of Babylon.

Nevertheless, external evidence would be considerably more useful. If, for example, Ezra was writing a legendary account of his people's past, he most certainly claimed just that -- that their God's law had existed from time immemorial, or at least to a legendary prophet, Moses.

 

[busterdog]

Seriously. If you think our thesis is that the Israelites (or God, in inspiring them) borrowed wholesale the fiction of other cultures then you are proposing something that nobody here really believes. Burn strawmen all you want, all you'll get is lots of smoke, a bad cough and a black face.

One of my favorite words to describe this is that God subverted the literary stories of the Israelites' contemporaries to impart His truth. (And C.S. Lewis has called God subversive before I was even born; I am simply standing on the shoulders of giants.) Did He copy them wholesale? Certainly not; and yet by incorporating familiar elements from familiar stories He got them to think sharply and critically about how God had theologically set them apart from other cultures.

Think for example about one of the climactic events from the epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh hears of a plant that renews youth at the bottom of a lake; he ties stones to his feet and sinks to the bottom of the lake and successfully retrieves it. But he puts it on the bank of the shore where a serpent steals it and renews its youth by shedding its skin, and Gilgamesh returns to find the plant of renewing of youth gone.

Compare this to the story of Adam and Eve. This time there are two trees; the serpent doesn't steal the Fruit of Life, but instead offers the fruit of knowledge; Adam and Eve don't have to quest for the Tree of Life, but instead have free access to it - until their disobedience casts them out.

The comparison much more forcefully brings out the deep truths of Genesis, in a way that no creationist or ID reading has ever come within ten feet of. In Gilgamesh, immortality is the result of painstaking human hard work; the serpent triumphs only because of man's carelessness; and Gilgamesh's quest is looked upon with favor, telling us that we should all strive after eternal life with the same vigor and spirit. But for Adam and Eve, immortality would have been the result of divine grace; the serpent triumphs only in inspiring active disobedience from God; and Adam and Eve would not have needed to strive at all for the fruit of life, but are now barred from it forever by simple divine decree. The pale pagan source brings the divine retelling into fresh, powerful light, a light that you creationists would smother by denying us any comparison with the fertile, fallen imagination of Israel's contemporaries.



Sure, why not. As a matter of fact, let us suppose that God periodically rains down little black leatherbound KJVs from heaven just to make sure people know He wrote it. So what? Nothing of the text changes, and everything we need is the texts. There are plenty of modern scholars who are conservative by almost any measure you could define (other than, of course, the measure to which they agree with you) and who still acknowledge the tremendous similarities between the Old Testament and the contemporary literature of its time. We are not saying that God and His scribes were mindless plagiarists; no scholar will deny that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is unique to Judaeo-Christian thought and really occurs nowhere else in any world culture. But by the same token no scholar can deny that a Tree of Life exists in almost every creation myth known to man.

I've watched you squirm over in the thread where ClearSky has been talking about God changing, choosing your words carefully so that you can scold him while still appearing to be on his side. But like it or not, ClearSky recognizes that God allows contemporary culture to influence people's perception of Him. How many modern Christians still mentally conceptualize, in this day and age of professional militaries and modern conflict, God as "Lord of the armies of Israel"? ClearSky clearly doesn't, and yet he takes Genesis literally. Would an Israelite think of God as "potentate of the rolling spheres", and would anyone today think of God's wrath as a fire burning "to the very roots of the mountains" - what are those?

Paul walked into the Areopagus and bested Greek philosophy with quotes from their own prophets - and he was just a man with a mortal mind. If even a man can accomplish such things, what gives you the right to limit God to anything less than the subversion of an entire era's mythology to bring Himself praise?



You'd certainly know all about making words mean whatever you want ...

 

[busterdog]

You have to make certain assumptions to get that these verses refer to the contents of the OT. E.g., that the book of the Law is any one of the books of the OT. If it is the Torah, which parts of it did Joshua write?

The Jewish understanding means all the critics have the burden of proof. However, many scholars assume that their opinions are superior proof.

Other parts of the Torah suggest that what was in the Ark was the 10 commandments, a jar of manna, and Aaron's staff. So was the book of the law the 10 commandments? Which commandment did Joshua write?

The law is clearly much more. Even Jesus thought so.

There may not be sufficient "proof" that the Torah and most of the prophets were extant before the captivity. But, in order to reach a firm conclusion to the contrary, one must simply dismiss a large body of evidence from the orthodox understanding of the Bible. That would make for a pretty short "book of the law." It seems pretty clear that no one that of it that way in any Biblical witness. Lets not forget that most NT witnesses reference Moses as author (or scrivener) of the Law.

 

[shernren]

So that's what happens when you encounter solid evidence that contradicts your worldview. Do you read textbooks on General Relativity to fall asleep to? ^^

(Wow, the timestamps are all mixed up. This is a response to post #24.)

 

[busterdog]

So that's what happens when you encounter solid evidence that contradicts your worldview. Do you read textbooks on General Relativity to fall asleep to? ^^

I wasn't addressing your particular theology, so you needn't treat it as such. I am not taking your bait. Its too much writing about stuff not in contention. You don't speak for the body of demythologizers, presumptively.

If you think that there are no modern critical scholars who say that Gilgamesh and Mesopotamian culture were the primary inspiration for Genesis, well, that is your business.

"Solid evidence to contradict my worldview"? More bait I am not taking.

Originally Posted by busterdog
Only by comparison.

More wilful misreading of what I write.

We are not talking about "couldn't possibly", we are talking to a virtual certainty because folks like you confuse speculation with proof of the origins of scripture. Get your terms straight. And we are not talking about "influences", we are really talking about borrowing fiction from other cultures.

The mistakes you make are analogous to the mistakes others make. Yes, you confuse speculation with proof. The precise subject of the current dialogue is confusion about common idioms being used as proof . Regardless of where you stand on the subject of inspiratoin for Genesis, we all know that Genesis is commonly regarded as something originating in a common Mesopotamian culture -- that is, the commonality is far more influential than any kind of outside inspiration.

 

[crawfish]

Why is it that none of this made it into the Old Testament? Are the myths of the Bible of common origin? :o

You're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the common origin view held by many TE's (including myself). What I believe, and what I think the evidence supports, is that the ancient Israelites were very aware of the myths of other cultures - Babylonian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Persian - and much of their understanding of the nature of the universe came from those myths. When they wrote the books of the Bible, they wrote them from the viewpoint of that understanding...their purpose was to remove the supernatural elements attributed to other gods and to show how God was behind it all.

For instance, the idea of the firmament was one of foreign origin, but the intent was not to imply that it was true - only that God was the one responsible for creating it. As a cosmology, the firmament made as much or more sense than any other view of the form of the universe, and the form itself had nothing to do with the nature of some foreign god, so the authors had no need to replace it. Much as I might say, "God is the bang behind the Big Bang", the idea would be sound whether or not the big bang actually happened.

 

[LittleNipper]

GOD created the universe. GOD is the editor/author of the WORD. GOD fulfilled that WORD HIMSELF by becoming a man in the form of THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and fulfilled ALL the MESSANIC detail as GOD prophesied in GOD's HOLY WORD. I have no clue what the rest of you are on but it ain't biblical.

 

[busterdog]

You're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the common origin view held by many TE's (including myself). What I believe, and what I think the evidence supports, is that the ancient Israelites were very aware of the myths of other cultures - Babylonian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Persian - and much of their understanding of the nature of the universe came from those myths. When they wrote the books of the Bible, they wrote them from the viewpoint of that understanding...their purpose was to remove the supernatural elements attributed to other gods and to show how God was behind it all.

So, the narrative content came from pagan sources. But, the message only was Hebraic? Again, to get there, we must presume that the content is not the message.

The notion is that Gilgamesh and Genesis are so similar that it would be impossible for them not to be of common origin. That is the argument But, Gilgamesh is ackowledged to be older than Genesis. The conclusion offered here is that Genesis is a "re-telling" of the story in a better light.

But, they didn't do that with the Book of the Dead or a host of any other traditions within this small area of the world.

In short, a few common elements from one story point to a common source for a "Biblical" retelling. Yet, by all Biblical accounts, its content was not the Mesopotamian Readers Digest. That it so carefully eschews much factual content in its "telling", that "retelling" as a theory requires much presupposition.

The selection of content, that is the family of Noah and the flood details, does not prove that the content is a "retelling."

That the Bible eschews so much local content that, as far as this probability argument goes, that it is just as likely that Genesis carefully selected its content to make the content the message (no the mere elimination of pagan supernatural details).

Because of the similarity of content, wouldn't Abraham/Isaac be a "retelling" of a story of the merits of human sacrifice?

 

[Mallon]

I have no clue what the rest of you are on but it ain't biblical.

Neither is gastrulation. But nobody's condemning that.

 

[LittleNipper]

Neither is gastrulation. But nobody's condemning that.

And I thought Herod died of that....

 

[LittleNipper]

Neither is gastrulation. But nobody's condemning that.

And I thought Herod died of that....

 

[crawfish]

GOD created the universe. GOD is the editor/author of the WORD. GOD fulfilled that WORD HIMSELF by becoming a man in the form of THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and fulfilled ALL the MESSANIC detail as GOD prophesied in GOD's HOLY WORD.

Nobody's arguing against that.

 

[shernren]

I wasn't addressing your particular theology, so you needn't treat it as such. I am not taking your bait. Its too much writing about stuff not in contention. You don't speak for the body of demythologizers, presumptively.

You speak of me as if I am trying to trap you. By no means! Your own words do that well enough. ^^

Of course I don't speak for the body of demythologizers. You seem to be in the same boat as mark kennedy. He recently launched another volley about how Darwinism is antithetical to Christianity, and how it is nothing more than an attempt to deny the miraculous historicity of the NT. I then asked him what I was, me being a Darwinist who believes the miraculous historicity of the NT. Am I a flagrant liar, hopelessly deluded, or simply nonexistent? He hasn't answered me since.

It's the same with you. Who exactly are you talking to? Your OP has no strength here nor anywhere else. You are simply burning strawmen; are you hoping the smoke will drive us away? Not one of us thinks that the Book of the Dead should be included verbatim in the Old Testament (not even many of those "demythologizing scholars" you so flippantly dismiss).

You say:

If you think that there are no modern critical scholars who say that Gilgamesh and Mesopotamian culture were the primary inspiration for Genesis, well, that is your business.

"Solid evidence to contradict my worldview"? More bait I am not taking.

Of course I know that there are modern critical scholars who say that Gilgamesh and Mesopotamian culture were the primary inspiration for Genesis. Why should you assume that I speak for them or with their views?

The mistakes you make are analogous to the mistakes others make. Yes, you confuse speculation with proof. The precise subject of the current dialogue is confusion about common idioms being used as proof . Regardless of where you stand on the subject of inspiratoin for Genesis, we all know that Genesis is commonly regarded as something originating in a common Mesopotamian culture -- that is, the commonality is far more influential than any kind of outside inspiration.

So you agree that there are common idioms. Then you flip around and say that "the commonality is far more influential than any kind of outside inspiration". Why should you assume that? Why not believe, as is far more natural, that the commonality is inspired? Is that really such an impossible thought?

Paul walked into the Areopagus with the Greek poets at his fingertips and it didn't prevent him from preaching the gospel - nay, by knowing the enemy he bested the enemy. Is it really that hard for you to admit the possibility that God, seeing the myths the Israelites were surrounded with, then decided to subvert those myths for the Israelites' theological instruction? And then if some features of the creation story represent subversions of contemporary culture's inferior creation myths, instead of being absolutist declaration of physical properties of the universe, doesn't that turn the entire creationist argument upside down?

(Wow, the timestamps are all mixed up. This is a response to post #30.)

 

[busterdog]

Who exactly are you talking to? Your OP has no strength here nor anywhere else. You are simply burning strawmen; are you hoping the smoke will drive us away? N

Now is a perfectly good time to gather the tares and burn them. Your gloss on my intentions are your own. I offered a point of agreement.

And, Mark is right in large part about your allegiance to the demythologizers. You can't always see it. The OP was a chance to attack your supposed atheistic enemies, instead you attack me. Now attacking me is not a particularly big deal, but as I indicated, I don't see the need to spend a lot of time on defense.

 

[Nachtjager]

I think Augustine had it right way back in 415 AD when he said something to the effect of, "the Bible exists to tell us how to go to heaven, not to tell us how the heavens go." Why would, or should, God reveal to us how things were made or when they were made? It's here, obviously He made it. How or when, or why, doesn't concern my salvation and I don't waste time pondering why a bunch of Hebrew priests rationalized things the way they did.

Take care all and God bless.

 

[busterdog]

I think Augustine had it right way back in 415 AD when he said something to the effect of, "the Bible exists to tell us how to go to heaven, not to tell us how the heavens go." Why would, or should, God reveal to us how things were made or when they were made? It's here, obviously He made it. How or when, or why, doesn't concern my salvation and I don't waste time pondering why a bunch of Hebrew priests rationalized things the way they did.

Take care all and God bless.

Rationalization? That is a huge presumption. Could the Holy Spirit not have written in spite of those human tendencies?

God has exalted His Word above His name. I don't think that meant, well its really wonderful and exalted, but lots of it is mostly rationalization.

The notion that something can be "artistic enough" to be exalted that highly in spite of its narrative (not copyist) error is very strange to me.

 

[shernren]

Now is a perfectly good time to gather the tares and burn them. Your gloss on my intentions are your own. I offered a point of agreement.

And, Mark is right in large part about your allegiance to the demythologizers. You can't always see it. The OP was a chance to attack your supposed atheistic enemies, instead you attack me. Now attacking me is not a particularly big deal, but as I indicated, I don't see the need to spend a lot of time on defense.

Well, where are the demythologizers? ^^ No point hitting someone who isn't here.

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps if you had the faith of mustard, 'the smallest of all seeds' you would be less troubled by artistic licence.