Skepticism and the Flood
Oct 5, 2010 10:28:43 GMT -5
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Oct 5, 2010 10:28:43 GMT -5
Thread Orientation: Hey enenuru - I have copied the below post from a discussion board from my NMC380 course at U of Toronto. This course requires students to post every week, a condition I of course have no problem with. Despite that the course is given by a well known Sumerologist, I find many of the student are new to Assyriological perspective and some have yet to be persuaded as to the relevence of cuneiform texts, even in something as widely accepted as the influence of Mesopotamian flood stories on the Bible account of the Flood. Hence, in this weeks post I undertook to reinforce the Assyriological position, or a least explain it further for those students - the below is about the flood then.
With this topic I would like to address a question that is more broadly relevant to the course as a whole, if not to the interpretation of Assyriological evidence in general. Recently I have been reminded of a speech once given by an important Sumerologist by the name of W.W. Hallo - amidst a field which has energetically grown more and more pessimistic concerning the final results of its own endeavors, (and this a forceful and sustained reaction to the over zealous assumptions of early scholars), Hallo has maintained a firm inclination towards optimism and towards the conviction that intellectual innovation will ultimately prove more decisive than certain limitations in the nature of Mesopotamian textual sources. The title of his speech was therefore "The Limits of Skepticism" (1) a portion of which suggests that we "treat the evidence, precisely because it is limited, as a precious resource-none of it to be ignored, or squandered, but every fragmentary bit of it critically sifted.."
Assuming that our common goal is to build up understandings based on ancient texts, and that skepticism is in moderation important for interpretational effort, can we damage our own means by being unduly (or excessively) skeptical? I remember a thread from last week which resulted in a verdict of inconclusion on the topic of the Mesopotamian influence on the Genesis flood story - this result offers perhaps a strange contrast to the near unanimity on the subject in Biblical or Assyriological scholarship. Henceforth I relay some reasons for credulity below:
G.A. Rendsburg, in his paper "The Biblical Flood Story in the Light of the Gilgamesh Flood Account" (2) ran into the same problem that I did when I sat down to talk about this, and that is: no one talks about this anymore. Why? Simply enough, the connection between Genesis and the Meso. Flood story is considered established long ago. Rendsburg notes "This has become such a commonplace in the field of biblical studies that hardly anyone anymore considers the reason behind this conclusion." Think George Smith, 1900 something, on a table rending cloth from flesh "I have found the Flood!!! (just like the one from the Bible!)" It's yesterdays discovery and we take it for granted - that doesn't mean there isn't something to it. Below I have adapted a comparison the author has made between Genesis Flood events and events of the Mesopotamian flood story as they appear in Gilgamesh - the author distinguishes between J and P sources although this isn't necessary for our purposes - also, GE + means 'parts of the story that are present in Gilgamesh' version and GE - means 'parts absent' (therefore, a part of the story added by the Hebrew writers).
Comparison from Rendsburg:
1. Morality Factor: In Genesis J. 6: 5-8 P. 6:9-13 GE. -
2. Materials: P. 6:14 GE. +
3. Dimensions: P. 6:15 GE. +
4. Decks: P. 6:16 GE. +
5. Convenant/population: P. 6:17-22 GE. -
6. Population: J. 7:1-5 GE. +
7. Flood: J. 7:7-10, 12, 16b, 17b,22-23 P. 7:6, 11, 13-16a,17a,18-21 GE. +
8. Mountaintop landing P. 7:24 J 8:5 GE +
9. Birds sent forth for dry land J. 8:6-12 GE. +
10. All set free P. 8:15-19 GE. +
11. Sacrifices J. 8:20-22 GE. +
Here we see that in 9 of 11 significant aspects of the flood story, according to the author, the stories from both sources compare. Significant parts present in the Hebrew but not the Mesopotamian have to do with Monotheism and religious morality and are understandably Hebrew additions. For those of you less familiar with the wording of the Mesopotamian version, I have typed the relevant lines at the very bottom of this post - for now, I relay 6 reasons Rendsburg gives that the Genesis version should be considered a borrowing from the Mesopotamian:
1. Mesopotamia was a greater society, that is to say, dominant politically and economically. "All things being equal, a greater society influences a less society, not the vice versa." Think the spread of Macdonalds as a indicator of how this dynamic works in todays world.
2. The Gilgamesh epic was a literary classic throughtout the ancient world; not only this it was a classic in what would become Isreal - a fragment of the Gilgamesh tale has been found at Megiddo and dates to the 14th century indicating "some individuals in the Late Bronze Age Canaan..could read the Epic of Gilgamesh in it's cuneiform original." Further, proof that the Epic (and its Flood motif) were known to other West Semitics of the region comes with the finding of Gilgamesh again at Late Bronze Age Ugarit.
3. The author makes the (somewhat obvious) observation that a flood punishment theme itself is one that makes alot more sense in the Mesopotamian context
where floods historically occur than in Israel (in Israel a flood, even on resulting from rain, is more or less unheard of).
4. "The one geographical locale mentioned in the book of Genesis is Ararat, in the phrase ... 'mountains of Ararat' in 8:4. This toponym is the Hebrew equivalent of Urartu, the mountainous region north of Assyria, at the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers."
5. The episode wherein God 'smells the sweet savor' of Noah's sacrifices is important: "nowhere else in the Bible is God portrayed in such a manner" Rendsburg says. At the same time, this wording and scene exactly mirrors the Mesopotamian story whereby Utnapistim makes a sacrifice to the gods and they smell the savory smell - A unique scene in the bible with a close Mesopotamian parallel is strong indication of borrowing the author believes.
6. There are parts that were added to the Hebrew version of the flood not present in the Mesopotamian version (see above, #1,5). According to what we observe of literary borrowing, it makes more sense to suggest that the Hebrews received the Mesopotamian material and added to it, then to suppose the Mesopotamian received the West Semitic material and edited parts of it out.
There are more reasons that could be listed if one delves into the decades of research further. As for the subject of the myriad flood myths around the world and their contents, I would go so far as to say they are irrelevant for this discussion - the issue at hand is the Hebrew adaption of the cuneiform flood myth, and can be examined in its own right, independent of external complexities - should 5, 10 or 1000 flood myths occur that have a handful of elements in common, as yet I see no reason why a broad and general discussion of vague commonalities should prove a more compelling comparison than this classic example of intercultural literary borrowing. The presentation of one seems hardly a counter to the assertion of the other.
To leave the discussion somewhat open, I invite anyone with a flood myth identical in a least 5 or 6 of the listed Flood story events to post their Flood Story below.
__________________________________________________
Flood Story Parallels from The Epic of Gilgamesh (Taken from A. George, 2003)
1. Morality Factor (Absent)
2. Materials: lines 50-52 "The carpenter was carrying his axe, the reed-worker was carrying [his] stone.." 54-55 "the old men were bearing rope of palm-fibre. The rich man was carrying bituman."
3. Dimensions: 57-59 "one "acre" was her area, ten rods each her sides stood high, ten rods each, the edges of her top were equal."
4. Decks: 61-63 "I gave her six decks, I divided her into seven parts, I divided her interior into nine.."
5. Convenant/population: (absent)
6. Population: 85-86 "I loaded aboard it whatever seed I had of living things, each and every one. All my kith and kin I sent aboard the boat, I sent about animals of the wild, creatures of the wild, persons of every skill and craft."
7. Flood: To sum: While the Hebrew version has a wait of seven days until the flood begins (lasting 40 days and nights) in the Meso. version, the flood last for 6 days and 7 nights. It begins as Adad the storm god arrives and signals relentless wind, downpour, gale and deluge.
8. Mountaintop landing: 142 "On Mount Nimush the boat ran aground."
9. Birds sent out: 148-154: "I brought out a dove, setting it free: off went the dove..No perch was available for it and it came back to [me.] I brought out a swallow, setting it free: off went the swallow...No perch was available for it and it came back to me. I brought out a raven, setting it free: off went the raven and it saw the water receding. It was eating, bobbing up and down, it did not come back to me."
10. All set free ?
11. Sacrifices: 157-164: "I brought out an offering and sacrificed to the four corners of the earth, I strewed incense on the peak of the mountain. Seven flasks and seven I set in position, below them I heaped up (sweet) reed, cedar and myrtle. The gods smelled the savour, the gods smelled the sweet savour, the gods gathered like flies around the sacrificer."
1. W.W. Hallo "The Limits of Skepticism" JAOS V. 110/2 pg.187-199, 1990
2. G.A. Rendsburg "The Biblical Flood Story in the Light of the Gilgamesh Flood Account" in Gilgamesh and the World of Assyria, Proceedings of the Conference held at Mandelbaum House, the University of Sydnet, 21-23 July 2004
With this topic I would like to address a question that is more broadly relevant to the course as a whole, if not to the interpretation of Assyriological evidence in general. Recently I have been reminded of a speech once given by an important Sumerologist by the name of W.W. Hallo - amidst a field which has energetically grown more and more pessimistic concerning the final results of its own endeavors, (and this a forceful and sustained reaction to the over zealous assumptions of early scholars), Hallo has maintained a firm inclination towards optimism and towards the conviction that intellectual innovation will ultimately prove more decisive than certain limitations in the nature of Mesopotamian textual sources. The title of his speech was therefore "The Limits of Skepticism" (1) a portion of which suggests that we "treat the evidence, precisely because it is limited, as a precious resource-none of it to be ignored, or squandered, but every fragmentary bit of it critically sifted.."
Assuming that our common goal is to build up understandings based on ancient texts, and that skepticism is in moderation important for interpretational effort, can we damage our own means by being unduly (or excessively) skeptical? I remember a thread from last week which resulted in a verdict of inconclusion on the topic of the Mesopotamian influence on the Genesis flood story - this result offers perhaps a strange contrast to the near unanimity on the subject in Biblical or Assyriological scholarship. Henceforth I relay some reasons for credulity below:
G.A. Rendsburg, in his paper "The Biblical Flood Story in the Light of the Gilgamesh Flood Account" (2) ran into the same problem that I did when I sat down to talk about this, and that is: no one talks about this anymore. Why? Simply enough, the connection between Genesis and the Meso. Flood story is considered established long ago. Rendsburg notes "This has become such a commonplace in the field of biblical studies that hardly anyone anymore considers the reason behind this conclusion." Think George Smith, 1900 something, on a table rending cloth from flesh "I have found the Flood!!! (just like the one from the Bible!)" It's yesterdays discovery and we take it for granted - that doesn't mean there isn't something to it. Below I have adapted a comparison the author has made between Genesis Flood events and events of the Mesopotamian flood story as they appear in Gilgamesh - the author distinguishes between J and P sources although this isn't necessary for our purposes - also, GE + means 'parts of the story that are present in Gilgamesh' version and GE - means 'parts absent' (therefore, a part of the story added by the Hebrew writers).
Comparison from Rendsburg:
1. Morality Factor: In Genesis J. 6: 5-8 P. 6:9-13 GE. -
2. Materials: P. 6:14 GE. +
3. Dimensions: P. 6:15 GE. +
4. Decks: P. 6:16 GE. +
5. Convenant/population: P. 6:17-22 GE. -
6. Population: J. 7:1-5 GE. +
7. Flood: J. 7:7-10, 12, 16b, 17b,22-23 P. 7:6, 11, 13-16a,17a,18-21 GE. +
8. Mountaintop landing P. 7:24 J 8:5 GE +
9. Birds sent forth for dry land J. 8:6-12 GE. +
10. All set free P. 8:15-19 GE. +
11. Sacrifices J. 8:20-22 GE. +
Here we see that in 9 of 11 significant aspects of the flood story, according to the author, the stories from both sources compare. Significant parts present in the Hebrew but not the Mesopotamian have to do with Monotheism and religious morality and are understandably Hebrew additions. For those of you less familiar with the wording of the Mesopotamian version, I have typed the relevant lines at the very bottom of this post - for now, I relay 6 reasons Rendsburg gives that the Genesis version should be considered a borrowing from the Mesopotamian:
1. Mesopotamia was a greater society, that is to say, dominant politically and economically. "All things being equal, a greater society influences a less society, not the vice versa." Think the spread of Macdonalds as a indicator of how this dynamic works in todays world.
2. The Gilgamesh epic was a literary classic throughtout the ancient world; not only this it was a classic in what would become Isreal - a fragment of the Gilgamesh tale has been found at Megiddo and dates to the 14th century indicating "some individuals in the Late Bronze Age Canaan..could read the Epic of Gilgamesh in it's cuneiform original." Further, proof that the Epic (and its Flood motif) were known to other West Semitics of the region comes with the finding of Gilgamesh again at Late Bronze Age Ugarit.
3. The author makes the (somewhat obvious) observation that a flood punishment theme itself is one that makes alot more sense in the Mesopotamian context
where floods historically occur than in Israel (in Israel a flood, even on resulting from rain, is more or less unheard of).
4. "The one geographical locale mentioned in the book of Genesis is Ararat, in the phrase ... 'mountains of Ararat' in 8:4. This toponym is the Hebrew equivalent of Urartu, the mountainous region north of Assyria, at the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers."
5. The episode wherein God 'smells the sweet savor' of Noah's sacrifices is important: "nowhere else in the Bible is God portrayed in such a manner" Rendsburg says. At the same time, this wording and scene exactly mirrors the Mesopotamian story whereby Utnapistim makes a sacrifice to the gods and they smell the savory smell - A unique scene in the bible with a close Mesopotamian parallel is strong indication of borrowing the author believes.
6. There are parts that were added to the Hebrew version of the flood not present in the Mesopotamian version (see above, #1,5). According to what we observe of literary borrowing, it makes more sense to suggest that the Hebrews received the Mesopotamian material and added to it, then to suppose the Mesopotamian received the West Semitic material and edited parts of it out.
There are more reasons that could be listed if one delves into the decades of research further. As for the subject of the myriad flood myths around the world and their contents, I would go so far as to say they are irrelevant for this discussion - the issue at hand is the Hebrew adaption of the cuneiform flood myth, and can be examined in its own right, independent of external complexities - should 5, 10 or 1000 flood myths occur that have a handful of elements in common, as yet I see no reason why a broad and general discussion of vague commonalities should prove a more compelling comparison than this classic example of intercultural literary borrowing. The presentation of one seems hardly a counter to the assertion of the other.
To leave the discussion somewhat open, I invite anyone with a flood myth identical in a least 5 or 6 of the listed Flood story events to post their Flood Story below.
__________________________________________________
Flood Story Parallels from The Epic of Gilgamesh (Taken from A. George, 2003)
1. Morality Factor (Absent)
2. Materials: lines 50-52 "The carpenter was carrying his axe, the reed-worker was carrying [his] stone.." 54-55 "the old men were bearing rope of palm-fibre. The rich man was carrying bituman."
3. Dimensions: 57-59 "one "acre" was her area, ten rods each her sides stood high, ten rods each, the edges of her top were equal."
4. Decks: 61-63 "I gave her six decks, I divided her into seven parts, I divided her interior into nine.."
5. Convenant/population: (absent)
6. Population: 85-86 "I loaded aboard it whatever seed I had of living things, each and every one. All my kith and kin I sent aboard the boat, I sent about animals of the wild, creatures of the wild, persons of every skill and craft."
7. Flood: To sum: While the Hebrew version has a wait of seven days until the flood begins (lasting 40 days and nights) in the Meso. version, the flood last for 6 days and 7 nights. It begins as Adad the storm god arrives and signals relentless wind, downpour, gale and deluge.
8. Mountaintop landing: 142 "On Mount Nimush the boat ran aground."
9. Birds sent out: 148-154: "I brought out a dove, setting it free: off went the dove..No perch was available for it and it came back to [me.] I brought out a swallow, setting it free: off went the swallow...No perch was available for it and it came back to me. I brought out a raven, setting it free: off went the raven and it saw the water receding. It was eating, bobbing up and down, it did not come back to me."
10. All set free ?
11. Sacrifices: 157-164: "I brought out an offering and sacrificed to the four corners of the earth, I strewed incense on the peak of the mountain. Seven flasks and seven I set in position, below them I heaped up (sweet) reed, cedar and myrtle. The gods smelled the savour, the gods smelled the sweet savour, the gods gathered like flies around the sacrificer."
1. W.W. Hallo "The Limits of Skepticism" JAOS V. 110/2 pg.187-199, 1990
2. G.A. Rendsburg "The Biblical Flood Story in the Light of the Gilgamesh Flood Account" in Gilgamesh and the World of Assyria, Proceedings of the Conference held at Mandelbaum House, the University of Sydnet, 21-23 July 2004
