Marduk

Nomad said:
"How you can still claim that it is more probable that they got it from an ancient Assyrian tablet which may or may not have been known to them is beyond me."

This doesn't sound that far fetched to me, these stories, like the flood myths of Gilgamesh, most likely made the rounds of the middle east for ages. Telling stories was one of the few forms of entertainment going in those days.

Bob K

Nomad:

Bob K Quote: Nomad Quote: In fact, as I have shown in my previous and immediately above Reply, the Bel myth mythical element parallels are extremely similar to the Jesus myth mythical elements.

Your refutations fall apart under scrutiny.

I note that you have admitted that “we do have lots of dying and rising gods in the ancient myths.”

The mere idea of a dying/rising god/godman is a mythical element which parallels the same mythical element in the Jesus myth and suggests that the Jesus myth is no more than an attempt to keep up with the neighbors to make sure their god/Jesus is no less than the neighbors’ gods/godmen.

The point is that if there are many dying/rising gods/godmen, then the common mythical element of death/resurrection clearly serves as proof that the Jesus myth is certainly not an original dying/rising god/godman myth and, being younger than the other myths, is most likely a copycat dying/rising god/godman myth.

And therefore I have to make a stand: The presence of dying/rising god/godmen myths is clear evidence that the Jesus dying/rising god/godman myth is no more credible than any other dying/rising god/godman myth.

Bob K Quote: Nomad Quote: The fact is that John G. Jackson in Christianity Before Christ, published in 1985, cited George Goodman who drew a table of the Bel--Jesus parallels for an article entitled “Easter” which was published in [/i]The Freethinker[/i], May 14, 1965.

Goodman stands as an “anyone since 1923” who puts stock in the Zimmern translation which is similar to the Langdon translation.

Where Jackson has made mistakes, I have so noted.

If you want to claim that Langdon’s translation is faulty, then you must provide the references.

You presented what you claim is evidence that scholars do not think Langdon’s translation is correct, but in fact, as we will see below, in the quote you provided there is no claim that Langdon’s translation is totally wrong. I am not interested in opinions condemning any of the Zimmern/Langdon/Pallis translations of the Bel myth tablet text.

Instead, I want specifics by means of replications of the translation being condemned and retranslations which should show how the Assyrian Bel myth tablet text should be translated in addition to what it really means/what is its true context.

Bob K Quote: Nomad Quote: You are herein asserting that since 1923 no scholar thinks Langdon’s translation is correct.

You have not provided precise quotations or paraphrases of the references/citations stating that beyond a doubt Langdon mistranslated the Assyrian Bel myth tablet. This you must do.

The scholars you cite must give specific reasons why the Langdon translation is incorrect—they may not merely assert that it is—and they must also give their rendition of an “accurate” translation.

If you want to cite references/sources I must request that you provide quotations or paraphrases since between thee and me I have already done considerable work in presenting Langdon’s side of the issue, and I have already gone on wild goosechases following up the references/websites you have suggested without finding them credible as refutations of Langdon’s translation.

Bob K Quote: Nomad Quote: I am not aware that whether or not Marduk is a rising/dying god/godman in Enuma Elish was my point precisely/originally.

Kindly enlighten. With webpage/website references.

Bob K Quote: [quote]In the Bel Myth Tablet what we have is an ancient writing that refers to Bel as if he is a dying/rising god/godman ... [quote]

Nomad Quote:Is not Jesus a god/godman in Xn mythology?

Since this is in fact the case, the Bel parallels can be of a god and apply to both gods and godmen.

Bob K Quote: Nomad Quote: Are you waiting for someone to dig up ancient writings in which Jesus mythwriters confessed to knowing about the Assyrian Bel myth tablet before they wrote the Jesus myth?

Are you waiting for someone to dig up ancient writings in which Jesus mythwriters confessed to stealing mythical elements from the Bel myth as written (in stone, no less) upon the Assyrian Bel myth tablet and using those mythical elements for the Jesus myth?

The parallels themselves condemn the Jesus myth to be a plagiarization and therefore a copycat Christ myth.

Bob K Quote Nomad Quote: You indeed must be waiting for someone to dig up ancient writings in which Jesus mythwriters confessed to stealing mythical elements from the Bel myth as written (in stone, no less) upon the Assyrian Bel myth tablet and using those mythical elements for the Jesus myth.

Bob K Quote: Nomad Quote: Unfortunately for you, Langdon’s translation of the Assyrian Bel myth tablet stands as its own proof that there was a second Bel myth, chiseled in stone, in which Bel-Marduk was executed and resurrected.

I have done a lot of work to get Langdon’s translation of the Assyrian Bel myth tablet and to quote it and to interpret it and to provide Langdon’s own comments to help you understand what Langdon said and why he said it.

I think it reasonable for me to ask you to provide some precise references and quotes from other translators in which they offer proof that Langdon/Zimmern/Pallis, et al, completely or otherwise misinterpreted writings on the Assyrian Bel myth tablet.

Bob K Quote: Nomad Quote: Unfortunately for you, I have shown that other writers refute your claims.

I copy and repeat:

Bel is Bel/Baal.

See the following: http://www.ldolphin.org/Nimrod.html

NOTE: ldolphin = Lambert Dolphin

From: NIMROD, MARS AND THE MARDUK CONNECTION, by Bryce Self

Bryce Self makes the point that the name Bel or Baal was used in place of Marduk: Thus, B. Self states that the people of Israel would have recognized the name Baal to be Bel/Marduk, and not necessarily some other, “very different” god.

[End of copy]

Christopher Siren refers to the use of the name Bel to refer to Marduk at the following website:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/assyrbabyl-faq.html

... and ...

Bob K Quote: Nomad Quote: Since I did considerable work to present to you Langdon’s own words, why do you not do the work to provide the words/paraphrases of these other authors that clearly refer to the Assyrian Bel myth tablet which is the focus of this discussion and Langdon’s translation (and Zimmern’s/Pallis’ translations) and prove beyond a doubt that Langdon/Zimmern/Pallis translations are completely false and that, therefore, absolutely no parallels to the Jesus myth are to be found in the Assyrian Bel myth as written on the Assyrian Bel myth tablet?

A few quotes/paraphrases here and there would definitely help.

Otherwise, I will have to order these books (at an expense, or from the Interlibrary Loan program, which takes time and is unreliable, so I have found) and read them and report back, which I will do over time if you do not provide quotes/paraphrases.

Nomad Quote: Langdon is not merely paraphrasing Zimmern but, instead, offering his own translation, and with comments on the Zimmern translation, particularly on the differences he has with Zimmern, which are few, i.e., Langdon basically supports Zimmern.

Again, I am requesting specific quotes/paraphrases of the debunks plus “accurate” translations of the Assyrian Bel myth tablet.

Nomad Quote: The rising/dying Bel/Marduk god myth DOES come up as I will show below towards the end of this Reply.

The fact that these authors do not refer to the Assyrian Bel myth written on the Assyrian Bel myth tablet indicates an oversight on their part, not a refutation of the Langdon/Zimmern/Pallis translations.

You should be able to see this clearly.

If a work on the Bel-Marduk myth is to be credible, then it ought to include a reference to the actual Assyrian Bel myth tablet which actually exists in The British Museum and actually has words chiseled in stone which according to the Langdon/Zimmern/Pallis translations refer to the god Bel and which offer the mythical elements of arrest, trial, judgment, scourging, execution, resurrection, etc.

And then, having mentioned the existence of the Assyrian Bel myth tablet, and the Langdon/Zimmern/Pallis translations, the authors ought to have refuted the translations point by point, or cited other authors who did in fact refute the translations point by point, so, at some ‘point’ or other in all this, we should be able to get a point-by-point refutation of the translations AND a corrected translation so we could all understand, once and for all, what the writings actually say.

At this point in our exchanges, you have not proven beyond a doubt that the translations are faulty/totally wrong, therefore they stand as accurate.

Nomad Quote: If these authors can be reached via emails, then I will make an effort to contact them re: their lack of mention of the Assyrian Bel myth tablet and their opinions of the Langdon/Zimmern/Pallis translations.

If you have any contact information which might help, please so provide.

Otherwise, I predict that what I will find is (A) that these authors/scholars are heavy-duty religionists whose credibility is instantly suspect and (B) that none of them offer precise point-by-point refutations of the Langdon/Zimmern/Pallis translations and commonly-agreed-upon alternative translations.

I previously chased suggested references that supposedly refuted the Assyrian Bel myth and found utter nonsense in the Peterson reference and inconclusive nonsense in the copycat Christ reference.

Out of respect for the wild goosechase you asked me to endure, I think it reasonable that you give quotes/paraphrases from your references with page numbers that refute the Langdon/Zimmern/Pallis translations.

Again, you must respect the fact that Langdon has stated that he is aware that as of 1923 the dying/rising Bel myth shows up only in the Assyrian Bel myth tablet.

This means that no matter what is else is said to be the Bel/Marduk myth in other works that this work definitely refers to Bel as a dying/rising god.

Nomad Quote: At this point I have John G. Jackson and George Goodman (cited in Jackson) as individual authors who support Langdon/Zummern/Pallis with point-by-point comments and translations. Jackson has served as a college professor and thereby may qualify as a scholar; I do not know what are Goodman’s credentials.

Bob K Quote: Nomad Quote: All you are presenting is (A) an unsupported summary which is Smith’s opinion and (B) no conclusive proof which refutes the translations point-by-point and offers a commonly-agreed-upon alternative translation.

Bob K Quote: Nomad Quote: When are you going to face the reality that the word ‘Bel’ is used as a name and not merely as a title?

Christopher Siren refers to the use of the name Bel to refer to Marduk at the following website:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/assyrbabyl-faq.html

... and ...

Nomad Quote: To repeat: [quote]Christopher Siren refers to the use of the name Bel to refer to Marduk at the following website:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/assyrbabyl-faq.html

There is herein and thus a refutation of your attempts to completely separate Bel/Marduk from Baal.

Nomad Quote:I get the impression that you are waiting for someone to discover ancient writings in which Xn mythwriters confess that they stole mythical elements from other myths and wrote them into the Jesus myth, and that such confessions would be the only proof that the Jesus myth was fabricated from previous myths.

You appear to require what may be impossible to find: proof of a connection between the Jesus myth and other, older myths other than the parallels themselves.

It is not enough for you that the parallel of a dying/rising god/godman found in older myths and in the Jesus myth is in itself proof (A) that the Jesus myth is not original and (B) that the Jesus myth, being fabricated, is not true.

It is not enough for you that the parallels listed in the Assyrian Bel myth tablet are similar to the mythical elements of the Jesus myth and prove that the Jesus myth is not original, and, not being original, has to be a fabrication.

Instead, everyone who claims the Jesus myth is a copycat christ myth has to prove that the Xn mythwriters copied mythical elements/parallels from older myths.

Get this straight: The Xn mythwriters are all dead. We cannot capture one and torture it until it confesses that it helped to fabricate the Jesus myth.

And to date we have no confessions of Xn mythwriters in ancient writings that I am aware of.

I am aware, unfortunately for you, of the opinions of writers that Xns were excessive in their mythologizing. According to Acharya S, [ http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm , but also Joseph Wheless as cited in Gordon Stein, A Second Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 69.], Bishop Eusibius was known to be a liar and plagiarizer. No mention by church fathers or other Xn writers or historians that the texts of the Jewish Historian, Josephus Flavius, contained any references to Jesus (Jesus as the Christ of Xnity) until cited by Eusibius circa 324 suggests strongly that Eusibius himself may have fabricated the Josephus interpolation. [Joseph Wheless in Stein, p. 69.] St. Augustine wrote complaints about the mythologizing and fabrication of the Xn mythwriters in two books, De Mendacio in 395 A.D., and Contra Mendacium in 420 A.D. [Stein, p. 65.] Are we to deny that St. Augustine wrote such? Let us therefore agree that at least some early Xns were liars. Are we to then let their writings cruise through history without wondering if or not they plagiarized earlier myths?

Concerning modern references to the Babylonian New Year’s Festival and the entombment of Bel/Marduk/Ashur (Assyrian Marduk) in a mountain and his liberation/resurrection, regardless of your current opinion, I have found two websites which directly refer to the tradition of Bel/Marduk’s dying/rising:

1. http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/religion/akitu.htm

THE BABYLONIAN NEW YEAR´S FESTIVAL
By Lishtar

NOTE: This quote is only of the sections that refer to Marduk/Bel/Ashur.]

You should note the similarity of phraseology in which Bel/Marduk is held captive in a mountain. which means to those not in the mountain that the god is dead, there is rioting in the city, and the god/Bel/Marduk is liberated/resurrected, all which are presented in the Langdon translations, which brings up the question of why Langdon’s translation is faulty when in fact elements of its content are found in the Akitu, or Babylonian New Year’s Festival.

This set of citations confirms the myth of Bel/Marduk to be a dying/rising god as described by the Langdon/Zimmern/Pallis translations of the Assyrian Bel myth tablet.

2. http://www.aina.org/aol/Nissan.html

KHA B'NISSAN (APRIL 1ST): ASSYRIAN NEW YEAR
Emanuel Y. Kamber, Ph.D.

NOTE: Ashur = Assyrian name for Marduk.

NOTE: This quote is only of the sections that refer to Marduk/Bel/Ashur.]

NOTE: Power of death hold Marduk in the mountain/tomb = Marduk is dead.
Nabu sets Marduk free = Marduk is resurrected/made undead.

Note also the reference to rioting in the city upon the news of Bel/Marduk’s death/confinement in the mountain.

Note also the citation of the Book by S. A. Pallis, The Babylonian Akitu Festival. I do not know if or not a translation of the Assyrian Bel myth tablet is presented in Pallis’ book. But since there is no direct commentary or negation of Pallis’ information or commentary, I assume that Kamber holds a favorable regard for Pallis and his work and commentary.

If you choose to deny the accuracy of the Langdon/Zimmern/Pallis translations of the Bel myth on the Assyrian Bel myth tablet, then I will require that you produce works in which the translations are refuted word by word and line by line and thousands of objective (nonXn) scholars agree with the refutations plus an “accurate” translation approved/agreed to by thousands of objective scholars.

I will require sentences structures similar to these:

Langdon translates these words : __________________ ...

... thus: __________________

Langdon is wrong because these words: _________________ ...

... translate thus: ___________________

By these sentences the critics shall (A) identify which words/sentences/lines/etc. they are criticizing and (B) their translations thereof.

I am not interested in unsupported blanket opinions such the following: Instead, I want specifics by means of replications of the translation being condemned and retranslations which should show how the Assyrian Bel myth tablet text should be translated in addition to what it really means/what is its true context.

Until someone offers or otherwise I find direct refutations of the Zimmern/Langdon/Pallis translations and commonly-agreed-upon ‘accurate’ translations, then the Langdon translation of the Assyrian Bel myth tablet stands as accurate.

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Bob K ]

Nomad

Time to wrap up, as this conversation has deteriorated into the surreal.

Let me focus on a couple of points.

Religionists? Umm... what do you mean by this Bob? Surely you are not trying to poison the well here.

If you think that a Professor Emeritus of Princton does not stack up to Jackson, Goodman and Acharya S
(BTW, do you know who she is?) there is little more to be said here. Jackson is a writer for an atheist propaganda sheet. What are his qualifications please? Who is Goodman again? I have not seen you list his credentials. Langdon offered a translation in 1923 that even you have admitted is confused and disjointed, yet you continue to have faith in it. Let me make this easy for you: Acharya S is not a scholar (and if you want me to prove this accusation, just say so, then I will expect both a retraction, and an apology from you for using her after I am finished). She is, in fact, a kook of the weirdest kind. That you would even quote her as a source betrays your willingness to believe anything, so long as it is anti-Christian. Josh McDowell, Earl Doherty and Barbara Theiring look like towers of intellectual might by comparison. You have, however, demonstrated the kinds of sources that you accept uncritically. I am more than content to let my citations stand as is, and allow readers here to judge for themselves who is more credible.

In order to establish links between two documents, you must first demonstrate that it is probable:

a) that the authors of the later works would have known about the earlier story
b) the earlier source would be a desirable source to use by the later author
c) the parallels are specific enough to suspect links. Generic ones are not credible, as any two stories can be made to look alike if they are broken down to their most basic elements. See my example of Robin Hood and Iron Monkey above.
d) Other, more plausible and probable sources do not exist (in this case, the Hebrew Bible and Jewish customs provide far and away the most reasonable and probable sources for the evangelists. They wanted to convert their fellow Jews, they WERE Jews themselves, and Judaism was a widely respected and even protected religion within the Roman Empire. Assyrian propaganda, coming from a long dead empire poking fun at the god of another long dead empire (Babylon) is a very unlikely source, and even less likely to be attractive to the evangelists.

Further, you betray your willingness to buy the absolute worst anti-Christian tripe and propaganda when you shamelessly quote Wheless and Archana S’ lie that “Bishop Eusibius was known to be a liar and plagiarizer.” Offer actual evidence to support your slanders Bob. Your credibility is already shot here, and your credulity is showing very badly.

One final point to demonstrate that you still do not understand my arguments:

I have already demonstrated that even if we accepted Langdon’s translation in full, it still does not serve as parallels for the Gospel accounts. The rioting accompanying Bel’s death is not found in the Gospels (I suspected that rioting was what the tablet said, and that you were covering this fact up). The Gospels have no rioting, and only Matthew has an earthquake and people rising from the dead. Bel is confined to a mountain BEFORE he is executed. Jesus is buried in a tomb, not a mountain. Bel is executed in a sacred grove (and NOT by crucifixion). Jesus is crucified exactly where every other crucified criminal in Jerusalem was killed, Golgotha. There are no weeping women going to the tomb in the Gospels. There is no "Hall of Justice", on a judgement hall, and then only in the Gospel of John. Other parallels are found better in Hebrew Scripture and Jewish custom, yet you prefer to think that these are less likely sources than an obscure Assyrian tablet! You cannot even establish that the evangelists knew the tablet existed at all, let alone that they used it. Finally, in one case where I did show you how Langdon’s translation was faulty, you did not even address this point. He thinks that the Assyrians used the month of Nisan in their calendars, but it is the Jews that did this.

Your arguments are pathetic. Your faith in sources like Jackson and Acharya S is even worse (though in the latter case, it does help to explain your prior crack pot belief that Bel was an example of a crucified god). Your willingness to quote propaganda uncritically is sad. Your presumption that a scholar that disagrees with your sources is likely to be a “hard core religionist” demonstrates the worst kind of thinking (especially as it betrays the fact that you do not even know who these scholars happen to be). You are a committed fundamentalist on this point Bob. I do not debate with such people. Believe what you will, but until you come up with something far more substantial, we are done here Bob.

Good bye.

Nomad

P.S. I knew you would not read Miller’s pages. That is unfortunate. My hope is that others will, and in so doing, at least receive some balance to the lies and bald assertions you prefer to offer here.

Jesus Christ just a CopyCat Savior Myth? Part A
Part B

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Kosh

Game, Set, and Match: Bob K.

Good job, Bob. Thanks for doing all the
research, and presenting a convincing
argument despite efforts to confuse the
issue with obfuscation.

Marduk

Nomad said:
". They wanted to convert their fellow Jews, they WERE Jews themselves, and Judaism was a widely respected and even protected religion within the Roman Empire. Assyrian propaganda, coming from a long dead empire poking fun at the god of another long dead empire (Babylon) is a very unlikely source, and even less likely to be attractive to the evangelists."

We've been through this before, much of Jewish OT Scripture borrows heavily from common Middle Eastern Mythos, the Jews lived quite some time in both Egypt and Babylon; circumscisson, annoiting kings with oil, the flood, tower of babel, baby in a basket, baby killing king, trinity, strongman, all common elements of Egypto AssyroBabylonian and Sumerian myth & custom.

copernicus

Marduck, you left out one of the most important rituals, and I'm surprised that BobK seems to have known nothing about it either: the sin-bearer ritual. This is from Gerald Larue's Freethought Across the Centuries, Humanist Press, 1996, pp. 71-72. Sorry for the lengthiness of the passage, but anyone who has made it this far is used to long-winded posts.
Fascinating, isn't it? I have always found that part of the Jesus myth difficult to understand. Why would the death of Jesus somehow cleanse or purify the human race? Jesus was somehow viewed as a sacrificial sin-bearer. It makes a lot more sense in light of the ancient tradition of a sin-bearer ritual purification ceremony. And we now also know why Christ ended up sitting at the right hand of God.

[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: copernicus ]

Marduk

The Jews as well had a sin bearer, I believe it was a goat or 'scapegoat'. I forget the details of the ritual, something is tied to the goat and it's lead into the woods, similar to the Babylonian story. (except with a goat)

Nomad

Hmm... this is an interesting list marduk. I noticed you even included the Trinity, which is interesting. In any event, I am unsure of your point here. Are you saying that it is probable that the Gospel writers borrowed from an ancient Assyrian tablet rather than from their own Scriptures? If so, on what do you base this conclusion? And if not, I am curious to know your point here.

As for the reason for a scapegoat, this was simply one of the laws of Judaism practiced throughout the period of both the First and Second Temple. It was an annual ritual was established in the Torah:

Leviticus 16:20-22 "When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites--all their sins--and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert.

But from the Gospels and New Testament, Jesus is not portrayed as the scape (escape) goat, but rather, the Paschal Lamb that is sacrificed for the sins of the people (John 1:36, 1 Corinthians 5:7, 1 Peter 1:19, ect. See also the imagery of the Last Supper where Christ's body and blood are sacrificed for the sins of the world).

Nomad

MortalWombat

I'm obviously not speaking for marduck, and I'm sure he'll offer his own opinion, but I think this is one of the sticking points in talking to apologists about influences of ancient stories on the Jesus story. I don't think that anyone here has said that the gospel writers deliberately sat down with some Assyrian, Egyption, etc. tablet and said, "Hey, this is a good story, lets copy it and change the names around a bit." The point is that these are stories and myths that were "in the air" so to speak. They are were the minds and traditions of people who lived in the Middle East and surrounding areas during ancient times. Just as stories involving "Guy meets girl, guy loses girl, guy gets girl back" are prevalent in many of our present day stories.

Marduk

MortalWombat said it just fine, I know most of the people in those days could not even read text in their own language let alone 2000 year old tablets written in Assyrobabylonian, I meant what MW said, story telling was a popular pastime and most stories were about God or 'the Gods'.