cjack

In an e-mail discussion with a fundified catholic friend, I've come to learn he dismisses the notion that the Noah story is anything but true.

I tried to convince him that the story was likely borrowed from older sources (Gilgamesh, etc.), but he's not buying it. Total Biblical literalist, as far as I can tell.

Now, I was going to shoot down his latest e-mail (cut and paste from some apologetic), but I figured I'd give the fine folks here in BC&A a crack at it first:

Conclusions
From the early days of the comparative study of these two flood accounts, it
has been generally agreed that there is an obvious relationship. The
widespread nature of flood traditions throughout the entire human race is
excellent evidence for the existence of a great flood from a
legal/historical point of view.20 Dating of the oldest fragments of the
Gilgamesh account originally indicated that it was older than the assumed
dating of Genesis.21 However, the probability exists that the Biblical
account had been preserved either as an oral tradition, or in written form
handed down from Noah, through the patriarchs and eventually to Moses,
thereby making it actually older than the Sumerian accounts which were
restatements (with alterations) to the original.

A popular theory, proposed by liberal "scholars," said that the Hebrews
"borrowed" from the Babylonians, but no conclusive proof has ever been
offered.22 The differences, including religious, ethical, and sheer quantity
of details, make it unlikely that the Biblical account was dependent on any
extant source from the Sumerian traditions. This still does not stop these
liberal and secular scholars from advocating such a theory. The most
accepted theory among evangelicals is that both have one common source,
predating all the Sumerian forms.23 The divine inspiration of the Bible
would demand that the Genesis account is the correct version. Indeed the
Hebrews were known for handing down their records and tradition.24 The Book
of Genesis is viewed for the most part as an historical work, even by many
liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological. The
One-source Theory must, therefore, lead back to the historical event of the
Flood and Noah's Ark.25 To those who believe in the inspiration and
infallibility of the Bible, it should not be a surprise that God would
preserve the true account of the Flood in the traditions of His people. The
Genesis account was kept pure and accurate throughout the centuries by the
providence of God until it was finally compiled, edited, and written down by
Moses.26 The Epic of Gilgamesh, then, contains the corrupted account as
preserved and embellished by peoples who did not follow the God of the
Hebrews.

[1] Keller, Werner, The Bible as History, (New York: William Morrow and
Company, 1956), p. 32.
[2] Sanders, N.K., The Epic of Gilgamesh ,(an English translation with
introduction) (London: Penguin Books, 1964), p. 9.
[3] Graves, Robert, The Creek Myths, Volume 1,(London: Penguin Books, 1960),
pp. 138-143.
[4] Rehwinkel, Alfred M., The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and
Archaeology, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1951), p. 129.
[5] O'Brien, J. Randall, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", Biblical
Illustrator, (Fall 1986, volume 13, number 1), p. 61.
[6] Barton, George A., Archaeology and the Bible, (Philadelphia: American
Sunday School Union, 1916), pp. 273-277
[7] Keller, The Bible as History, p. 33.
[8] Whitcomb, John C. and Morris, Henry M., The Genesis Flood,
(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), p. 38.
[9] Heidel, Alexander, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels,
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949), p. 13.
[10] O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", p. 61.
[11] Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallel, p. 13.
[12] Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh, p. 21.
[13] Vos, Howard F., Genesis and Archaeology, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963),
p. 35.
[14] Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh, pp. 20-23.
[15] Ibid., pp. 30 39.
[16] Ibid., pp. 39-42.
[17] Keller, The Bible as History, p. 33.
[18] Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh, p. 109.
[19] O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", pp. 62, 63.
[20] Morris, Henry M., Science and the Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986),
p. 85.
[21] O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", p. 64.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Morris, Science and the Bible, p. 92.
[25] Ibid., p. 85.
[26] Whitcomb, John C., The Early Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1986), p. 134; Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, p. 488.




Aside from the pathetically obvious appeal to authority, of course...

Spaz

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Idiocy at its finest. The problem is that people like this will likely dismiss anything that they don't like, and something like the dating of the tablets, etc. is something that they will deny like crazy and there's really no way to convince them because you can't very well date it right in front of them. Have you gone the route of how incredibly stupid and impossible the story itself is aside from its mythical borrowings? I'd have to say that's the most effective way to disprove the flood, but it would probably be very difficult to get it through your friend's head as well...

cjack

Okay, here's my take...

IIRC, the first appearance of Hebrew writing anywhere was somehwere around 1200 bce, leaving a paltry 800 years between the time that the first recorded instances of the Giglamesh epic and the appearance of anything that had been preserved by Hebrews.


Interestingly enough, there is not a single shred of evidence that there was a world-wide flood.



Yet the similarities are quite striking. BTW, are secular scholars somehow inferior to evangelicals???



And the source for this "theory" is....wait...don't tell me...



Ahhh...the Bible says so. No, wait, the Bible DEMANDS that Genesis is correct!


Indeed, the Sumerians were known for handing down their tradiitons at least a thousand years before Hebrews appeared on the scene.


Interestingly enough, the Book of Genesis is viewed even by some Biblical scholars as mythological, while no scholar, liberal or otherwise, has suggested that the Epic is anything other than fantasy.




So basically, the Bible is the true account because the Bible is the Word of God and cannot possibly be wrong. God apparently proofreads the Bible from time to time, and the Sumerian account is just a bunch of wicked pagans who stole from God's chosen people.


Well? Too mean?

Jayhawker Soule

Just wondering: did you get your friend's permission to post the email?

Peter Kirby

The source is here.

best,
Peter Kirby

trillian

King Gilgamesh was a real person. He is documented through other sumerian sources as ruling Uruk around 2700BC. It is arguably the oldest written story ever found. Noah? Nothing in external sources for his existence.

Ask your friend for any proof, other than his faith in the divinity, that the flood epic of the OT is seen as historical. No non-judeochristian historian believes that.

You also may want to point out that it isn't likely that a worldwide flood is adapted later into a 6-7 day flood. That isn't the usual course of embellishment in mythology and makes no sense.

nermal

Dating of the oldest fragments of the Gilgamesh account originally indicated that it was older than the assumed dating of Genesis.21 However, the probability exists that the Biblical account had been preserved either as an oral tradition, or in written form handed down from Noah, through the patriarchs and eventually to Moses, thereby making it actually older than the Sumerian accounts which were restatements (with alterations) to the original.

Interesting bit of dancing here. We can date Gilgamesh as older than the Hebrew, so let's assume the Hebrew was passed down orally, thus making it older than the dated Gilgamesh. But let's not allow that Gilgamesh could have been passed down orally. Nope. Can't do that. Hebrew is older. Yup.


Ed

Celsus

This is nonsense of course. If the Biblical chronology is to be believed, then the Noachian flood occurred sometime in 2600-2400 BCE. The problem is, explaining to evangelicals that the book of Genesis probably reached its final form c.500-400 BCE is a long technical discussion that's difficult to explain. No anthropologists today would allow for oral transmission beyond a few hundred years, let alone 2000. Meanwhile, the earliest Sumerian fragments of an earlier myth--the Atrahasis flood story, dates to the 2000s BCE (although this seems to sometimes be confused with the Gilgamesh epic). Quite clearly, Gilgamesh is based on Atrahasis, as is the Noachian flood.
LEGAL/HISTORICAL? Absolute hogwash. Archaeological facts are not determined by a bunch of myths. Besides, from a legal/historical point of view, counterexamples (think Chinese and Egyptians) whose histories completely ignore such a flood are much more persuasive.
Yes, except that Christian fundamentalists are the only ones who "assume" a date of Genesis, and "assume" it was written by Moses in the 1300s BCE with no methodology other than dogmatic belief. All wrong, nor does oral tradition last for 1000+ years, let alone 2000. Genesis is a post-exilic myth.
If by "probability" you mean > 0, then yes. However, this is an assertion with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Check what's the earliest version of the Biblical flood story we have available: c.200 BCE (Dead Sea Scrolls). Earliest Sumerian version: c.2000 BCE. No contest.
Again, this is playing with words. Biblical criticism doesn't deal with "proof." Nevertheless, the correlations and similarities are obvious to anyone, as even the ICR admit.
But the parallels are also very obvious in the outlines, etiology, and themes, whereas the differences lie in the details. A clear sign of either borrowing or a common source. Of course, the problem with "unlikely that the account was dependent" is that it's already begging the question that Noah passed down the story through oral tradition and it reached Moses.
Because the argument is laughably weak.
If it did predate the Sumerian forms, then it would be much earlier than the actual Flood. Biblical chronology would be wrong. And that causes the problem--how do they know Moses 1000 years later (again begging the question of course)--got it right while the Sumerians and Babylonians writing much closer to the time, got it wrong? Magic?
No it doesn't. No they weren't. The sheer variation of texts and apocrypha found at Qumran should lay this fundamentalist myth to rest. But it hasn't, sadly.
More hilarity (and non sequiturs). Name me a "liberal scholar" who views Genesis as more historical than Gilgamesh. More fundiefiction. The rest of that text is just preaching.

Joel