Sumerian Influence on Genesis

[Diogenes]

For another thing, the story of Eden contains such Hebrew borrowings from the Sumerian as the term ‘ed “(underground)flow” (Gen. 2:6), and the name Eden itself.

I wouldn't mind taking part in a discussion of Sumerian influences on the Bible at some point. Perhaps best taken to a new thread, but it was too good to ignore the reference Diogenes posted here.

When I read the scriptures as a child I got the impression God directly informed his chosen people, the Hebrews, of how he made the world. It surprised me later to learn some of these stories came from earlier cultures, such as the Sumerians. The most obvious example is the flood myth which was preceded by the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Cuneiform writing was invented by the Sumerians and carried on by the Akkadians. Babylonian and Assyrian are two dialects of the Akkadian, and both contain a flood account. While there are differences between the original Sumerian and later Babylonian and Assyrian flood accounts, many of the similarities are strikingly close to the Genesis flood account.

O'Brien, J. Randall, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", Biblical Illustrator, (Fall 1986, volume 13, number 1), p. 61.
For debate: Doesn't the fact the flood myth and others predate Genesis demonstrate these myths are not actual history, and that there is nothing special about Genesis in terms of it being a direct revelation from God?

[POI]

For debate: Doesn't the fact the flood myth and others predate Genesis demonstrate these myths are not actual history, and that there is nothing special about Genesis in terms of it being a direct revelation from God?

I've argued this point with theists in the passed. They will make statements that, 'because other sects have mentioned a flood, this further validates a flood.' They seem not too concerned, that the "Epic of G." story came before. I guess this would mean that just because the Hebrews wrote about it later, does not mean it was not still given divinely?

[theophile]

For debate: Doesn't the fact the flood myth and others predate Genesis demonstrate these myths are not actual history, and that there is nothing special about Genesis in terms of it being a direct revelation from God?

Only if what is 'special' about God's revelation in Genesis is its portrayal of history. But I don't think that's that the writers were aiming for.

Your argument would be better applied, for example, to someone like Herodotus. At least he endeavored above all to reveal history in his works.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have had not a few argue that the genesis flood came before Gilgamensh. It's obvious why they think so. It reads more like recorded history than the obvious myth of Gilgamensh. But the more primitive Ark and the more localised Flood and selection of domestic animals (the vermin can look after themselves) makes the Sumerian version look earlier than the Genesis version which seems more aware of shipbuilding and the wider world requiring more species to be saved (1) indicates that the Genesis version of the Flood was much later borrowing from Babylon. Which is probably where the Bible writers (looking for an origin tale to make the Jews the original people) got Genesis and Exodus, because hints like Sargon provided the story of Moses in the Bulrushes, not to mention similar gerbling of historical records like AhMoses directing the semitic tribes into Canaan, and the reference to the Philistines making the exodus - story post Ramesses III at leas. And maybe Babylonian historical records provided the slightly wrong history of the fall of Babylon to Persia (Babylon was not destroyed but the 'Chalcdean magi' were still the wise men of the Middle east in Seleucid and even Roman times) used to construct the 'prophecy' of Daniel, plus the more accurate history of their own time (just before the Maccabean revolt) but that's just another guess, like my other guesses .

But all in a heap folks, all the evidence points to the Bible Not being the first version of all the origin legends, and Israel and the Hebrews Not even being a people in Canaan until after the 11th c. B.C. And the claim that the Bible, Eden and Flood came first is just like everything in Bible - apologetics - Fiddling the evidence to try to make it support the Bible, and then dismissing it when it doesn't.

(1) even though they had no idea that this was so many, even . And maybe even without the dinosaurs having to be on the Ark, too (2) so that (despite Woodmorappe trying to cram all species into a few cattle trucks) they had to invent the Baryma explanation which was a few basic 'animal kinds' that super - evolved over a thousand years or so (3) which is where Flood apologetics has pretty much ended up - Evolution and deep time geology, speeded up like a Benny Hill sketch and looking just as hilarious.

(2) one point leads to another...I always wondered why on earth the Creationists didn't use the Flood to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. I found out that it was the discovery of dinosaur tracks in supposed Flood levels of rock strata that meant the Dinos (and ALL the previous prehistoric critters) had to be on the Ark, too. And no Creationists even knew why, or even thought about it. They simply repeated what their propaganda says without giving it any thought. I swear this is true - they recite the Dogma, no question or research. Though the ones who "Might otherwise have been wise" (and will be, once they deconvert) may try to make the dogma work, with theories made up on the hoof.

(3) Sorry folks, but the strange ramifications of YE Creationist apologetics is fascinating, ...pretty much the same with Flood geology. After attempts to deny the geology, they end up having to propose Geology as it happened, (Breakup of Pangaea, pushing up of mountain ranges) but all done over a couple of months or even weeks from the waters 'going down' (actually mountains going up) and the repositioning of the continents with all the appropriately sorted animals in new and old world monkeys, and the marsupials assigned to Australia. With Pangaea breaking up after the creation of the mountains that resulted from the breakup of Pangaea. But, like the mountains 'arising' as the water went down, the hydroplate theory has the mountains already there and revealed by the water going down - where to? That was what the mountains rising was supposed to explain, but the mountains already there means the water still has to go somewhere. We know what's going on - some ad hoc hypotheses with some 'science fact' that sounds likely assigned without much thought, folks, to give it scientific credibility.

[1213]

...It surprised me later to learn some of these stories came from earlier cultures, such as the Sumerians. The most obvious example is the flood myth which was preceded by the Epic of Gilgamesh.
...

Why do you believe that?

I don't think it is true.

[TRANSPONDER]

...It surprised me later to learn some of these stories came from earlier cultures, such as the Sumerians. The most obvious example is the flood myth which was preceded by the Epic of Gilgamesh.
...

Why do you believe that?

I don't think it is true.

You will have to do better than this. We (atheists) could say "Christianity is not true" and give a link to Talk origins and expect you to do the research, but if we did that we'd deserve to be deleted.

You should post (from your link if you wish) your case why it is false that Sumerian Myth influenced the Bible.

Oh.... I suppose I should pinch -hit for Diogenes and say why we think Sumerian myth influenced the Bible. It's because we can trace the fossil record from Sumer through Akkad and Babylon to Assyria. The Flood and Ark went through a couple of revisions Ut - Napishtim becoming Atram Hasis and finally Ziusudra; and I recall the Greeks got it from the Babylonian Chaldean magi and turned it into the myth of Deucalion. It is not improbable that the writers of Genesis also borrowed it from Babylon to construct their Origin Stories (Genesis and Exodus). So the wider world and more sophisticated Ark of Genesis plus of course no record of any Biblical text before the 6th c.BC (the silver scroll) and no mention of Israel at all before the 12th-11th c BC let alone an 'original Noah' story, is indirect evidence that the Genesis version came later, plus I argue that the borrowing of the Life of Sargon of Akkad evidently borrowed for Moses hints at a borrowing of Babylonian material to construct the Origin Chapters of Genesis and Exodus. ..And since we have an 'explanation' of sorts I might be permitted a video...

Nope...can't find one I really want to post.

[Diagoras]

For debate: Doesn't the fact the flood myth and others predate Genesis demonstrate these myths are not actual history, and that there is nothing special about Genesis in terms of it being a direct revelation from God?

Only if what is 'special' about God's revelation in Genesis is its portrayal of history. But I don't think that's that the writers were aiming for.

So can you provide any sources that explain what the authors of Genesis were ‘aiming for’?

A claim can be made that biblical history proper only starts at Genesis 12, and that the preceding chapters are ‘pre-history’. See here:
https://www.penn.museum/sites/expeditio ... f-genesis/

If you reject that claim (e.g. too simplistic, perhaps?) then I’d like to see some research that better supports the early chapters of Genesis being part of a cohesive historical narrative.

[1213]

...I suppose I should pinch -hit for Diogenes and say why we think Sumerian myth influenced the Bible. It's because we can trace the fossil record from Sumer through Akkad and Babylon to Assyria. The Flood and Ark went through a couple of revisions Ut - Napishtim becoming Atram Hasis and finally Ziusudra; and I recall the Greeks got it from the Babylonian Chaldean magi and turned it into the myth of Deucalion. It is not improbable that the writers of Genesis also borrowed it from Babylon to construct their Origin Stories (Genesis and Exodus). So the wider world and more sophisticated Ark of Genesis plus of course no record of any Biblical text before the 6th c.BC (the silver scroll) and no mention of Israel at all before the 12th-11th c BC let alone an 'original Noah' story, is indirect evidence that the Genesis version came later, plus I argue that the borrowing of the Life of Sargon of Akkad evidently borrowed for Moses hints at a borrowing of Babylonian material to construct the Origin Chapters of Genesis and Exodus....

Sounds like a nice fictional story, but sorry, I don't see any good reason to believe any of that. I think one could as well claim that the others copied it poorly from Jews.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I suppose I should pinch -hit for Diogenes and say why we think Sumerian myth influenced the Bible. It's because we can trace the fossil record from Sumer through Akkad and Babylon to Assyria. The Flood and Ark went through a couple of revisions Ut - Napishtim becoming Atram Hasis and finally Ziusudra; and I recall the Greeks got it from the Babylonian Chaldean magi and turned it into the myth of Deucalion. It is not improbable that the writers of Genesis also borrowed it from Babylon to construct their Origin Stories (Genesis and Exodus). So the wider world and more sophisticated Ark of Genesis plus of course no record of any Biblical text before the 6th c.BC (the silver scroll) and no mention of Israel at all before the 12th-11th c BC let alone an 'original Noah' story, is indirect evidence that the Genesis version came later, plus I argue that the borrowing of the Life of Sargon of Akkad evidently borrowed for Moses hints at a borrowing of Babylonian material to construct the Origin Chapters of Genesis and Exodus....

Sounds like a nice fictional story, but sorry, I don't see any good reason to believe any of that. I think one could as well claim that the others copied it poorly from Jews.

Sure, one could, but where is your evidence for that argument? Where are the original versions of the Genesis account? The evidence of the evolution of the story from the Sumerian is reason to think it was the original. There is NO evidence to support your 'Genesis was the original' claim. Yet again you are supposing that your Faithbased preferences are going to win you the debate (or discussion), when the crowd or audience (if they are not already indoctrinated) are going to see that you have no case.

There's a Holistic matter here, but I'll save it till later.

[theophile]

For debate: Doesn't the fact the flood myth and others predate Genesis demonstrate these myths are not actual history, and that there is nothing special about Genesis in terms of it being a direct revelation from God?

Only if what is 'special' about God's revelation in Genesis is its portrayal of history. But I don't think that's that the writers were aiming for.

So can you provide any sources that explain what the authors of Genesis were ‘aiming for’?

A claim can be made that biblical history proper only starts at Genesis 12, and that the preceding chapters are ‘pre-history’. See here:
https://www.penn.museum/sites/expeditio ... f-genesis/

If you reject that claim (e.g. too simplistic, perhaps?) then I’d like to see some research that better supports the early chapters of Genesis being part of a cohesive historical narrative.

It may just be me here, but I think the authors of Genesis were aiming more at theology than they were history. i.e., they were trying to reveal what they believed God to be through their stories and words, not historical events.

As to sources of that belief, well, isn't it kind of self-evident? Do we not intuitively characterize the bible as such? i.e., as intending to be a revelation of God? (Whether we believe what it says or not...)

What is your source that the bible is above all trying to reveal history? I get that many of the books have a historic flavor, no doubt. But all that means (IMO) is the authors used history as a literary device to make their ideas of God more engaging and real. (Hence why we see other literary forms being deployed across the bible, like proverbs, parables, and psalms.)