Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

Diagoras wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:41 pm
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?
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7969
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Post #21

Post by TRANSPONDER »

theophile wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:04 pm
Clownboat wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 10:47 am
theophile wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 11:03 am 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.
I'm curious about your take on what you think the authors of the Vedas and the Upanishads, the Quran and the Hadiths and the Agamas were aiming at when they told stories about their gods and creation.

Were they trying to reveal what they believed their God to be through their stories and words? If so, what would this mean about the available god concepts that humans have constructed? Is there any reason to believe one of these concepts is accurate while we dismissing the others?

I ask because you said: "they were trying to reveal what they believed God to be" - and that brings up a mechanism for how humans have arrived at all the available god concepts we now have. Make more sense to me than having all the god to be false, except for one. How about you?
I don't want to be reductive, but in general yes, I think other sacred texts are trying to work out the same big questions as the bible, which naturally involves accounting for God (even if it's no God), how it all started (some kind of cosmology), where it's all going (an eschatology), and the role of humankind and everything else in it all. They essentially aim to account for everything up to and including God. All things past, present and future, typically in narrative form.

This will be a controversial opinion, but I think of sacred texts as a unified field theory of sorts, but not just explaining the physical world as a physicist might aim for, but everything else as well at an appropriate level.

This view has some real implications for your questions:

1. It means that despite different narratives, terminology, traditions, etc., there is likely to be (and I believe is) a lot of common elements / ground across traditions, just as there is in scientific circles. Like the OP says, there is a clear intermingling of ideas going on here; shared foundations so to speak like the laws of thermodynamics in science, or something like the golden rule for many religions. So it's not a straight up "this one is right and these are all wrong" kind of a thing. There is too much in common for that.

2. But it also means that comparison is possible, insofar as everything the sacred text says needs to hold up to reality (just as everything a unified theory predicts needs to pan out). So while it's not a "this one is right and these are all wrong" kind of thing, there is a real possibility that one is better than the other. Sacred texts can be assessed and compared for the accuracy and comprehensiveness of their explanatory power... (I'm not saying it would be easy to do this, but only that it's possible.)

As to which one is the best, well, given our general lack of ability to agree on things as human beings, that may be a matter of choice. Frankly, it comes down to decisions made with limited understanding on all our parts, perhaps even without recognition that we're making a decision.

But I also think it comes down to choice in a different sense, by which I mean God is ultimately something we have to choose. God is more a title or honorific we assign to something than the self-given name or intrinsic nature of some actual being out there... As I said, Israel was trying to reveal what they believed God to be. Which means, what they chose to call God out of all the possible things they could have, whether it exists or not.
Hmm. I suppose it is encouraging that we seem to get a lot more Sortagod - claims (though usually quoting from the Bible rather than the Upanishads, Popol Vuh or Tripitaka), and it may indicate a welcome shift away from organised (Christian) religion, its' authority over its' flock, control over the family and interference in politics, education and even science, if it could (1). And of course the idea of a cosmic mind is a popular default hypothesis (apparently because it does not require defending the Bible - which few Christians really seem to know, let alone understand), and it is fondly believed that Cosmic Origins is a surefire atheist - stumper.

Again I would love to know whether these people are tabula rasa atheists talked into Kalam, or Bible -believers who have given up on trying to defend it and retreated to Deist goddism, instead. But I'm not sure they'd be able to answer honestly, let alone tell me.

So, the bottom line is, it seems to me, whether First cause is a valid hypothesis, even before we get to suggesting that human beans have a common perception of one God different views (the blind men and the elephant analogy) when the suggestion that we have natural conditions and an instinctive human delusion with no reality there is not even considered, whether or not it had even occurred to them. It does now because i reckon that is the default hypothesis, not a sortagod, taken as a Given.

(1) Creationists even tried to redefine science by proposing passing a law to say that science is whatever religious leaders say it is. I am not a violent man, but when they hang from their own gibbet for the sport of their own crows, I shall have peace with these people.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Post #22

Post by theophile »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 12:46 pm
theophile wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:04 pm God is more a title or honorific we assign to something than the self-given name or intrinsic nature of some actual being out there...
I find your ignostisism to be justified as the way you use the term god is very generic and non informative.

"Is there any reason to believe one of these concepts is accurate while we dismissing the others?"
I will assume your answer to my question is 'no' since the term god is just a title and doesn't even reflect some actual being out there.
Am I agnostic? Apologies if I wasn't clear, my answer is not 'no' to your question but 'yes'. I think some God-concepts are for sure more accurate in the sense the God they refer to exists, and is an actual being out there.

But what I'm also saying is that even if such a match occurred, between concept and reality, we can't just conclude that is God. Unless perhaps it's an agreed upon concept in the first place or something in retrospect of experiencing we also deem worthy. (Hence the choice of who or what to assign the title of God...)

So perhaps I should clarify the characteristics a sacred text must have to become a unified field theory:
1. Accuracy, in the sense the God-concept (and other concepts conveyed) actually describe existent things (past, present, future)
2. Extension, in the sense of how much of reality is accurately accounted for (God, death, economics, physical world, etc.)
3. Worthiness, in the sense of whether the being proposed to be God actually deserves the title (God can be only one, if any of them.)

That is why I said it is a matter of choice. And for the record, I have chosen. I just haven't tried to convey my God-concept here given the focus has been sacred texts in general.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Post #23

Post by Clownboat »

theophile wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:20 pm
Clownboat wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 12:46 pm
theophile wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:04 pm God is more a title or honorific we assign to something than the self-given name or intrinsic nature of some actual being out there...
I find your ignostisism to be justified as the way you use the term god is very generic and non informative.

"Is there any reason to believe one of these concepts is accurate while we dismissing the others?"
I will assume your answer to my question is 'no' since the term god is just a title and doesn't even reflect some actual being out there.
Am I agnostic? Apologies if I wasn't clear, my answer is not 'no' to your question but 'yes'. I think some God-concepts are for sure more accurate in the sense the God they refer to exists, and is an actual being out there.

But what I'm also saying is that even if such a match occurred, between concept and reality, we can't just conclude that is God. Unless perhaps it's an agreed upon concept in the first place or something in retrospect of experiencing we also deem worthy. (Hence the choice of who or what to assign the title of God...)

So perhaps I should clarify the characteristics a sacred text must have to become a unified field theory:
1. Accuracy, in the sense the God-concept (and other concepts conveyed) actually describe existent things (past, present, future)
2. Extension, in the sense of how much of reality is accurately accounted for (God, death, economics, physical world, etc.)
3. Worthiness, in the sense of whether the being proposed to be God actually deserves the title (God can be only one, if any of them.)

That is why I said it is a matter of choice. And for the record, I have chosen. I just haven't tried to convey my God-concept here given the focus has been sacred texts in general.
Note, I said Ignostic, not agnostic.

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

I say this because when you use the word god, it does not convey a coherent unambiguous meaning to me and I find this enirely justified and not a fault by the way.
Post 19: "which naturally involves accounting for God (even if it's no God)"
"God is more a title or honorific we assign to something than the self-given name or intrinsic nature of some actual being out there"

What is a God? I also do not claim to know as it is a word used by far too many with far too many differing meanings. On this we seem to agree.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Post #24

Post by theophile »

Clownboat wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 12:02 pm
theophile wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:20 pm
Clownboat wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 12:46 pm
theophile wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:04 pm God is more a title or honorific we assign to something than the self-given name or intrinsic nature of some actual being out there...
I find your ignostisism to be justified as the way you use the term god is very generic and non informative.

"Is there any reason to believe one of these concepts is accurate while we dismissing the others?"
I will assume your answer to my question is 'no' since the term god is just a title and doesn't even reflect some actual being out there.
Am I agnostic? Apologies if I wasn't clear, my answer is not 'no' to your question but 'yes'. I think some God-concepts are for sure more accurate in the sense the God they refer to exists, and is an actual being out there.

But what I'm also saying is that even if such a match occurred, between concept and reality, we can't just conclude that is God. Unless perhaps it's an agreed upon concept in the first place or something in retrospect of experiencing we also deem worthy. (Hence the choice of who or what to assign the title of God...)

So perhaps I should clarify the characteristics a sacred text must have to become a unified field theory:
1. Accuracy, in the sense the God-concept (and other concepts conveyed) actually describe existent things (past, present, future)
2. Extension, in the sense of how much of reality is accurately accounted for (God, death, economics, physical world, etc.)
3. Worthiness, in the sense of whether the being proposed to be God actually deserves the title (God can be only one, if any of them.)

That is why I said it is a matter of choice. And for the record, I have chosen. I just haven't tried to convey my God-concept here given the focus has been sacred texts in general.
Note, I said Ignostic, not agnostic.

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

I say this because when you use the word god, it does not convey a coherent unambiguous meaning to me and I find this enirely justified and not a fault by the way.
Post 19: "which naturally involves accounting for God (even if it's no God)"
"God is more a title or honorific we assign to something than the self-given name or intrinsic nature of some actual being out there"

What is a God? I also do not claim to know as it is a word used by far too many with far too many differing meanings. On this we seem to agree.
I noticed the word, but my quick google search only turned up agnosticism :)
I am ignostic as you say here though (more or less). I agree 100% there is no unambiguous definition of God. Common sense alludes us on this front. But I do think coherency exists... Coherency is irrespective of whether there is unanimity of thinking.

If I used the word God in a more positive sense, in terms of what I think God is, then God is a spirit (the ruach elohim of Genesis 1) that calls us to affirm life in all its forms. And beyond this, God is those physical beings who are in the spirit, becoming one with it, and who bring their power to its cause. Ones such as Yahweh or Christ.

Out of all I know and have experienced, that is the most accurate, extensive, and worthy concept of God, and should be at the heart of the unifying theory of everything that is (past, present, and future, as much as the past is behind us).

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Post #25

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to theophile in post #15]

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?
theophile wrote:
I wrote:So I better understand your position: Genesis 1 to 11 is attempting to reveal or describe God’s character through stories (like of Adam and Eve, the flood, etc)? Is that the claim?
Yes. I think that was more the aim of the writers than history was. To be clear, I'm not saying they didn't have other aims when they wrote or redacted parts of Genesis (including the purpose and role of man and even the portrayal of history), but the primary aim was to reveal what they believed to be God, and 'flexing' history to that end. i.e., any history they portrayed on the way was either as device or side-effect.
<bolding mine>

Ok, that seems to put us both more or less on the same side as far as ‘these myths are not actual, accurate history’ goes.

theophile wrote:Put yourself in their shoes 3-4000 years ago. The situation was one of competing gods and cosmologies.
A useful reminder, thanks. It’s not so easy to read ancient texts without imposing our modern worldview on them.

theophile wrote:Genesis 1, for example, is an obvious counter-narrative to the Enuma Elish. The question is: did Israel compose Genesis 1 to correct the historic record on the creation of the world as on offer there, or to counter its god-notions of Marduk, Tehom, etc., and to give Israel its own proper identity as a people grounded in God?
Plenty of fascinating material in the Enuma Elish, and interesting how there were several copies spread across Babylonia and Assyria. Your point about competing gods certainly rings true: the Assyrians replaced Marduk with their own god Ashur, for example. Creating an identity for a tribe that’s moving from polytheism to monotheism would be a strong incentive to ‘counter’ the god-notions of others.

theophile wrote:I believe the latter is a far more convincing explanation. And again, 'history' is just a device they used to bring that God-concept to life and to draw a genealogical line.
I’d agree to the ‘counter god-notions of Marduk’ argument. Isn’t this then just another (fascinating) example of a culture using revisionist material from another as propaganda for its own ends? Perhaps the OP’s claim of ‘nothing special’ sounds rather harsh, but we see other Babylonian material being appropriated by the early Hebrews: the Code of Hammurabi for the later Law of Moses, for example.

For the counter-claim: that there is ‘something special’ about Genesis, I’m wondering whether it’s more about that shift from polytheism to monotheism? In effect, the first time a god-view effectively destroyed (or assimilated) a large number of gods at one fell swoop. Perhaps a line of enquiry to pursue?

theophile wrote:More to the point, I think the sources are manifold (Israel's own history, oral traditions, pure imagination, other texts in Israel's cultural milieu, etc.). So I 100% agree with your point in the OP that various stories have precedents. Like the flood. Or the entire book of Job. And I agree with your derived implication from this fact that these texts aren't history, or at least that they certainly aren't reliable as such.
No real argument from me there.

theophile wrote:I just can't take the next step with you that there is nothing special about them because of that, since I don't believe their primary aim was to convey history. And perhaps just as relevant, since I don't believe the historical inaccuracies present in them necessarily undermine the God-concept primarily on offer.
I’m hopeful this is where we can explore this a bit more. It seems to me as if the Babylonians had an existing god concept, and the Hebrew writers were anxious to ‘correct’ this. Are you of the opinion then that the Babylonians simply had an ‘imperfect’ revelation of God, somehow? It seems strange then that God would leave the true picture, as it were, to a later group of people.

theophile wrote:The nature and character of the God on offer is the same whether or not the flood happened or happened in the way described. We should criticize the God-concept on its own terms, not on the terms of the (his)story used as a revelatory device...
I’m not entirely sure how best to respond to this point - can I please wait until after you’ve had a chance to consider the ‘propaganda’ and ‘imperfect’ points I raised? Your answers to those may well help me to understand your closing point, so I don’t then criticise unnecessarily.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Post #26

Post by Diagoras »

theophile wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:20 pm So perhaps I should clarify the characteristics a sacred text must have to become a unified field theory:
1. Accuracy, in the sense the God-concept (and other concepts conveyed) actually describe existent things (past, present, future)
2. Extension, in the sense of how much of reality is accurately accounted for (God, death, economics, physical world, etc.)
3. Worthiness, in the sense of whether the being proposed to be God actually deserves the title (God can be only one, if any of them.)

That is why I said it is a matter of choice. And for the record, I have chosen. I just haven't tried to convey my God-concept here given the focus has been sacred texts in general.
As a follow-on to the points I raised in the the immediate past post - I’m seeing your position as being that there are many ‘sacred texts’, which often borrow from each other to various degrees. While many ‘see through a glass darkly’ insofar as explaining God, you consider them all to be (to varying degrees), part of the same unified ‘picture’. And that Genesis in particular can be thought of as ‘special’ for having the characteristics you describe, and perhaps being the first to claim a single God. Is that a fair summary?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7969
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Post #27

Post by TRANSPONDER »

[Replying to Diagoras in post #25]

Indeed, and in response to what looks familiar - a suggestion that we skip any problems with Bible-claims and just discuss what may be easier to maintain, though God's character as based on the OT isn't something I'd want to debate and is off the topic anyway.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Post #28

Post by theophile »

Diagoras wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:40 pm I’m seeing your position as being that there are many ‘sacred texts’, which often borrow from each other to various degrees. While many ‘see through a glass darkly’ insofar as explaining God, you consider them all to be (to varying degrees), part of the same unified ‘picture’. And that Genesis in particular can be thought of as ‘special’ for having the characteristics you describe, and perhaps being the first to claim a single God. Is that a fair summary?
Yup! I don't mean to diminish all other traditions (I'm by no means that close), but I do believe the God of Genesis exists, has broad explanatory power (although by no means complete*), and is worthy of the name. All of which I say in full acknowledgement of the text's lack of history.

*Two notable examples:
1) God (/Genesis) doesn't explain how the physical world was made in the first place. It just is.
2) God (/Genesis) doesn't explain how God was made either. (But frankly, I believe the physical world provides the necessary ground for God, though Genesis clearly never says that. They both just are at the beginning...)
Diagoras wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:40 pmFor the counter-claim: that there is ‘something special’ about Genesis, I’m wondering whether it’s more about that shift from polytheism to monotheism? In effect, the first time a god-view effectively destroyed (or assimilated) a large number of gods at one fell swoop. Perhaps a line of enquiry to pursue?
The name of God in Genesis 1, elohim, is grammatically plural in form. So why would the writers, if they were pushing a hard monotheism, introduce such an ambiguity?... But you're right, it's definitely a shift to something different than the kind of polytheism that was popular back then.

And there is an important unity aspect to God. I would say it's more like a union of voices (the ruach elohim). Or the union of marriage, another central Genesis concept (i.e., multiple beings bound together as one). Which works well because it means God is both one and many at the same time.
Diagoras wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:40 pm
theophile wrote:I just can't take the next step with you that there is nothing special about them because of that, since I don't believe their primary aim was to convey history. And perhaps just as relevant, since I don't believe the historical inaccuracies present in them necessarily undermine the God-concept primarily on offer.
I’m hopeful this is where we can explore this a bit more. It seems to me as if the Babylonians had an existing god concept, and the Hebrew writers were anxious to ‘correct’ this. Are you of the opinion then that the Babylonians simply had an ‘imperfect’ revelation of God, somehow? It seems strange then that God would leave the true picture, as it were, to a later group of people.
I do think the Babylonians had an imperfect revelation. Marduk kills Tiamat (a maligned mother earth type goddess), and from her corpse springs all life. This is opposed to a God who works with tehom to create (note the etymological links).

Per the characteristic of worthiness, the latter revelation is far more deserving of the title 'God' to me, and is therefore more perfect.

As to why God didn't reveal Godself earlier, two quick points: 1) I think God is ultimately a title we assign, so it's not really on God to reveal Godself, and 2), it depends on what God is. (I'm not assuming an all-powerful being here who can do all things...)

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Post #29

Post by Diagoras »

theophile wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 3:28 pm
Diagoras wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:40 pm I’m seeing your position as being that there are many ‘sacred texts’, which often borrow from each other to various degrees. While many ‘see through a glass darkly’ insofar as explaining God, you consider them all to be (to varying degrees), part of the same unified ‘picture’. And that Genesis in particular can be thought of as ‘special’ for having the characteristics you describe, and perhaps being the first to claim a single God. Is that a fair summary?
Yup! I don't mean to diminish all other traditions (I'm by no means that close), but I do believe the God of Genesis exists, has broad explanatory power (although by no means complete*), and is worthy of the name. All of which I say in full acknowledgement of the text's lack of history.

*Two notable examples:
1) God (/Genesis) doesn't explain how the physical world was made in the first place. It just is.
2) God (/Genesis) doesn't explain how God was made either. (But frankly, I believe the physical world provides the necessary ground for God, though Genesis clearly never says that. They both just are at the beginning...)
Apologies for the delay in responding. I've been reflecting on where this debate's taken us, as it's been a bit of a surprise to me. That's a good thing of course - always learning new perspectives.

It seems from your initial point (that the authors of Genesis weren't 'primarily aiming for a historical record') that when considering Genesis, we can (should?) focus less on 'explaining the world' and more on explaining 'the nature and character of the God on offer'. However, I'm not convinced that these two purposes can be easily 'decoupled' to the extent that Genesis can then be thought of as special when compared to any other sacred text. After all, none of us has yet claimed (or supported) that the Sumerians themselves weren't 'primarily aiming for an explanation of the nature of god/gods'. If every sacred 'creation text' has a mix of history and 'nature of god', then it weakens the claim that Genesis should somehow stand above the rest simply because it's more focused on theology.

As you said, we have to put ourselves in '3000-year-old shoes' in order to better see that the people of the time were trying to make sense of a lot of different things. Before the scientific age, gods were the default explanation for a plethora of phenomena, and their supposed exploits and histories (much like civilisation's actual leaders) would have been important enough to require writing down, rather than relying on oral history.

You acknowledge that Genesis is incomplete as regards explanatory power, and that as a historical record it is imperfect. In an earlier post you also suggested Genesis was written 'to counter its god-notions of Marduk, Tehom, etc., and to give Israel its own proper identity as a people grounded in God'. I'm not disputing that, but simply note that it seems more driven by human need, rather than being any form of revelation. Not to trivialise it too much, but it could be as simple as "Look at those Babylonians with all their knowledge of gods! We're going to write about our own god, and he'll be better than all of them!"

you wrote:As to why God didn't reveal Godself earlier, two quick points: 1) I think God is ultimately a title we assign, so it's not really on God to reveal Godself, and 2), it depends on what God is. (I'm not assuming an all-powerful being here who can do all things...)
Putting on those old shoes again... I'd counter that the Sumerians (and later, the Hebrews) did have a very clear picture of what 'God' was, and that it was much closer to the all-powerful being than to simply a title or concept. God was the explanation (of past, present and future), absent of scientific enquiry.

You have stated that how we see these texts is a matter of choice - which I agree with - and that comparing them is difficult. Our choices will be influenced by how much we choose to read into each text, and which ones we choose to ignore. Which then comes down to personal bias/upbringing. If Genesis - and only Genesis - provides you with sufficient explanatory power, then I can't really dispute that, and the OP's claim fails in at least one instance (rather than succeeding in the general sense). However, I consider it to still be a strong argument, as the counter-argument (Genesis is special) can be shown to fail in more instances.

That about sums it up for me in this thread. Thanks to Diogenes for instigating, and to you, theophile for offering an engaging and (to me) fresh perspective.

I'm happy for you to add your own conclusions as 'the last word' in our interactions, and hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Sumerian Influence on Genesis

Post #30

Post by theophile »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 11:53 pm
theophile wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 3:28 pm
Diagoras wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:40 pm I’m seeing your position as being that there are many ‘sacred texts’, which often borrow from each other to various degrees. While many ‘see through a glass darkly’ insofar as explaining God, you consider them all to be (to varying degrees), part of the same unified ‘picture’. And that Genesis in particular can be thought of as ‘special’ for having the characteristics you describe, and perhaps being the first to claim a single God. Is that a fair summary?
Yup! I don't mean to diminish all other traditions (I'm by no means that close), but I do believe the God of Genesis exists, has broad explanatory power (although by no means complete*), and is worthy of the name. All of which I say in full acknowledgement of the text's lack of history.

*Two notable examples:
1) God (/Genesis) doesn't explain how the physical world was made in the first place. It just is.
2) God (/Genesis) doesn't explain how God was made either. (But frankly, I believe the physical world provides the necessary ground for God, though Genesis clearly never says that. They both just are at the beginning...)
Apologies for the delay in responding. I've been reflecting on where this debate's taken us, as it's been a bit of a surprise to me. That's a good thing of course - always learning new perspectives.

It seems from your initial point (that the authors of Genesis weren't 'primarily aiming for a historical record') that when considering Genesis, we can (should?) focus less on 'explaining the world' and more on explaining 'the nature and character of the God on offer'. However, I'm not convinced that these two purposes can be easily 'decoupled' to the extent that Genesis can then be thought of as special when compared to any other sacred text. After all, none of us has yet claimed (or supported) that the Sumerians themselves weren't 'primarily aiming for an explanation of the nature of god/gods'. If every sacred 'creation text' has a mix of history and 'nature of god', then it weakens the claim that Genesis should somehow stand above the rest simply because it's more focused on theology.

As you said, we have to put ourselves in '3000-year-old shoes' in order to better see that the people of the time were trying to make sense of a lot of different things. Before the scientific age, gods were the default explanation for a plethora of phenomena, and their supposed exploits and histories (much like civilisation's actual leaders) would have been important enough to require writing down, rather than relying on oral history.

You acknowledge that Genesis is incomplete as regards explanatory power, and that as a historical record it is imperfect. In an earlier post you also suggested Genesis was written 'to counter its god-notions of Marduk, Tehom, etc., and to give Israel its own proper identity as a people grounded in God'. I'm not disputing that, but simply note that it seems more driven by human need, rather than being any form of revelation. Not to trivialise it too much, but it could be as simple as "Look at those Babylonians with all their knowledge of gods! We're going to write about our own god, and he'll be better than all of them!"
you wrote:As to why God didn't reveal Godself earlier, two quick points: 1) I think God is ultimately a title we assign, so it's not really on God to reveal Godself, and 2), it depends on what God is. (I'm not assuming an all-powerful being here who can do all things...)
Putting on those old shoes again... I'd counter that the Sumerians (and later, the Hebrews) did have a very clear picture of what 'God' was, and that it was much closer to the all-powerful being than to simply a title or concept. God was the explanation (of past, present and future), absent of scientific enquiry.

You have stated that how we see these texts is a matter of choice - which I agree with - and that comparing them is difficult. Our choices will be influenced by how much we choose to read into each text, and which ones we choose to ignore. Which then comes down to personal bias/upbringing. If Genesis - and only Genesis - provides you with sufficient explanatory power, then I can't really dispute that, and the OP's claim fails in at least one instance (rather than succeeding in the general sense). However, I consider it to still be a strong argument, as the counter-argument (Genesis is special) can be shown to fail in more instances.

That about sums it up for me in this thread. Thanks to Diogenes for instigating, and to you, theophile for offering an engaging and (to me) fresh perspective.

I'm happy for you to add your own conclusions as 'the last word' in our interactions, and hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have.
I appreciate the meaningful engagement as well. There is nothing I enjoy more.

If I attempt concluding remarks of my own to bring some of my disparate threads together, and perhaps frame them in a slightly different light, it would be along the following lines:

All traditions - Sumerian, Biblical, Scientific - try to account for things. And their best accounts are what we tend to call (or compile into) so-called 'sacred texts'. (Which even science has, e.g., Aristotle's Physics or Newton's Principia for example.)

My overarching argument has been that we can't just reduce the 'specialness' of such texts to their historic accounting (to directly answer the OPQ), or even their accounting of the physical world (or of what is) as if that's all there is to account for. But rather we should consider a text special on three broad characteristics: its accuracy, its extensiveness (beyond 'what is' even), and ultimately its worthiness, since at some point of extension it becomes a matter of choice. Not a choice in what interpretation of the text we hold, or what texts we focus on over others, but a choice much deeper and fundamental than this... i.e., a choice of what should be. (Which includes questions like, what the role of humankind should be in this world, or how we should organize ourselves and the world around us, etc. etc.)

So a text should be considered special not only for its account of the way things are, or the way things have been, or even the way things will or could be, but the way they should be. This final extension is the highest order and most important (/special) because it is determining of anything not yet determined. It is, by definition, the only area still open and left to decide, giving it a special status above any other account. Furthermore, the implications of such choices can be huge for every single thing that is, was, or will be, and it is in this highly impactful domain that science and history have no real say. They can predict what could or would be the outcome of our choices, but they can't tell us which path to choose. Similarly, they can provide all the accuracy and comprehensiveness we could ask for re: the physical world / past events, but they can't answer simple questions like 'what should I have for breakfast' let alone the bigger questions I posed before. (At least, not without some prior choice of values / intention such as healthy living or maximum pleasure.)

In short, science and history are incapable of providing a full account, most notably in this highest order domain, and as such are less special than other traditions that can. This highest order and most special domain, which science and history can't account for, is essentially a matter of how we should shape our lives and the world (through choice). It is a matter of values and intentions that are necessarily chosen, insofar as choice exists. It is the proper domain of religion to provide an account for such things. (To iterate on my previous comment, Genesis 1 is a revelation of how Ancient Israel envisioned God - a God they deemed worthy of the name - and how this God would have us shape our lives and the world...)

So as for other religious traditions / sacred texts, such as the Enuma Elish, and why Genesis 1 is special compared to these, it is above all a question of the worthiness of the values / intentions their 'gods' imply. To further elaborate my previous post, what we see in the Enuma Elish is a god (Marduk) who shapes the world toward order and life through the destruction of difference / chaos (i.e., Tiamat - a placeholder for the flux of the physical world). This is to be contrasted with the god Elohim in Genesis 1 who shapes and fills the world with life by working with Tehom as one, and by calling a humankind made in this image, i.e., as man and woman, to do the same...

As such, it boils down to values / intentions of diversity and communion versus totalitarianism and control. And while it is 100% up to us to decide, it seems obvious to me which of these two accounts is more worthy and therefore most special. So you're right: I am just one who thinks this is a better way, versus it being a general rule. But perhaps there are others out there who would agree...

Either way, a good discussion for sure, and much appreciated. And apologies for the lack of brevity in my final remarks :)

Post Reply