> It's always fascinating to see what mysteries
> people see in the past, and what answers they seek
> in the process. Thanks for sharing. If there's one
> thing I'd consider changing is your book title
> (I'm assuming that you might be playing around
> with book title ideas here?)
> It seems like your book idea is finding the
> historical origins of the Mesopotamian flood myth.
> I think it's confusing to potential readers to
> bring into it the biblical flood myth. We can look
> at the fact that Gilgamesh predates the OT by
> centuries - or millennia - depending on how you
> calculate it, all we want. We can look at how
> there are similar-sounding turns of phrase in
> both, etc. What we can't prove is that the
> biblical writers had access to Gilgamesh, the
> ability to read it and translate it, and were
> inclined to adopt its message - either in part or
> in whole.
> I would suggest letting the Mesopotamian research
> and work stand on its own, because the biblical
> connections implied in your thread title are quite
Hi Capt'n Brian
I find it fascinating the reaction some have to any scholarly challenge to the 'hotch potch' fable called the Bible.
Might I suggest you re-read the OP (maybe you have a bible handy too?). In particular this part:
Thanos from Original Post
From this Biblical narrative we are immediately led to an accounting of the generations of descendants to follow leading to the birth of Abraham, the very progenitor of the Hebrew people, which Jewish tradition holds occurred in 1813 BC. Given Abraham, the Bible tells us, lived in the Sumerian (then Akkadian) city of Ur, meaning he himself was Mesopotamian, it should be no mystery then when Abraham left Ur he took his Mesopotamian cultural heritage with him to be told and retold becoming eventually, like all the rest, yet another culturally unique version derived from the Sumerian original. But even more likely, the Hebrew account of the Flood was derived long after Abraham from much later sources, like Babylon or Assyria, who had copied the earlier Sumerian tale themselves several hundred years before the first books of the Bible were ever written-before Abraham had even been born.
You see all the "Abrahamic" religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) base the whole thing on this fellow Abram/Abraham. ( He may have an alternative arabic name in Islam I am not sure?)
So, given Abraham didn't have any "scripture" that is referred to and the fact that all of the babble and subsequent amended babble starts and relates to a promise to Abraham then it is impossible that the source (but not necessarily the original) of the story did not derive (Edit :sorry for double negative) from Mesopotamia in particular Ur (but not the modern day town in South East but older one in North West of modern day Iraq!)
The Torah account is a mix of Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, and some vague offshoot tribes of wanderers later called Hebrews, and some arabs who track back to a black sheep descendant. (Ishmael?)
Not tenuous at all! Rather it is implicit and explicit in the direct essence of the story.
However I agree, I also truly hope Lee gathers his mountains of information, organises it regardless of being able to reach clear
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01-May-16 22:33 by Corpuscles.