> Hello Brian.
> OCaptain Wrote:
> > Thanos,
> > It's always fascinating to see what mysteries
> > people see in the past, and what answers they
> > in the process. Thanks for sharing. If there's
> > thing I'd consider changing is your book title
> > (I'm assuming that you might be playing around
> > with book title ideas here?)
> This is not the title of the book, just the
> thread. Presented here as stated is just an
> excerpt which has to do with the "Mesopotamian
> Origin of the Biblical Flood Myth".
> > It seems like your book idea is finding the
> > historical origins of the Mesopotamian flood
> No. It is the first chapter, and regardless, many
> other books have been written on the Mesopotamian
> origins of the Biblical flood myth among other
> Biblical tales.
> > I think it's confusing to potential readers to
> > bring into it the biblical flood myth.
> The Biblical flood myth is the most commonly known
> tale which just about anyone is familiar with
> which most do not realize is derived from earlier
> Mesopotamian tales. This chapter does not start
> here, but first goes into other flood myths around
> the world which share the same basic details with
> the idea being they all share a common origin with
> the oldest written form being found in
> Mesopotamia, therefore, the closer we are to the
> original the closer we are to the truth.
> > We can look
> > at the fact that Gilgamesh predates the OT by
> > centuries - or millennia - depending on how you
> > calculate it, all we want.
> Which would be true.
> > We can look at how
> > there are similar-sounding turns of phrase in
> > both, etc.
> Not just "similar" but in some cases almost
> identical and in the same succession of the
> narrative. Again, but a few examples:
The sea grew calm and on the seventh day
> they rested on a peak of a mountain, which the
> Bible tell us it was the “seventh month”. And
> like Noah, Utnapishtim also released several birds
> until they did not come back meaning they had at
> last found dry land. And just like the Bible that
> tells us how after the ark had been evacuated, the
> “Lord smelled a sweet savour” of the burnt
> offerings, so too had the gods of the Epic of
> Gilgamesh “…smelled the sweet savour…” of
> the sacrifice.
> These are not just "turns of a phrase".
> > 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
> > in whole.
> Suggesting such is to be otherwise completely
> unaware of the history of the Hebrew people part
> of which I outline in the OP as told by the Bible
> itself. I did not make it up nor is it my
> "opinion". Regardless, the Mesopotamian origin of
> the Biblical flood myth is not original to me and
> has been widely accepted amongst scholars for
> quite some time.
"It is generally admitted that certain
> parallel ideas which are found expressed in the
> literature of ancient Israel concerning the
> creation of the world, and in a story of creation
> as handed down by the Babylonians, have a common
> origin...These and other points of resemblance, it
> is generally admitted leave no doubt as to there
> being a relationship between the cosmogony of
> Israel and that handed down by the Babylonians. It
> naturally followed that either the Biblical
> conception was borrowed from the Babylonian; or
> the Babylonian was borrowed from the Biblical; or
> both were founded on a common primitive
> source...Scholars generally have dismissed the
> second supposition as an impossibility' and the
> third is excluded on the ground that the stories
> contain a large percentage of Babylonian ideas.
> The Biblical conception of creation, therefore,
> they say, is of Babylonian origin...In the nearly
> fifty years which have passed since the first
> translation was made, this has become the
> prevailing view; and it has been generally
> accepted everywhere as fully established. "In
> fact," as the late Canon Driver has written, "no
> archaeologist questions that the Biblical
> cosmogony, however altered in form and stripped of
> its original polytheism, is, in its main outlines,
> derived from Babylonia."
> (pp. 66- 67. "The Creation Story." Albert T. Clay.
> The Origin of Biblical Traditions, Hebrew Legends
> in Babylonia and Israel. New Haven. Yale
> University Press. 1923)
> Even more true today as it was in 1923.
> > I would suggest letting the Mesopotamian
> > and work stand on its own, because the biblical
> > connections implied in your thread title are
> > tenuous.
> The connections are beyond reproach and
> universally accepted even by religious scholars.
> No one doubts they share a connection, the only
> argument, to the faithful anyway, is "what does it