Thanks for your tolerance, Vinnie. Most who characterize the Bible as “the inspired word of God” believe that it is truly God’s story transmitted into the minds and thoughts of others who then become surrogates for His narrative. It does not threaten my faith, however, to believe that our Holy Book was not inspired in that sense, but rather that many outstanding thinkers and believers were so motivated that they produced The Book. It is their thoughts and opinions, based on great study, faith, debate, and personal communications that led them to put pen-to-paper/papyrus/clay. Of course, you may be right about it being God’s words exactly, but we shall never know. At the very least, if it is not truly His words, He still exists and is responsible for all (most) that follows, it seems to me. Statistically, this cannot possibly be due to random chance alone.
Short answer is not sure. I do not think Genesis is that concerned with history. When it talks about the Patriarchs I believe it is talking about them in a way that gives meaning to their present situation. If I wrote a paper on George Washington I would list a whole bunch of facts about him and details of his life for their own sake. I don’t think Genesis does that. It is not about the facts of Abraham’s life in the past. It’s about Israel and God in the now (at the time the author is writing). With that being said I cannot demonstrate the ahistoricity of theses individuals but nor do I have any plausible evidence for their historicity. There could certainly be historical kernels in these stories that have handed down. So for me I try to see exactly how the author is using these stories and what point the author is trying to teach at the time it was written. Genesis is probably not just listing patriarchal narratives for the heck of it. I do believe that God established a covenant with Israel but given these individuals lived many thousands of years before the stories in the Bible were written down, there are no plausible lines of transmission or any way to know what the historical Abraham was like, assuming he existed.
We have in the Bible some of the most beautiful poetry: pious, lyrical and erotic, and also some of the angriest. We have narratives of epic proportions, aetiologies and folktales that are at times stunningly profound and evocative, romances and adventure stories, some of them are ideologically tendentious or moralistic. There is patent racism and sexism, and some of the world’s earliest condemnations of each. One of the things the Bible almost never is, however, is intentionally historical: that is an interest of ours that it rarely shares. Here and there, the Bible uses data gleaned from ancient texts or records. It often refers to great figures and events of the past . . . at least as they are known to popular tradition. But it cites such ‘historical facts’ only where they may serve as grist for one of its various literary mills. The Bible knows nothing or nearly nothing of most of the great, transforming events of Palestine’s history. Of historical causes, it knows only one: Palestine’s ancient deity Yahweh. It knows nearly nothing of the great droughts that changed the course of Palestine’s world for centuries, and it is equally ignorant of the region’s great historical battles at Megiddo, Kadesh and Lachish. The Bible tells us nothing directly of four hundred years of Egyptian presence. Nor can it take on the role of teaching us anything about the wasteful competition for the Jezreel in the early Iron Age, or about the forced sedentarization of nomads along Palestine’s southern flank. . . . The reason for this is simple. The Bible’s language is not an historical language. It is a language of high literature, of story, of sermon and of song. It is a tool of philosophy and moral instruction.
So If the authors of Genesis wrote in 800BCE, to spitball a semi-random number, I believe they were interested in 800BC and use these stories to that effect. The author is less interested in exactly how these events may have happened 1,000 years prior. I feel the historical questions misses the point of what it is teaching–that is–functional truths. It also holds no punches and does a good job pointing out the flaws in these characters. So I don’t know anything for sure about a historical Abraham. I only know what became of him–the literary Abraham from when Genesis was written. I’m okay with that.
Vinnie
I don’t believe its his exact words. That is verbal plenary inspiration where God chooses or dictates the very words of scripture. I adhere to a softer model of inspiration whereby Scripture serves the purpose God intended it too.
The point for me is there are too many inaccuracies and too many clearly fictional details to accept these stories as anything but fictional. If I watched a movie on Martin Luker King Jr. that only got 20% of him right it would not be very credible. However, the key difference is I can actually assess to a fair degree of confidence how much of MLK it gets correct because I have credible, contemporary source material including video, newspaper articles, his own writings, etc Not to mention he has children still alive today. I only know that 80% of the details in garden story look plainly fictitious (as you yourself ageree). Neither you or I have any way of actually assessing whether there is a historical core there or not. Or if the remaining is historical or part of the story. But I am treating Genesis the same way I treat the story of Enkidu and Shamhat which has many clear literary parallels to it. Do you think that account is historical as well?
For me history is a science. It is an academic discipline though its methodology and results are not the same as the harder sciences. There are rules to conducting historical research. Take for example, trying to demonstrate the historicity of Lincoln giving the Gettysburg’s address vs there being a special garden with Adam and Eve living in it 6,000 years ago that disobeyed God. I can cite a ton of contemporary primary data authenticating Lincoln’s existence and the he delivered the GA. What about the garden story? Nothing for 3,000 years. Nothing but one mythological narrative countless generations after the fact.
When you have authors in no place to know details of an event, a story being told 3,000 years later with no plausible lines of transmission, clear literary parallels to the similar ancient mythology, many supernatural elements, most details having the clear ring of fiction and no external corroboration or contemporary data lending it credence, its dead in the water.The garden story is ancient myth from start to finish. It has nothing to do with history like most of Genesius which only uses ancient stories to make contemporary points.
Just as I can assert Enkidu was really made from clay, did not know his nakedness, had animals as companions until he was domesticated by the allure of the prostate Shamhat. Once that happened he realized he was naked, God clothed him and the animals were no longer his friends and he gained the ability to reason. Or I could strip all that and say I think Enkidu and Shamhat were real people that were mythologized. That is hardly a meaningful claim because I know nothing about them and I am just asserting the existence of two individuals in antiquity.
Would you so easily label the Gilgamesh epic’s parallels historical as you would the garden story? Gilgamesh himself might have actually been a historical king that was deified. There is some evidence of this. Nothing on Adam and Eve, who also are archetypal for all humans. But what does affirming them as real even mean? “The feuding Montagues and Capulets are based on the real-life Guelphs and Ghibellines of twelfth- through fourteenth-century Verona.” Does this mean we can say Romeo and Juliet are historical?
Vinnie
For certain we all have unprovable beliefs on that issue. It may serve a better purpose to simply state the options existing. Personal beliefs rarely play a major role, that is unless they are Einsteins, Hubble’s, Newton’s or Francis Collins. Those carry a certain gravitas, we would all agree.
The arguments regarding historical/authentic aspects of A&E fail to consider a contextual aspect, as may be found in myths derived from kingdoms in the area. The latter myths were shared by a reasonably large population, and if it involved leaders and kings, records of one sort or another may have been constructed. I am speaking generally. On A&E, the account does not show interactions with kings, nations, empires, etc., and on this basis, it is unreasonable to expect historic material (written or constructed). The account makes mention of a wife found (presumably from another tribe), and subsequent interactions with other humans. Indeed, the only people who may have thought A&E were relevant would be their descendants and it is their oral and written material that has been available.
I am not arguing for or against historicity but point out that the expectations you bring to this discussion may be unrealistic.
GJDS, I assume, without knowing for certain, that everyone on this thread uses the term “myth” to mean a story. It has nothing to do with the authenticity nor whether it is considered a false belief. I assume that is your meaning as well? Most importantly, your insights are well placed about the +/- of accurate historicity and how that affects our expectations on resolution.
My expectations are not unrealistic. I expect historical evidence for historical claims or beliefs. That is as sober as an expectation can be. There simply is none for these two characters some think actually lived 6,000 years ago (or 50,000 or 700,000 depending on which Christians you ask).
I don’t actually expect there to be any historical evidence for Adam and Eve because 1) it is a mythological narrative that has many parallels to another “couple” (Enkidu and Shamhat) who also have no historical corroboration and 2) evidence if it did exist is likely to have been lost to the vicissitudes of time. But it’s plain to me Genesis isn’t interested in writing history here anymore than it is science. And if we want to reconstruct history at best we can infer from it what some Jewish people believed at the time of it’s composition.
So I’d expect to see three things:
(1) I’d like to know the methodology for rejecting the historicity of Enkidu and Shamhat while maintaining belief in the historicity of Adam and Eve. I see it as incorrect theology and fallacious reasoning: “ It’s a story in my Sacred Scripture so it must have a historical core.” Or “The NT requires it.” The latter is worthy of discussion for sure.
(2) I’d also like to see the methodology for distinguishing the clearly fictional elements from historical elements in both stories (e.g.taking snake, magic immortality tree, God not realizing the animals won’t be a suitable companion for Adam etc.).
(3) I’d also like to see evidence Genesis is actually interested in history like we are and we should be interpreting the Garden story as such. I’d like to also see it outside of “Jesus quotes Genesis.”
Vinnie
I use the term ‘myth’ consistent with one definition found in the Oxford Dictionary:
myth:- a traditional story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
I understand that the term may also be used to denote something made up or a false belief- I do not accept such a definition for A&E.
I do not disagree with this, but I am pointing out that historical evidence is more likely to be found from civilizations that grew in power and whose rulers wanted to be remembered by constructing monuments and other records. This, from the (limited) lessons I gathered during my college years, is well understood. Such rulers most often included some type of religious component to make themselves particularly noteworthy.
I do not understand this point - I understand Genesis to deal with the faith of Israel and documentation for this appears to have been made when Israel became a nation. Thus the emphasis from a scholarly viewpoint would be tradition and oral renderings, which eventually became part of the record that we now see in the OT.
This appears at first glance to be an odd way to argue - I am not sufficiently familiar with Enkidu and Shamhat, although you see parallels with A&E. Perhaps you can elaborate.
Genesis IMO is primarily interested in theological insights - history, if this is required as such, should revolve about this,
And I do not disagree with this. I am not arguing the lack of evidence for A&E means they are not historical under the expectation that we should have some evidence. I am not offering an argument from silence here.There are millions of people who existed that we have no record of. I am offering an observation that there is no credible, positive historical evidence for A&E. That is a simple statement of fact. There is no evidence and if there ever was any, which seems unlikely for multiple reasons, it would not be expected to survive.
I see people, not parrots behind Genesis. Yes there were many traditions passed down for hundreds and even thousands of years but Genesis is very much concerned with it’s present. It uses these stories to speak life into contemporary issues. Stories and traditions will change and develop over long periods of time. They were doing this before ever being compiled and the compilers very much could have been editors. I
I have spent a lot of time in this very thread trying to demonstrate early Genesis was meant to be functional, not fact literal. I don’t find it an odd way to argue because Identifying the proper literary genre for Genesis is the key to interpreting it correctly. If the garden stories would have been filled with cultural references and is turning them on their head, rearranging their furniture, so to speak, then we have gleaned much of its purpose. If we miss those cultural references we miss its purpose as well. So yes, I have already elaborated in earlier posts on Enkidu and Shamhat. I know it was a lot to read but I have been pointing out Biblical parallels with ANE literature all throughout this thread. See post number 28 for a detailed account of creation and flood parallels, post number 27 for for info on conflict mythology in the Bible and the purpose of Genesis, section 3 for indications its not literal and on, section 1 for evidence we have two separate creation accounts and so on. I am making statements that I spent considerable time and effort developing.
This chart may help from post #28 if you want a shortcut to summaries for Enkidu and Shamhat. It part of the story that occurs in the Gilgamesh Epic.
I also wrote this supplementing it:
Later in the story Gilgamesh secures an herb that would either grant him eternal life or restore his youth – his last chance at immortality and it is stolen by a serpent. Gilgamesh at last comes to his senses and reaches a reconciliation with his mortality. After the flood Uta-napishti is taken and sent to the mouth of the rivers which is an Eden like setting.[ix]
If you don’t know Gilgamesh becomes friends with Enkidu and Uta-napishti is the one who survives the great flood and is granted eternal life which Gilgamesh inquires about. All these characters are from Gilgamesh. Importantly I also went on to write how Genesis 2-3 is different from Enkidu and Shamhat and I thin that is the key to interpreting it:
We have already witnessed how Genesis 1:1-2:3 turns ancient cosmogonies on their heads and we appear to have the same feature happening in Genesis 2:4-25. It is of note that whereas Enkidu is a companion to animals, none are suitable for Adam. Adam and Even were removed from the Garden for disobeying God whereas Enkidu appears to be settled in a garden like place after the flood. Sex is what “civilizes” Enkidu but in the Bible sex or marriages brings people back to their primordial whole. Unlike Shamhat, Eve was not just a mere plot device used to relocate Adam from inside Eden to outside of it. She was meant to be a co-laborer with him, sharing a sacred space and joined as one flesh. Walton writes, Again, Genesis turns the discussion upside down. Genesis is thus using common literary motifs to convey the truths about humanity that are the familiar topics of the conversation in the ancient world. They are operating in the same room of discourse, but Genesis has rearranged all the furniture. “ Ancient readers and listeners to this story would naturally get all of these cultural references we would not if we were unaware of the epic of Gilgamesh. Genesis is far more interested in the theological dumping of ancient myths on their head and establishing the primacy of the Jewish God than it is giving us a factual and precise scientific overview of how said Deity created the first two humans and the
I also pointed out how Atrahasis Gen 2-9 match up pretty tightly. All in post #28.
Vinnie
Thanks for this reply, and I must say you have spent a great deal of effort on this, and I appreciate that.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.