ANE Mythology
Most folks who have studied the Old Testament have come across the documentary hypothesis (JEDP), its various permutations, claims, and other things dead German people wrote about the Pentateuch decades and decades ago.
One of the keys to debunking the hypothesis (which is pure bunk, wholly worthy of debunking), and assigning earlier (traditional) dates to the Pentateuch, is to note ancient near-eastern parallels (ANE) to Biblical literature (of which the dead Germans were not aware).
For instance, JEDP supporters often point to the occurence of "doublets" in the Bible: two creation accounts (Gen. 1 & 2), two accounts of Abraham and his wife (Gen. 12 & 20), etc. A repetition of the same story, they reason, must evidence two different sources (authors) of the story, which were put together some time later; an ancient "cut and paste" if you will. Discoveries of ANE literature , however, such as the Ugaritic story of Keret (pre-1200 B.C.), show that ANE cultures had a preference for repetition. Understanding that repetition was a cultural norm for the ANE (n.b., not us) helps explain why certain episodes are repeated in the Bible.
We might also consider the account of Noah and the flood (Gen. 6-9). Several documents (Epic of Atrahasis: ca. 1600 B.C., The Gilgamesh Story: ca. late 2nd millenium B.C.) reveal 17 formal parallels between Noah's flood account and these other parallels. This again supports an early date for Genesis 6-9, as it follows what was the norm for flood accounts at the time.
While this is wonderful for matter of dating and authorship in the OT, it has often troubled me because it seems that with different presuppositions, the ANE parallels do naught more than confirm for non-believers that the Bible is just another ANE mythology among many: The Babylonians have a flood story, the Israelites have a flood story. It's common mythology of the period, not divinely inspired truth.
I'd be interested to hear what my multitudes of readers have to say about this. I have a few thoughts of my own, but they all ultimately rest upon presuppositions. For example, given the Bible is true, other flood accounts are (a) misinterpretations of God's revelation, or (b) demonic perversions of God's revelation to another culture. Is there another way to respond? Anyone?
One of the keys to debunking the hypothesis (which is pure bunk, wholly worthy of debunking), and assigning earlier (traditional) dates to the Pentateuch, is to note ancient near-eastern parallels (ANE) to Biblical literature (of which the dead Germans were not aware).
For instance, JEDP supporters often point to the occurence of "doublets" in the Bible: two creation accounts (Gen. 1 & 2), two accounts of Abraham and his wife (Gen. 12 & 20), etc. A repetition of the same story, they reason, must evidence two different sources (authors) of the story, which were put together some time later; an ancient "cut and paste" if you will. Discoveries of ANE literature , however, such as the Ugaritic story of Keret (pre-1200 B.C.), show that ANE cultures had a preference for repetition. Understanding that repetition was a cultural norm for the ANE (n.b., not us) helps explain why certain episodes are repeated in the Bible.
We might also consider the account of Noah and the flood (Gen. 6-9). Several documents (Epic of Atrahasis: ca. 1600 B.C., The Gilgamesh Story: ca. late 2nd millenium B.C.) reveal 17 formal parallels between Noah's flood account and these other parallels. This again supports an early date for Genesis 6-9, as it follows what was the norm for flood accounts at the time.
While this is wonderful for matter of dating and authorship in the OT, it has often troubled me because it seems that with different presuppositions, the ANE parallels do naught more than confirm for non-believers that the Bible is just another ANE mythology among many: The Babylonians have a flood story, the Israelites have a flood story. It's common mythology of the period, not divinely inspired truth.
I'd be interested to hear what my multitudes of readers have to say about this. I have a few thoughts of my own, but they all ultimately rest upon presuppositions. For example, given the Bible is true, other flood accounts are (a) misinterpretations of God's revelation, or (b) demonic perversions of God's revelation to another culture. Is there another way to respond? Anyone?
posted by bmarchio at 2:34 PM
1 Comments:
Maybe instead of worrying about defending the truth of the flood account (for example) over against the ancient flood accounts in parallel literature, we ought simply to note that this makes the historicity of an ancient flood all that more likely. If multiple cultures all say there was a flood (and there are other parallels, like the drastic drop in lifespans after the flood), doesn't that argue that there really may have been a flood? That's good enough for me, I don't need to build my case for the Bible on this event.
Post a Comment
<< Home