By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
http://www.miamisburg.org/stuff_noahs_ark.htm
In America, almost every child is taught the story of Noah who, in response to a message from on-high, crafted a wooded ark and gathered the planet’s fauna to save them from destruction for sins known and unknown. We don’t teach kids that most ancient civilizations recount the same story of the Great Flood that swamped the planet but with their own cultural take on the topic. Now a recent archeological find from Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) is creating a buzz that might change that. Found on a cuneiform tablet, the story of the Mesopotamian Noah differs only slightly from the Hebrew version of the legend. The Christian Bible tells the tale of Noah who gathers his family to build an ark shaped much like our modern-day boats, with one long keel and sides tapering at each end. The Bible details the blueprint straight from that chief engineer in the sky:
God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around.Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. (Genesis 5:32 NIV).
The ancient Mesopotamians have a different spin on the design though. According to a recently decoded 4000-year-old tablet, the design was circular and not cigar-shaped. And instead of cypress, the ark was made of woven rope with pitch applied to make it waterproof. And the Mesopotamians weren’t as community minded as the Hebrews, either. Only one survivor makes it out of the flood alive, along with all the 2-by-2 livestock instead of the family affair populating Noah’s craft.
There are some other differences in the tales. The Mesopotamian gods were angry at their human subjects because they made too much noise down here. The god of Israel was more concerned about all that violence in the Mid-East. Boy, was He prescient but His solution has met with mixed results.
The find is important because it points up the similarities in the ways ancient cultures viewed the world and coped with its unpredictable circumstances. Seeing themselves as pawns before angry gods and survivors of catastrophes beyond their control empowered these civilizations and brought disparate tribes together. Indeed, some scholars have opined that a function of ancient religion was to galvanize groups of humans with a common ancestry and belief system regardless of the effects of geography or political culture. The Flood Story seems have served that function many times over as it spread throughout the Fertile Crescent into Egypt and North Africa and beyond. You can read about flood stories around the world here. There are hundreds.
The find is a blow to Bible literalists however as it pokes a hole below the water line in Judeo-Christian exceptionalism. The Mesopotamian story predates the Biblical account by at least two millennium. Most Biblical scholars place the Great Flood at about the 9th Century BCE.
Regardless the archaeology confirms the power of myth in the ancient world and its lingering effects today.
Source: CNN
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
davidm2575
Dredd wrote: “The presumptuous Christians interpret it 400 different ways from those who wrote it, and who had it a thousand years before Christianity came into existence.”
The Jews have never been unified in their interpretation of Scripture. Even during the time of Christ, the branches of Judaism included the Pharisee, Sadducee, and the Essene sects along with other divisions. Even the Pharisees were divided into the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. According to Jesus, they all failed to follow the Scriptures as originally written; hence was born his followers who embraced the writings of that religion as they originally were meant to be embraced. To denigrate them, the Jews called this sect of Judaism “Christians.” The name stuck.
========================
The name stuck but so did their inconsistency.
There are some 450 Christian sects now, just in the U.S.eh?, interpreting the writings every which way, including mostly loosely.
Both the Levitical Priesthood writings (Tanakh) as well as the Christian Bible writings (New Testament) exhibit stark departures from the textual content.
Which, interestingly, supports Saint Lewis Black (the evangelist to HaHa) who pointed out that the Old law was mandated because they (all 12 tribes of Israel) were “four hairs short of being primates wanting to mate with camels” (paraphrased a tad).
Which comports with the Tanakh writings I cited to up-thread to wit:
The narrative in the writings thereafter tell us that they had screwed it up and gone into captivity by the Assyrians by circa 700 B.C., and that the remaining tribes went into captivity by Babylon following that.
Because of continual promiscuous reading of the writings.
In other words, one of the most moral things the writings call for is reading comprehension fit for an intellectually honest priesthood and laity, but which never developed.
What up wid dat?
David,
You plea sell that to the Catholic Church….. I’m not buying into it…..I know what I read and I’m sticking to it….
AY wrote: “You plea sell that to the Catholic Church….. I’m not buying into it…..I know what I read and I’m sticking to it…”
The Catholic Church won’t buy it. This is the point. Our Western culture, especially here in the United States, has been heavily influenced for hundreds of years by Roman Catholics and their historians.
If you grew up in an Eastern culture and read the historians influenced by the Eastern Orthodox churches, your cultural perspective of the history of church would be different. If you have any interest in this subject at all, I would challenge you to take the time to visit a library and read a history book from an Eastern Orthodox historian. They apply the term “Catholic” to themselves without hesitation. They are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. A member of an Eastern Orthodox church considers himself to be part of the most ancient of churches. They view Roman Catholicism in a similar way to how Roman Catholics view Protestants – as a relatively modern schism of groups of Christians breaking away from the true church.
Consider the following timeline. It will not agree with what you have read and what your culture has taught you, but sometimes what our culture has taught us is not the truth. We should always be ready to question that knowledge which we take for granted.
A Timeline of Church History
http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-church-history
Darren,
There’s another good read called “The Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden”…… It will give you a newer understanding as to what’s been hidden….. There are many more books out there but around the 3rd century…..the rising Catholics took to burning anything that disagreed with the notion of the Christian principles….. Some how or another I think they are still held some place in the archives of the Vatican ….. Just not available for public inspection…..
AY wrote: “There are many more books out there but around the 3rd century…..the rising Catholics took to burning anything that disagreed with the notion of the Christian principles…”
I am not aware of any significant burning of books in the 3rd century, but there were several in the 4th century. These were headed up not by any churches, but by Roman Emperors. This would be more analogous to President Obama calling for the burning of books rather than someone like the Pope.
You might also consider that the Catholic Church did not formally exist until at least 1054 A.D. Prior to this time, the word “catholic” simply meant universal, and it did not refer to a particular religion of Christianity like Roman Catholicism. The term originated not with a Western Roman church, but with St. Ignatius of Antioch, an Eastern church. I realize that Catholics have put forward that they existed all the way to the time of Peter, but virtually every Christian religion makes this claim. From a historical perspective, there were many churches for the first thousand years following Christ’s crucifixion. No single church unified around a worldwide central government or leader figure like the Pope in Rome.
Christians for the most part have been open to knowledge and the dialogue and discussion of various viewpoints, which is why they established institutions of higher learning and argued for a separation of church and state powers. The Christians who wrote about these matters pointed out how excommunications, executions, and burning of books followed when secular powers of government intruded into the realm of religion. The writings of John Foxe (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs) and Joseph Priestly (An history of the corruptions of Christianity) come to mind as examples of such Christian advocates.
Thank you David. I will look to read the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Sounds interesting.
Geese David,
When was the usage of the term Christ first used…. It was most certainly used in a negatory sense….. As Nero after burning Rome blamed the Christians….. So much history so many rarely understand the competing interest…..
davidm2575
Dredd wrote: “That the late bloomers, some Christians, took it upon themselves to presumptuously call centuries of work their own and anoint them as “Christian” writings and judgments (e.g. Talmud) is what is ridiculous.”
This is a gross distortion of truth. Christians never took it upon themselves to anoint the Hebrew writings as their own.
…
=========================
Oh?
They named the Old Testament (The Masoretic Text, the Tanakh) with their name, “The Christian Bible.”
The presumptuous Christians interpret it 400 different ways from those who wrote it, and who had it a thousand years before Christianity came into existence.
Lewis Black has it spot on, it is comedic.
Dredd wrote: “The presumptuous Christians interpret it 400 different ways from those who wrote it, and who had it a thousand years before Christianity came into existence.”
The Jews have never been unified in their interpretation of Scripture. Even during the time of Christ, the branches of Judaism included the Pharisee, Sadducee, and the Essene sects along with other divisions. Even the Pharisees were divided into the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. According to Jesus, they all failed to follow the Scriptures as originally written; hence was born his followers who embraced the writings of that religion as they originally were meant to be embraced. To denigrate them, the Jews called this sect of Judaism “Christians.” The name stuck.
” Most Christian groups are aligned with the intellectual side.”
Still working on the comedy routine, are ya.
—————————————————————————–
” The oldest Christian Bibles… I have learned much from all these books.”
Tell us all again how you’re not religious. That’s one of your better jokes.
RTC wrote: “Tell us all again how you’re not religious.”
I am a theist who is not part of any religious institution.
Tony Vieira
Funny comments, straw men, and red herrings galore …
———————
Chris
Ok there was never a great flood that covered the earth …
=================
“God said to Noah …” – Mark E (quoting Gen. 5:32)
If there is no God, then that is false.
The argument about when God said that would be false too.
So, arguing when something happened that did not happen is a waste of everything involved.
Some people think God exists and that the verse is true and some do not think God exists, and that the verse is false.
So, for those who think God does not exist, they may want to know what is wrong with people who “hear voices.”
And for those who think that God does exist, they may want to know what is wrong with those who do not “hear voices.”
Either way, discussing what the text says does not have to assume God exists or that God does not exist.
It is a matter of reading comprehension, which both atheists and religionists can have and express coherently or incoherently.
Most commentators in this thread brought up fair questions and made arguments from their perspective.
Thanks to Mark E for bringing up subjects and questions that spark multi-faceted views from several perspectives.
davidm2575
Dredd wrote: “There are 27 books in the New Testament, the Christian Bible, of which Paul wrote 14: “Paul was not only the greatest of the apostles in the extent of his labors and his sufferings, but he was the most voluminous of all the writers of the New Testament…”
Why did you stop here? The very next sentence was: “His writings occupy nearly one-fourth of the whole book.”
Instead of acknowledging the truth of your own source, you cherry-picked what you wanted, lifting his words out of context, and then you went on to contradict your own source.
Dredd wrote: “That would be 14 of the 27 books of the New Testament, or ~52%. Over half. Last time I checked “over half” is qualified as most.”
If you had read further in your link, you also would have learned that Paul is not generally considered the author of Hebrews.
================
More of those presumptuos Christians … why stop with taking over the Old Testament and decide who wrote what then the Jews be damned.
And that Paul guy, writing 1/4 of the words, over half of the books. I’ll just say he didn’t write Hebrews and celebate.
Whatever, its your fantasy. Your 1/4 and about half don’t match up even if you become a Paul wrote Hebrews denier.
The 1/4 applies to one factor and the 14 or 13 of 27 applies to another because ~1/4 is not equal to ~1/2 …
I say Paul wrote Hebrews, 1/4 of the words in the NT, and 14 of the 27 books.
In any case he wrote more NT than any other writer, another way of saying the most.
David.
That is part of what I was curious about but I didn’t explain my question very well. The perspective I was interested in was how those who consider Apocrypha to be not canon view the books themselves, is it often one of indifference or something to be shunned? The church I belong to had not really expressed this to my rememberance.
Darren Smith wrote: “The perspective I was interested in was how those who consider Apocrypha to be not canon view the books themselves, is it often one of indifference or something to be shunned?”
Some groups are fundamentalist Bible thumpers who don’t read anything but the Bible. These groups are going to be ignorant of apocryphal books and basically shun them the way they would shun reading a textbook. However, other groups tend to be more intellectual and read these books and encourage the reading of them. Most Christian groups are aligned with the intellectual side.
The Apocrypha generally refers to writings during the inter-testament period when there were no prophets, but there are other extra-canonical books from the New Testament period that also are very interesting to read. The oldest Christian Bibles included the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Another book known as the Didache also provides valuable information about early Christians. I have learned much from all these books.
“Read ‘Worlds in Collision’ by I. Velakovsky. ” This is the same guy who said that Venus was a comet expelled from Jupiter, flew around the solar system a couple times, coming close enough to Earth to be responsible for several Biblical events (starting the flood, distributing manna in the Sinai, stopping the Earth rotating for a day, etc.), then settled down into a nearly perfectly circular orbit. Not exactly a science text.
What Tony Vieira said!
They probably never read and/or studied the Bible; however, they feel free to ‘attempt’ to discuss it.
Thank God for cliffnotes and the google search box (I am also enjoying how they are using secular texts/websites, non-Christian theologians, and/or misinterpreting Christian theologians’ theories or assertions, and stating them as fact or supporting evidence to back up their assertions)?
Let’s discuss the Koran (or Qu’ran or however you spell it) next? I don’t know jack about Islam, but willing to discuss it (sarcasm).
David.
I am curious how you would classify the Apocrypha as being part of the Christian Bible. I have found them to be an interesting read but they have generated much controversy over the centuries as to their suitability for inclusion into the Bibles of the time.
Darren Smith wrote: “I am curious how you would classify the Apocrypha as being part of the Christian Bible.”
I’m not sure what you are asking me. It really isn’t open for personal interpretation. It is simply a matter of the judgment of religious institutions and history. The apocryphal books are part of the canon of the Eastern Orthodox churches, and most of them are part of the Roman Catholic Bible. Protestants for the most part consider them good books to read but not canonical. The Protestants only accepted what the Jewish Rabbi’s accepted as canonical. The Mormon Scriptures declare the apocryphal books to have both truth and falsehood.
I am very impressed by the knowledge presented by the many commenters to this post. Is it not wonderful how religion brings out so much emotional interest ? I think I’ll again reread Hamlet.
davidm2575
Dredd wrote: “At any rate, none of the Tanakh was written by Jews (the tribe of Judah), because by law it was all done by the Levites, the tribal priests, the Levitical Priesthood.”
Nonsense …
======================
Let’s look at what is meant by the Tanakh:
(Wikipedia, “Tanakh”, emphasis added). The “Masoretic text” is a nickname for the Tanakh, and as will be shown, the Masoretes were Levites, priests.
Remember that Moses and his brother Aaron were Levites, then remember that the Torah scroll was handled by and handed down through the Levites, the Levitical Priesthood:
(Masoretes, emphasis added). The Masoretic text was written by Levites charged with that duty, starting with Moses the Levite, and then with copying it as needed.
That special group of Levites were eventually called Masoretes, hence the Masoretic text a.k.a. the Tanakh (the law, the prophets, and the writings).
Will address “King David, Solomon, and even Isaiah” and your assertion that they wrote “great portions” of the Tanakh next.
Funny comments, straw men, and red herrings galore. Relying on an atheist to explain accurately what the bible’s position is on any given subject is like relying on someone who’s read Robin Hood to accurately detail the Middle Ages. So much of what is presented here as unquestioned fact and/or obvious inference is only the hand-me-down myth of the narrow and recklessly ignorant. As lawyers we’re supposed to make a little effort to educate ourselves before we speak. Why do people feel exempt from that obligation when it comes to assessing whether in a given situation they ought mock religion – and in particular, Christianity?
davidm2575
Dredd wrote: “As Lewis Black points out, the Tanakh was not the Christian Bible (book of books) to canonize. That was done centuries before the word “Christian” was ever spoken or written.”
This is getting quite ridiculous. You use the comments of a comedian / actor as an authority on religion?
While the process of canonizing Scripture took place before Christians existed, that never stopped Christian religions from declaring what writings were authoritative as Scripture.
…
================
And therein lies the problem Lewis Black points out.
The Hebrews via the Levitical Priests were the official interpreters of the Hebrew scriptures for century upon century prior to the Christian Era:
(Deut. 17:8-13). That the late bloomers, some Christians, took it upon themselves to presumptiously call centuries of work their own and anoint them as “Christian” writings and judgments (e.g. Talmud) is what is ridiculous.
It would be just as ridiculous for the Levites to presumptuosly claim ownership of the New Testament and call it the new 27 Levitical books.
Dredd wrote: “That the late bloomers, some Christians, took it upon themselves to presumptiously call centuries of work their own and anoint them as “Christian” writings and judgments (e.g. Talmud) is what is ridiculous.”
This is a gross distortion of truth. Christians never took it upon themselves to anoint the Hebrew writings as their own. They simply affirmed their faith in Abraham, Moses, David, and the rest of the Jewish prophets.
In the beginning, Christians were for the most part Torah observant Jews. They worshiped Yahweh in the Temple and sacrificed animals in the Temple. You can read in the book of Acts how the brother of Jesus, James, who led the church in Jerusalem, called upon Paul to go into the Temple and practice Judaism in regards to the Nazarite vow in order to put to rest rumors among the Jews that Paul had abandoned Moses and the Torah completely.
What led to the sharp separation of Christianity from Judaism was the inclusion of the rest of the nations in a covenant with Yahweh. Most of this was caused by Paul’s writings about the Jew and Gentile being one. Actions promoting this schism happened on both sides over a number of years, with Jews persecuting Christians, and with Christians separating from Judaism through establishing different fast days and a different primary day of worship.
davidm2575
…
Dredd wrote: “Neither was the Apostle Paul a Jew, who is said to have written most of the Christian Bible, the New Testament…”
The apostle Paul did not write most of the Christian Bible.
…
=====================
There are 27 books in the New Testament, the Christian Bible, of which Paul wrote 14:
(Epistles of Paul). That would be 14 of the 27 books of the New Testament, or ~52%.
Over half.
Last time I checked “over half” is qualified as most.
Dredd wrote: “There are 27 books in the New Testament, the Christian Bible, of which Paul wrote 14: “Paul was not only the greatest of the apostles in the extent of his labors and his sufferings, but he was the most voluminous of all the writers of the New Testament…”
Why did you stop here? The very next sentence was: “His writings occupy nearly one-fourth of the whole book.”
Instead of acknowledging the truth of your own source, you cherry-picked what you wanted, lifting his words out of context, and then you went on to contradict your own source.
Dredd wrote: “That would be 14 of the 27 books of the New Testament, or ~52%. Over half. Last time I checked “over half” is qualified as most.”
If you had read further in your link, you also would have learned that Paul is not generally considered the author of Hebrews. The number of Pauline letters is 13, not 14, and 13 out of 27 is less than half. What is more germane, however, is analyzing based upon word count. Whether using the Greek New Testament or an English version like the King James Version, a word count analysis indicates that the Pauline Epistles comprise just under one-fourth of the New Testament, just like your source had stated. You should have trusted your own source.
Furthermore, as I said many times before, the Christian Bible is not the New Testament alone. The Christian Bible includes both the Tanakh and the New Testament writings. To claim that Paul wrote most of the “Christian Bible” is fallacious.
Eddie Izzard on Creation and the Ark:
My, my David,
Imagine someone having a differing interpretation of words from your usage….. Mespos point seemed fairly clear…..
Linus van Pelt wrote: “Mespos point seemed fairly clear…”
I wrote the author of Mespo’s source, and he confirmed my suspicion that mespo misunderstood him. Following is Dr. Baden’s reply in totality:
===============
No mainstream biblical scholar dates the biblical text that describes the flood – not the flood described in the text, but the composition of the words on the page – much earlier than the ninth century. And many would say that these chapters were written as late as the fifth century BCE or even later. Most biblical scholars don’t date the flood as an event at all, but think it entirely a myth.
____________
Joel S. Baden
Associate Professor of Old Testament
Yale Divinity School
===============