His article is prompted by all of the hullabaloo sparked by the claim of certain evangelicals last week to have located Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat.
Cargill writes:
The worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-9 is not historical, but rather a combination of at least two flood stories, both of which descended from earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives. . . .
Most biblical and ancient Near Eastern scholars argue that the flood is a mythical story adopted from earlier Mesopotamian flood accounts. These earlier accounts include the 17th century BCE Sumerian flood myth Eridu Genesis, the 18th century BCE Akkadian Atra-Hasis Epic, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, which are some of the earliest known examples of a literary style of writing. The most complete version of the Epic of Gilgamesh known today is preserved on 12 clay tablets from the library of Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (685-627 BCE). This extant Akkadian version is derived from earlier Sumerian versions. In the story, Gilgamesh and his companion, a wild man-beast named Enkidu, travel the world on a number of quests that ultimately displease the gods. After the death of Enkidu, Gilgamesh embarks on a journey to learn the secret of eternal life by visiting the immortal flood hero, Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh how the god Ea (equivalent to the Sumerian god Enki) revealed the gods’ plan to destroy all life with a great flood, and how they instructed him to build a vessel in which he could save his family, friends, and livestock. After the flood, the gods repented for destroying the world and made Utnapishtim immortal.
These flood stories appear to have been transmitted to the Israelites early in Israel’s history. Contact between the Assyrians and the Israelites is known from the conquest of Israel and its capitol, Samaria, in 721 BCE by Assyrian King Shalmaneser V (727-722 BCE), and from the attempted conquest of Jerusalem by the Assyrian King Sennacherib (704-681 BCE). These stories were apparently modified to conform to a monotheistic faith, but retained characteristics such as the destruction of nearly all living things via a flood, the salvation of a select few people and animals by the construction of a boat, and the regret of the deity for the flood, prompting a promise not to do so again. Thus, like many of the early stories in Israel’s primordial history, the flood story appears to be an adaptation and integration of a previously known myth into the theology of Israel (emphasis mine).
Cargill concludes his article thusly:
Some claims like the flood and the six-day creation are neither historical nor factual; they were written to communicate in an pre-scientific literary form that god is responsible for the earth. It is time Christians conceded that there was no flood. It is time for Reformed Theological Seminary to concede that Bruce Waltke has a point. It is time for groups of evangelical amateurs to stop making sensational claims about discoveries they did not really make. And it is time for people to stop looking for Noah’s ark.If Evangelicals, such as John MacArthur, and other conservative Christians, continue to insist that the earth was created in six literal days and that Noah's flood was a global flood, and that if either one is forsaken, Christianity crumbles; then, they are setting themselves up for disaster. As they bury their heads deeper and deeper in the sand, they are becoming less and less relevant to the real world. I see that as a good thing.
Cargill makes some assumptions (and errors in logic) here (as do many others). It is entirely possible, and indeed logical, that if the flood did actually occur, that stories of a great flood would be found in various cultures. It is convenient, however, to jump to the conclusion that the OT version was taken from these other sources.
ReplyDeleteCargill makes some assumptions (and errors in logic) here (as do many others). It is entirely possible, and indeed logical, that if the flood did actually occur, that stories of a great flood would be found in various cultures.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem with that argument is that the Mesopotamian flood stories pre-date the Biblical flood story. Also, not all cultures have flood myths. Cultures that lived near and depended upon the sea tended to have them, but cultures that were inland, not so much.
The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers would, on occasion, receive so much runoff from the mountains to the north that they would flash flood. There was also the flood incident that created the Black Sea. Events like that probably made a strong impression on the people in the area, so they incorporated flooding in to their myths.
The other possibility is that it was a cultural memory of the rising of the oceans at the end of the last Ice Age. The world map changed drastically, with former peninsulas becoming islands when their isthmuses were covered. The best known of these would have been Great Britain.
It is convenient, however, to jump to the conclusion that the OT version was taken from these other sources.
The Hebrews, such as they were, were a much later people group. We have plenty of evidence that they begged, borrowed, and stole from older Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources. So it's not so much "convenient" as it is "logical."
Isnt the myth argument brought up for the entire bible, not just the flood? I don't see what's so new about this writing. We have been hearing about the bible being based on myth from genesis to rev. This is nothing new.
ReplyDeleteahswan,
ReplyDeleteCenturies before King David was directed by Yahweh on the specifics of how to build Yahweh's temple, the Egyptians had a story about how Thutmose was told directed by their god on the specifics of how to build that god's temple.
Centuries before Moses received laws driectly from Yahweh, both Egyptian and Mesopotamian rulers claimed to have rec'd their laws directly from their gods.
Centuries before. The Hebrews also copied exalted terms and addresses toward god, copied the notion of animal sacrifices, directed the entrances of their temples eastward as other cultures did before them, added areas of increasing holiness to their temples as others did before them. Added the rite of circumcision as others did before them.
And if the god of the Hebrew nation really wanted to leave behind ancient stone carvings or clay tablets or even pottery with ancient pictures or ancient messages on them from some pre-Flood patriarchs, or from Abraham, or from Joseph, or a bit from all of them signed one beneath the other in a slowly evolving language, and have all those messages carried aboard the ark, and preserved by each new inheritor of the "truth," I'm sure that god could have found a way to do exactly that.
INSTEAD of that, what has been preserved are tens of thousands of rock carvings steles and clay tablets from ancient Near Eastern Egypt and Mesopotamian, writings far older than any Hebrew writings we possess, and composed by civilizations far older than the nation of Israel.
In fact, the early gods were based on the characteristics of human kings of Egypt and Babylon, whose word was law, was not returned void, whose command was obeyed, etc. See Mark S. Smith's book, The Priestly Origin of Genesis 1, and his discussion of creation by divine might and by divine command/word. See also my chapter in The Christian Delusion, "The Cosmology of the Bible."
"I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).
ReplyDeleteTo make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it."
http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2010/04/noahs-ark-paleobabble-update
Latest responses to noah's ark claim
http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2010/04/responses-to-latest-noahs-ark-claim.html
The truth is that there is no evidence that Ararat was ever under water:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/geocentrism/mt_ararat.html
Neither is there any way a 400 foot long boat made out of wood wouldn't twist and take on plenty of water. Even 300 foot long boats twisted and took on too much water even with iron bands around such boats. That's why they stopped making boats out of wood long ago.
http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood.html
Neither is there any way a 400 foot long boat made out of wood wouldn't twist and take on plenty of water. Even 300 foot long boats twisted and took on too much water even with iron bands around such boats. That's why they stopped making boats out of wood long ago.
ReplyDeleteThat's a fantastic point. The largest of the Age of Sail warships, such as HMS Victory and the Spanish Santisima Trinidad came in at around 230 feet in length. They were just about the largest seaworthy wooden vessels possible. The next evolution in ship design didn't come until the creation of ships built with iron hulls from the ground up.
And it shouldn't have to be said that 18th and 19th Century European shipmakers were significantly more sophisticated than a random Mesopotamian with design schematics directly from god.
@Ken - I like to think that the YEC folks and ark-seekers are actually atheist plants orchestrated to discredit Christianity. Who needs straw men when your opponents have headpieces filled with straw?
ReplyDeleteKen
ReplyDeleteWhat if christianity crumbles, as you say. What then? Lets say that happens. Would that satisfy you and your followers? What kind of world would we have? People are angry as it is, they need answers to their problems. What do we tell the people? Try to dig back into your days as pastor if you so kindly choose to answer...
John,
ReplyDeleteI am convinced that conservative Christianity is a detriment to society. Yes, it does some good things but overall I think it does more bad things. I also am convinced that its not true so I can't advocate believing in something that is not true for pragmatic reasons.
I think people need to realize there are no easy answers to the difficult questions in life. People want them desperately and hence the success of religion. They don't have to prove anything; just believe. That appeals to a lot of folks. I don't think the change will come suddenly. It will come instead gradually as it has in Europe where fewer and fewer of the next generations will believe in conservative religions. Unfortunately for the forseeable future though there will be adherents of extreme religions and that is scary. Anyone who thinks that they are God's special people and others are not are dangerous. Some will take this religious zeal to the point of murder. Christians did this in the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe and there are still some nut jobs around to blow up abortion clinics and federal buildings. Couple that with extreme Islam and we have a huge problem on our hands.
Thanks Ken, will have to chew on that.
ReplyDeleteKen & Edward,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that Jesus in Luke 6 & 17, the writer of Hebrews in chapter 11, and Peter (1 Peter 3 & 2 Peter 5) use the flood to make important theological statements. This seems a risky thing to do if the Jewish culture of the day knew this was a borrowed myth, don't you think? Also, if you know, I'm sincerely curious if the other cultures incorporate their flood myths into their greater body of theology?
Edward says, The Hebrews also copied exalted terms and addresses toward god, copied the notion of animal sacrifices, directed the entrances of their temples eastward as other cultures did before them, added areas of increasing holiness to their temples as others did before them. Added the rite of circumcision as others did before them.
It is interesting to me that in the Hebrew scriptures the Israelites weren't judged by God for "copying" any of these particular practices you mention. They were judged, though, for borrowing other aspects of foreign cultures and religious practices. Why do you suppose they were judged for some "borrowed" practices and not others? What's the historical perspective on this?
Scott
Ken: "Anyone who thinks that they are God's special people and others are not are dangerous."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "dangerous"? Do you think the likes of John Bunyan, Corrie ten Boom, Norm Geisler, and Billy Graham dangerous? When you were a "believer" did you consider yourself dangerous?
Scott
Jon Sfifer: Would that satisfy you and your followers? What kind of world would we have?
ReplyDeleteAnd who, pray tell, are the good Dr's followers? Am I one of them? Because I'm pretty sure that I just read this blog and comment on stuff. I'm not waiting for my orders from on high...
Write: I find it interesting that Jesus in Luke 6 & 17, the writer of Hebrews in chapter 11, and Peter (1 Peter 3 & 2 Peter 5) use the flood to make important theological statements.
Well, Scalia once wrote a Supreme Court opinion based on 24.
But, to the point, that argument doesn't get you anywhere. It could have been using an illustration that the people in the audience would have understood. The writers could have also genuinely believed that there was a Flood. That doesn't mean there was a flood.
If you met someone who believed that Star Trek is actually a future documentary that fell through a time warp and behaved accordingly, would you feel compelled to believe the same thing? Or would you look at the evidence provided by the fact that we've seen the actors in other parts, there are pictures of the soundstages on which the show was filmed, etc. and decide not to take your new acquaintance seriously when he was talking about his belief in future space travel?
What do you mean by "dangerous"? Do you think the likes of John Bunyan, Corrie ten Boom, Norm Geisler, and Billy Graham dangerous? When you were a "believer" did you consider yourself dangerous?
How about all those times in the Jewish Bible when Yahweh ordered his Chosen People to slaughter the men, women, children, and cattle of the neighboring tribes? How about the Crusades? All the Native Americans who were given the option of converting at the point of a sword? How about the genocide in Rwanda? What about the various cult leaders? Muslim jihadis?
Belief that one side is 100% deserving of control and the other is 100% craven is dangerous. Cherry picking good people who believed doesn't fix that.
And I can't speak for Ken, but I used to teach junior highers in church youth group and mentor younger college students. I do regret trying to make sure that they further bought in to the system I eventually came to realize was dangerous and outdated. And I knew plenty of people who I would consider dangerous. Some of the most judgmental, hypocritical people I've met were pastors who were simply attempting to maintain control of the people in their churches.
Also, what's up with the quotes around believer?
Check out some Australian mega fauna and try to explain that in relation to the ark story.
ReplyDelete@John Sfifer -- The utilitarian appeal that "Christianity makes people more civil" is almost as useless and counterproductive as the appeal to the Bible as a manual of geology, history, and astrophysics. It's true that Christ said, "You are the salt of the earth, and what then if the salt loses it's saltiness?". But He didn't say, "In order to preserve the world, we must convince swine to become salt". That was never an evangelization tactic, and you ought not use it as such.
ReplyDeleteScott,
ReplyDeleteI don't think that by the time of the NT, the writers or any of the Jews knew that the flood was a borrowed myth. It had become inscripturated and they were, like fundamentalists today, of the opinion that if it was written in their Scriptures, then it had to be true.
As far as what they borrowed, they borrowed a lot of things and this was not unique to them. All religions do this. See David Eller's, The Anthropology of Religion. What Yahweh condemned was anything that could result in his people leaving him and worshipping any of the other gods.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI should have said potentially dangerous. Most Christians are not dangerous just as most Muslims are not dangerous. However, there is an element within both that have the potential to be very dangerous and it is based on their understanding of "us" vs. "them." "Us" being God's people and "them" being the infidels.
Us vs. them can apply to athests/nonbelivers as well.
ReplyDelete"Scott,
ReplyDeleteI should have said potentially dangerous."
Thanks for clarifying Ken. That's what I thought you meant.
And I agree that there are dangerous elements within the various religious systems. But I also believe that those who are dangerous, especially within Christianity, are not truly representative of the faith they claim to be defending. Matthew 7:21 - “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40)
Scott
The irnoy is the non-believers are taking page out of that playbook: They are writing books now on amazon, and they blog like crazy and even ridicule christians. On top of that, they have a single minded agenda and that is to destroy chrstianity. That personally scares me. Let's assume christianity is destroyed (wishful thinking), what worries me is what type of division will be then created? The nonbelievers will not always be a united group.
ReplyDeleteJohn Sfifer: Let's assume christianity is destroyed (wishful thinking), what worries me is what type of division will be then created? The nonbelievers will not always be a united group.
ReplyDeleteWhat? Like the Arian v. Nestorian schisms that nearly tore apart the Byzantine Empire? Or the Orthodox v. Monophysite schisms that nearly tore apart the Byzantine Empire? Or the Orthodox v. Monophysite v. Monothelitism schisms that nearly tore apart the Byzantine Empire? Or the Catholic v. Orthodox schism that did tear apart the Church? Or the creation of the Anglican Church? Or the Reformation? Or the counter Reformation? Or the bits where when I was growing up in an Evangelical Bible church we were all convinced that Catholics weren't "real" Christians and those liberal mainline churches were suspect, too? Or that bit where the Christian Hutu in Rwanda slaughtered the Christian Tutsi? Maybe the part where the Tutsi slaughtered back?
If there's no Christianity people will fight. It's human nature and the inevitable end-product of having infinite wants and finite means. But when there is Christianity it's not like people don't fight. Claiming that Christianity keeps the peace is laughable and very much a case of special pleading.
On top of that, they have a single minded agenda and that is to destroy chrstianity. That personally scares me.
There is no such agenda. Some, like PZ Myers or Christopher Hitchens would like to see it gone. Most of the rest of us would just like to see it taken out of the public sphere. Christianity as preached by the American Right is a danger to everyone's freedom and stands completely against the principles of the foundation of America. Secular, even-handed government is good for everyone, even the Christians who seem to think that the world will suddenly fall apart.
It won't. It will just allow everyone to hold their own beliefs in peace. Christianity deserves as much protection as Islam, Buddhism or non-belief from persecution. But the trade off is that Christianity can't be allowed to have any more influence than any other belief, either.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteBut that would mean that you would have to exclude Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and a host of others from the ranks of "true" Christians.
Of course many Muslims say that the radical terrorists are not true "Muslims."
Whether the Muslims or the Christians are "true" believers is irrelevant. The fact is that their belief system derived from their interpretation of their holy book drives them to commit atrocities.
John,
ReplyDeleteYes "us" vs. "them" can apply to non-believers as well but here is the difference--non-believers don't feel that they have a divine mandate upon which to act. When zeal is coupled with the belief that one is doing "God's will" that is what is truly scary.
If Atheism is so bad, why are countries such as Sweden, some of the safest and most civilised societies in the world? In Sweden, they are 90 percent atheists.
ReplyDeleteJohn Sfifer : "Us vs. them can apply to athests/nonbelivers as well."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely; it's a large factor in current American politics - in fact, I would argue that this sort of 'tribal loyalty' is a large part of what's keeping the U.S. Government from working the way it's supposed to right now.
John Sfifer: "On top of that, they have a single minded agenda and that is to destroy chrstianity. That personally scares me. Let's assume christianity is destroyed (wishful thinking), what worries me is what type of division will be then created? The nonbelievers will not always be a united group."
ReplyDeleteDo you really believe that nonbelievers are a united group now? 'Cause if so, I think you need to get out more. Also... "single minded?" Maybe it's just the nonbelievers I hang out with, but that hasn't been my experience at all. In my experience, nonbelievers have a wide variety of individual interests, quite apart from wanting to destroy Christianity and plunge the world into a nightmarish half-life under the direct control of Satan. (In case anyone missed it, that last part was irony.)
There are nonbelievers who think that all religion is inherently evil, and that the world would be better off if people would give up this dangerous foolishness. They argue from the long history of religious persecution, wars, and the long list of evils done in the name of various religions. I disagree; like Geds, I think that people do horrible things to each other not because of religion, but because they are people.
There are nonbelievers who argue that religion serves as an amplifier for evil. I can't remember the exact quote, but the view is basically this: good men will be good on their own, and evil men will do evil; but for a good man to do evil requires religion. Personally, I think this a lot more defensible than the view that all religion is evil, but I still have some misgivings about it.
My personal view is that religion is basically just something that people do - like art, or music. Anywhere you find people, you find some sort of religious belief: some belief in the Unseen Forces That Govern Our Lives. There's a nearly-unbelievable variety of these beliefs, but if there is or ever was a tribe of "natural atheists", I don't know about them.
So I doubt seriously that Christianity is in any danger of being "destroyed". At worst, it might become irrelevant - and I suspect that's a gradual process which is already underway. But even in my lifetime, Wicca and other neo-pagan beliefs have gone from being unknown to being relatively mainstream, which leads me to think that while people in general may be feeling less need for religion overall, they're also feeling a need for different kinds of religion.
But let's consider, hypothetically, what happens if Christianity is destroyed. Say that all the myriad flavors of Christian belief are suddenly discredited, unlikely as that seems. Say that we find, preserved intact, a set of correspendence between, I dunno, Matthew and Luke; in which they discuss this great scam that they've got going and marvel at the fact that Paul believes it completely.
ReplyDeleteWhat then?
Well, first of all, I don't expect to see a sudden rise in immoral behavior. Christians, as a group, don't seem to be any more or less moral than anyone else; taking that belief away probably won't make much difference to their behavior. By the same token, I don't think you'd see any noticeable increase in human misery; I haven't noticed that Christians (again, in general) are any happier or less happy than anyone else.
Second, I think you'd see a fair number of former Christians converting to other religions (just as they move from denomination to denomination now). You'd probably also see a lot of them become unbelievers of one stripe or another. But to be honest, even the scenario I suggested above - direct documentation from the Apostles themselves saying that Jesus never existed - probably wouldn't dissolve Christianity entirely. There would be a vocal contingent insisting that the whole thing must be a hoax; there would be another contingent pointing out that the Truth of Christianity was a transcendant truth rather than a historical truth; and there would be another contingent pointing out that Jesus had a lot of good things to say about how we live our lives, so we should follow his teachings even if was fictional.
But, basically, if you're worried that the downfall of Christianity would bring about the end of civilization... don't be. People are vastly more adaptable than that.
Michael-very insightful thanks.
ReplyDeleteI don't know but I can't help but wonder about christiantiy when I stumble upon a christian blog about being so manically depressed (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/05/after-depression-an-update-on-my-depression/). Then I come here and chat with people who are a little more level headed. I am not gonna draw conclusions but there is a case to be made.
John,
ReplyDeleteI consider Michael Patton at Pen and Parchment a friend. I don't know exactly what he has been going through but it may be clinical depression. Believers and unbelievers alike are subject to chemical imbalances. So I would not make any judgments based on that. I appreciate Michael's honesty. He is one of the few Christians on the net that I have encountered who is really transparent.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteSome readers are not prepared for this sort of stuff. I go to his blog for some ideas on theology, as I do to yours (on the con side).
I am sure Michael is a friend to many and this is evident in the comments. But personally, I think this sort of stuff should be kept to your friends. It can even have a harmful effect on some. I wish him the best but I think that should have been posted elsewhere. Thanks for your reply.
John said:
ReplyDelete"But personally, I think this sort of stuff should be kept to your friends. It can even have a harmful effect on some."
Why? There are probably a lot of depressed Christians out there who would be encouraged to know they're not alone. They look around at the joyful facades everyone displays at church and view themselves as special cases (thereby deepening their misery). This guy is offering a dose of reality that may help buoy up some hurting people.
John,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Steve. If Christianity is true, then one ought not to have "hide" anything to keep others from stumbling. While airing one's personal life for all to see is something I wouldn't want to do, I am not going to criticize Michael for doing so nor am I going to try to score some cheap point for atheism from it.
Why? There are probably a lot of depressed Christians out there who would be encouraged to know they're not alone.
ReplyDeleteThere were many, many points during my Christian walk when I was depressed. So much of the message I got at church basically boiled down to a very Puritanical, "If you're right with god everything will be okay," so I tried to cover it.
There was a Christian band called Kepano Green that never had that much success outside of the Wheaton, IL area. They sang songs about being hurt after breakups and wondering where god was in pain and all that generally unmentionable stuff. I remember feeling better after listening to them because I realized, "It's okay to admit you're not happy right now."
So, yeah. I think that if you have a public forum where it's appropriate (and personal blogs pretty much fit that by definition), then you should share how you really feel about stuff. Even...no, especially if it's something that will get people clutching their pearls and clucking about how you should never, ever do that.
If your argument boils down to, "Don't be honest, it will make the rest of the group look bad," chances are there's something wrong with the group...
Also, I just developed this strange desire to listen to Kepano Green. Weird.