On the Creationism thread, we were discussing Genesis 1&2. RSC2A brought up the Gilgamesh Epic. It is a Babylonian myth about creation and the flood.
While I do not debate that the fragments (Ebla tablets) pre-date Moses' writings, I do not believe that Moses depended on or even incorporated the myth to compose Genesis. Here is the approach I take and my understanding of how the ANE history applies to our understanding of Scripture.
1) I find no statement, by Moses, or any other author of Scripture that the Pentateuch was a correlation of historical documents. When Luke wrote his Gospel, he told us that his work was a historical compilation. Also, when Paul used quotes from his culture, he said so.
2) Is it enough to see loose parallels and then assume that Moses depended on the Babylonian myth just because we have fragments pre-dating Moses?
3) What, in the Gilgamesh Epic, would Moses actually have used? Is there linguistic proof that Moses borrowed from that language in Genesis 1 & 2?
4) What about oral tradition? Why is there a lack of discussion about the Gilgamesh Epic coming from true oral tradition?
I agree with this writer: "The very method is called into question to a large extent since Tigay’s work on Gilgamesh, for which there exist documents from various stages of the formational process, shows that any working back from a final document to its sources is only guess work, and the chances of hypothesizing a process and sources which accurately correspond to actuality are very slim indeed." David Baker (Ph.D. - University of London) is Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at ATS, Ashland Theological Journal, Volume 28, Page 96. emphasis mine.
So, where in my mind, is the value of ANE finds like the Gilgamesh Epic? The events of Genesis 1 & 2 predate the Gilgamesh Epic. Oral tradition, passed on through generations, was incorporated by non Israelite cultures.
I apply this in the reverse from RSC2A. Since the narrative given by Moses is the authoritative truth, when we find myths that have similarities and yet great differences, we should conclude that these myths are a reflection of the fact that Genesis is true and the restatement of oral traditions.
While I do not debate that the fragments (Ebla tablets) pre-date Moses' writings, I do not believe that Moses depended on or even incorporated the myth to compose Genesis. Here is the approach I take and my understanding of how the ANE history applies to our understanding of Scripture.
1) I find no statement, by Moses, or any other author of Scripture that the Pentateuch was a correlation of historical documents. When Luke wrote his Gospel, he told us that his work was a historical compilation. Also, when Paul used quotes from his culture, he said so.
2) Is it enough to see loose parallels and then assume that Moses depended on the Babylonian myth just because we have fragments pre-dating Moses?
3) What, in the Gilgamesh Epic, would Moses actually have used? Is there linguistic proof that Moses borrowed from that language in Genesis 1 & 2?
4) What about oral tradition? Why is there a lack of discussion about the Gilgamesh Epic coming from true oral tradition?
I agree with this writer: "The very method is called into question to a large extent since Tigay’s work on Gilgamesh, for which there exist documents from various stages of the formational process, shows that any working back from a final document to its sources is only guess work, and the chances of hypothesizing a process and sources which accurately correspond to actuality are very slim indeed." David Baker (Ph.D. - University of London) is Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at ATS, Ashland Theological Journal, Volume 28, Page 96. emphasis mine.
So, where in my mind, is the value of ANE finds like the Gilgamesh Epic? The events of Genesis 1 & 2 predate the Gilgamesh Epic. Oral tradition, passed on through generations, was incorporated by non Israelite cultures.
I apply this in the reverse from RSC2A. Since the narrative given by Moses is the authoritative truth, when we find myths that have similarities and yet great differences, we should conclude that these myths are a reflection of the fact that Genesis is true and the restatement of oral traditions.
