www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology confused--help me out

First of all, forgive my naiveness concerning these things; I know there are many "gifted" and knowledgable posters on this forum.

I have recently "discovered" that the creation account(s) in Genesis seem to be similar to the Gilgamesh creation account; it some cases it seems to have copied content and style.

This has been most disheartening for me. I am now having trouble with accepting the validity of the books of the Bible. Were other books done in this manner?

I am having a faith crisis situation here so I need prayers and some answers.

Thanks

Dear Volodymyr,

You have absolutely nothing to apologize for!! And yes, there is some similarity in both the creation accounts and some of the Psalms and wisdom literature in the Bible and other near eastern writings. But doesn't that just show how great God is, how creative His Holy Spirit is? For example, when you read some of the other ancient eastern creation accounts they are filled with rivalries between competing divinities and fantastic tales of creation.

The God of the Hebrews is quite austere by comparison but His all-powerful nature is shown forth by the proclamation that God literally "spoke" creation into being -- he neither needed pre-existing matter from which to form creation nor did He need the assistance of anyone else!! So the inspired writers of Genesis recorded, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what God wanted us to know about His almighty power and that He created out of sheer love!

There are many, many helpful books available that will help you sort through the Biblical writings and how they have come down to us as poetry, legal codes, wisdom literature, etc. and don't ever let anyone tell you that the Bible is just a bunch of "myths". For example, did you know that the name "Adam" is taken from the Hebrew "Adamah", meaning "soil, earth" and the name Eve is taken from the Hebrew "Chava", a root word for "life" (ergo, Eve became "the mother of all living")? The "myth" of Genesis is rooted in sacred truths that God wanted us to know without necessarily being literally historic in every detail. That is why Genesis can speak so profoundly to every generation without ever losing its deep spiritual value.

There are many excellent sources that would help you to discover the riches of the Bible and its eternal truths. By no means lose heart, our God is a God of truth and would never deceive us.

Perhaps you have a trusted friend or spiritual director who could help you find some of these sources.

My prayers are with you!

Khrystyna
K

Hello:

Why???

For instance:

There are a number of Job-like characters in various ancient cultures. In fact, the Book of Job in the Bible seems to be a commented anthology of such stories. The book itself is probably the oldest Biblical writing, pre-dating even the Pentateuch. The stories, of course, are even older.

The Book of the Prophet Daniel is closer to be a novel than anything else. There is no real evidence that there was a single man named Daniel that lived all the events in Prophet Daniel's life as portrayed in the Book of Daniel.

There are at least two, and perhaps three different and distinct authors for sections of the Book of Isaiah.

We could go on and on.

The truth of the matter is that, in the Bible, God speaks to us through human beings, using a human language.

Truth and Fact are not synonymous. You can use the facts to tell a lie, and you can tell the Truth using literary figures such as parables, novels, fables, etc.

The Bible is not, and has never pretended to be CNN.

Shalom,
Memo.

Volodymyr,

Instead of questioning the infallibility of the Bible because of its relationship to some other writings, why wouldn't you consider the possibility of the Spirit working partially (but not at all fully) in these other writings, thus bringing it closer to the Truth, which is only found in the Bible?

The similarities are kind of proofs of how many different cultures vaguely touched but never fully grasped Biblical Truth.

Logos Teen

The "Georgia-Guy" is right.

In seminary OT class, we read all sorts of other historical materials in addition to the Olde Testament. And it became clear that the writers of the OT made use of prevailing ideas and understandings of reality when composing the texts. There is nothing wrong with this at all. The Marduk/Tiamat creation story of the Babylonians was a very common and popular understanding of where the universe came from. The key factor was that the Jewish writer eschewed the 'slit Marduk's belly and it became the firmament' image, and translated it into an image of God's hand doing the creation. (Another image: God doesn't have a hand.)

There is a problem when one interprets scriptural texts literally as descriptions of "what really happened". (There's a real problem of "it was morning and evening, the second day" when the sun and celestial bodies had not yet been created. Oooops.) That's not the important lesson. The real lesson is: God is the source of everything that exists; and without God's direct "will" to create creation, it would not be.

The same thing has happened to us Christians. Our Paschal symbol of the egg has been co-opted. For Christians, we 'consecrate' the egg as the symbol of new and coming life. Jesus' Resurrection is the source of our 'new life' in the Spirit and in the Kingdom to come. So, at Pascha, we use the egg as a symbol.

Unfortunately, Hallmark and Cadbury have stolen our symbol, turned it into chocolate and for some incredibly strange reason have a bunny deliver them. (Those folks must be on some serious drugs.)

Same with Holy Father Nicholas. He's a bishop, he's known for his generosity to un-dowery'd girls, and for his care for all his people. His vestments got changed as he moved west - "Hey, what's this crazy stuff he's wearing as a bishop - put a miter on his head!!". And eventually the powers of commerce transformed him in Santa Claus. In the US, he doesn't even wear 'vesture' any more as he still does in England, France, Belgium and Germany; he's got some stupid pants-suit. And who the hell introduced reindeer? Definitely NOT Myra in Lycia nor anywhere else in Asia Minor.

So: don't get perplexed about the external forms or metaphors or images. Go deeper into the truth of what is being taught.

As a side comment, on St. Patrick's Day, I was riding in a cab with an Irish-American, former ('recovering') Catholic and he was asked by a cabbie (Caribbean?) why the Irish drink so much on St. Patrick's Day. The answer came back: because St. Patrick did a lot for the Irish and he's a saint because he drove the snakes from Ireland and so we have a party and celebration. Unfortunately, the 'external' metaphors and images became the touchstone for belief, and the REAL reason St. Patrick was a true saint and a model for us got lost in the translation. I was so depressed. It's catechesis time, kids.

Blessings!

Walt,

not to worry prayers are with you. Remember we are not bible-literalists nor fundamentalists. The Epic of Gilgamesh was "discovered" in 1872, and I'm sure others felt like you since that time but have come to see the essential differences even though there may be parallels. Among the ancient near east myths, there are parallels to the tree of life, the serpent, quest for immortality, etc. In the pagan accounts the purposely keep humans from immortality. In the Genesis account, God offers to share the divine life with Adam, yet Adam seeks to "be god" outside of God's plan.

If you would like some introductory scholarly research try Lawrence Boadt, Reading the Old Testament; An Introduction , Paulist Press, 1984, or Jack Custer, The Old Testament: A Byzantine Perspective , God With Us Publications, 1994.

Volodymyr,

And there are many similarities between Jesus' nativity and Moses' nativity. Parallelism and correspondence are many in the Scriptures. No need to get worried or loose faith in the Bible. Our faith is in God, not a book, however sacred it is.

We must also ask ourselves if our intention to understand the Scriptures is one of history or one of theology? Take a look at the Passion and Resurrection narrative in the Gospels. Exactly how many women did visit the tomb? Was there an angel or two men there? Did our Lord celebrate the Last Supper on the Passover or the night before? It is these seemingly contradictory accounts that gave the critics a field day. Lately, as we learn more that the naive assumption that the Scriptures is ONLY history, we begin to see that the joke is on the critics. There is something more and bigger going on in these contradictions and parallels. Also something very beautiful that fundamentalism and/or criticism cannot appreciate.

There are many similarities between the Gilgamesh Epic and the Flood Story of Noah. There are many similarities between the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 and the various king lists from the same region too. But should we worry if the author of Genesis 1-11 should happen to use or borrow literary styles or events to tell his story? When exactly was Genesis written? and where? Did not the Church Fathers utilize for themselves a lot of philosophical concepts and words while at the same time condemning the Greek system of thought? If the Church Fathers can use words from outside Semitic thinking (and we get heck from the Bible-only crowd for doing so) then the author of Genesis can use key outside stories or accounts and work them into his text.

Just because the data points are similar doesn't mean the conclusions will be the same. There are many elements from outside that are picked up and 'incarnated' into theology and liturgical practices. But the key understanding is that they are 'borrowed' to make another point.

Looking closer at the Flood Story we also see a close parallel to the Creation Story, but this often goes unnoticed because we think of stories in linear fashion while we try to force the narratives into a neat "history" of Israel. I don't believe that the authors of the biblical books had in mind a desire to simply record history. There were far greater points to make, and those points are within the context of history.

Does the Gilgamesh Epic include these parallels?

The "author" of these stories had a theological intent in mind, and how he utilized or structured certain stories may have depended on other techniques outside of the concerns of historical methodology. Then again, is history really factual? History is 'interpretation,' and that interpretive part can use, shape, or omit what it wants to make a theological point. Many also want to make the Gospels as some sort of Life of Jesus biographies. They weren't simply biographies. Too much was left out (Jesus' early years prior to beginning his mission at his baptism) and the "big point" (the Resurrection) is non-earthly-lifeable (if their is such a word). Proclaiming Jesus as Lord and as resurrected is hardly a "bibliographical" concern.

But this is where many are when they consider history and bibliographies when they read the Scriptures. But what exactly is important about the Scriptures? Historical data? Even the genealogical lists in Genesis (5 and 11) don't agree between the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint!!!

Ignore the Gilgamesh Epic for a moment and reflect on the following:

From a storyline point of view we know that Gen 1-11 is a primeval history. Upon closer scutiny we see that this same section of Genesis is actually made up of two parts: Gen 1:1-6:8 (the beginnings/creation) and Gen 6:9-11:32 (the flood/Noah). These two parts also make up the first two readings for the week-by-week continuous reading of the Torah in the annual lectionary cycle of the synagogue. The rabbis must have realized that they were to be read completely and independently. Our first story is the sidra Bereshit, and the second is the sidra No'ach.

I note this because there is a 'literary' division in the primeval history. Though they parallel each other to a great degree, they remain separate and unique stories. We are sometimes handicapped by all those section and chapter headings and chapter and verse enumerations by latter-century folks that we fail to gain perspective on the literary structure, styles, genre, and techniques (poetic structures such as parallelisms and chiasms) that are often used.

The same goes for the Flood story itself; even though the author or final editor/redactor of the book of Genesis may have 'borrowed' data from other stories, it doesn't mean that the theological point was borrowed too. For the Gilgamesh Epic is also quite distinct from the Flood Story in Genesis. There are also many flood stories around. So be careful.

Let me run with a few parallels in this Primeval History to make a further point:

Gen 1:1-2:3 (creation) parallels Gen 6:9-9:17 (creation 2). Things come unravelled in the Flood story. The dome of sky/waters (Gen 1:6-8) is split apart but later comes together again in Gen 7:11.

Gen 1:9 (dry ground appears) // Gen 7:19-20 (dry land disappears from flood)

Gen 1:22-28 (animals are blessed by God to be "fertile and multiply") // Gen 8:17 (animals are once again told to be "fertile and multiply" after the flood)

Gen 2:7 (man and tiller of the earth) // Gen 9:20 (Noah as tiller of the earth)

Gen 3:7 (Adam and Eve see each other naked) // Gen 9:22 (Noah is seen naked)

Gen 3:14-19 (God's judgment on Adam and Eve) // Gen 9:25-27 (Noah's curse on Canaan)

Gen 4:1-16 (first sons of Adam and Eve are introduced; more sons come later) // Gen 9:20-26 (Noah's first sons are introduced)

Gen 4:3 (Cain as cultivator of the ground/fruit of the soil) // Gen 9:20 (Noah as cultivator of the ground/fruit of the vine)

Gen 4:4-8 (sibling rivalry between Cain and Abel) // Gen 9:21-23 (sibling differences between Ham and Shem/Japheth)

Gen 4:10 (God hears the cry of Abel and learns of Cain's misdeed) // Gen 9:24 (Noah wakes up and learns of his son Ham's misdeed)

Gen 4:11 (God curses Cain) // Gen 9:25-26 (Noah curses)

Genealogies are now given in both accounts:

Gen 5:1-32 (Descendents of Adam) // Gen 10:1-32 (Descendents of Noah). Note: Both family lists are the only two chrono-genealogical lists in Genesis! That is, they are the only two genealogies that give ages and lengths of life.

Gen 6:1-4 (ante-diluvian humans that descended from the first family) // Gen 11:1-9 (post-diluvian humans that descended from the first post-flood family). Note: both the Creation story and the Flood story begin with one main family (Adam and Noah) and later multiply.

Gen 6:3 (God states that he has intentions of not having his spirit remain in man) // Gen 11:6 (God gets angry with the intentions of building the tower). Note: both accounts deal with the crossing of the human with the divine. Did you notice it? In Gen 6:2 (sons of heaven/divine + daughters of man/human); in Gen 11:4 (tower top in the sky/divine + making a name for themselves/human). This is the whole theme of the Temptation in the Garden of Eden story all over again for the second and third time. God eventually puts an end to their foolishness.

I list these popular parallels only because they have been studied and analyzed for a good length of time. Does this mean that the Noah story is nothing but a borrowing of the Creation story? (I have in mind your concerns about the presumed borrowing of the Gilgamesh Epic for the Genesis Flood Story). At first glance, it would seem that the parallel 'data' points reflect such. What we may forget are the 'conclusions.'

The Creation story ends up with an almost total annihilation. Destuction and ruin for most of humanity. Noah's story ends up with something unique: a COVENANT and the protection that goes with it.

But don't think the author of Genesis ends there with the use of parallels. It continues with Noah and Abraham! But here too the differences between these stories far outway the similarities. May the author, Semitically speaking, have used literary methods that don't follow our linear historicism? May it have been a unique aspect of the Hebrew text to borrow and parallel to the willy nilly, but then only slam dunk the corrspondences in the end with radically different endings/conclusions? Has fundamentalism and critical skepticism (both grandchildren of the same mindset) ignored the biblical methodology in the Scriptures and how the 'shape' of history (like an ice-cube tray) is used and re-cycled in already understood forms? This doesn't suggest that the stories are made up, but instead, that the later stories are told in previously designed shapes. The Twelve Apostles may be the New Israel, but that doesn't mean that the Apostles are not separate entities from Israel. Jesus might be considere the New Passover or the New Moses, but that doesn't mean that there is no distinction or uniqueness between Jesus, the old Passover, and Moses. Like the Church Fathers utilizing terminology borrowed from the Greeks. On one hand they borrow and incorporate to make a theological point, but on the other hand they condemn the very people from whom they borrow the terms! Conclusions, my friend. Distinct conclusions. Don't get tripped up in the literary means to those conclusions. Otherwise, the pure literal approach to the countless parallels in the Scriptures will drive you bonkers ... or cause you to chuck your faith like yesterday's trash.

Though some have analyzed the similarities between the Gilgamesh Epic and the biblical account of the Flood and found at least seventeen parallels/correspondences, Eugene H. Maly writes in his chapter, "Genesis," in the Jerome Biblical Commentary the following to reflect on:

"The non-biblical versions reflect pagan mythology; there are many gods who decree the flood for no apparent reason. The hero is warned by one of them, again for no apparent reason. In the biblical story, the one God, supreme lord of the situation, decrees the flood because of man's sin. Noah is saved because of his justice. The basic difference, therefore, between the biblical and pagan accounts is in the religious interpretation of this natural catastrophe, and in this the former is infinitely superior."

Bisantino (from the Wild, Wild, West) gives two good references, both of which should be in your library. May I also include Antony F. Campbell's "The Study Companion to Old Testament Literature?" In the Boadt book, he writes:

"... although the details of the Babylonian flood are remarkably similar to those in Genesis, the point of the Babylonian version is always this lesson in the mortality of human beings. Gilgamesh himself is sent home disappointed but wiser." (p.126)

Also:

"Where Israel's vision was unique was in its understanding of God." "Both versions struggle with how humans relate to god, but Israel rejects any sense of a moody, petulant god and describes a God whose will can be known and his way lived and his blessing fulfilled." (p.128)

There is no covenant in the Babylonian account of the flood just as there are no resurrection narratives in other crucifixion accounts other than Jesus' passion. If both covenant and resurrection were missing in each biblical account, then we would just have another flood story and death scene. Boring!

And so the same can be said about what I brought up. Even though I can give you more parallels between Noah and Abraham - and I won't for now - we notice at least one major difference between their covenants: in God's covenant with Noah, he promises never again to destroy or get in humanity's and earth's face (Gen 9:11, 14-15); in God's covenant with Abraham, God relentlessly gets involved and personal and won't let up.

Will you?

Cantor Joe Thur

I want to thank all of those who replied. There are times when we all need a "Barnabbas" to encourage us.

It is times like these, that I realize what the Lord tries to teach me: what it is that is lacking in my own faith. He never "tries" me so he can find out how I'm going to react..it is always for my own benefit.

Most of the responses were things I already knew and realized...but there are times I need confirmation and affirmation...and you gave me both.

It is obvious that spending too much time delving into the teachings and writings of the Jesus Seminar produced fruits of confusion; however,
God, in His Grace, "knocked some sense into me" with His chastisement: Leave those readings alone!!, and then, a blessing: you can count of God's children on the Byzantine Forum for support, prayers, and direction.

Peace,
V