Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Stephen Knapp <sknapp AT megsinet.net>]

Lee R. Martin wrote:
> 
> I am not a scholar of ANE history, but I wonder about the accuracy of many 
> statements
> like the one below.  You write about Babylon as if its cosmology was the 
> same in 1700
> BC and 600 BC, but the Hebrew cosmology evolved..  The Enuma Elish was a 
> story that
> had its own context.  Later stories would not necessarily be in agreement 
> with it.
> Is there evidence from 600 BC that the EE  was well-known and accepted in 
> Babylon at
> that time?  A Hebrew writer in 600 BC would not find it necessary to 
> counter an old
> tale that was out of date.

You didn't do your homework on this one, Lee.  I can accept the fact
that you are not an ANE scholar, but a quick consult even in ANET would
have informed you that seventh century recensions of the EE not only
exist, but were used in presenting the ANET translation.  None of the
texts used in that translation was earlier than the first milennium
BCE.  And that is only the surface of the matter.  Rest assured that the
cosmology of the EE was alive and well in Neo-Babylonian society.  As
for the shape of that tradition in the early second milennium, you might
want to look at T. Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, for a better
understanding of the matter.  The written story may not be as old as you
think.

My basic point was simply that the Genesis writers/editors were using
the Neo-Babylonian imagery as a foil for their own cosmology, and that
they were inclined to do this in order to give their kindred Judahites
of the exile and diaspora a reasonable basis for turning away from
Babylonian religion to Yahwism.

Regarding your statement:
> You write about Babylon as if its cosmology was the same in 1700
> BC and 600 BC, but the Hebrew cosmology evolved.

I don't know where you are getting those dates or that impression, Lee,
but do you really believe that a responsible scholar would make a
mistake like that?  You seem to be imputing to me a high level of
foolishness.  For the sake of good scholarly discourse I think we should
agree to eliminate the claim and effort of reductio ad absurdum in
exchanges on this list.  It only breeds discontent.  For some
conservative Christians (inexplicably I see it most often in that camp)
it seems to be a normal and accepted approach to argumentation.  In my
estimation it is a poor tactic and should be abandoned by one and all.

-- 
Stephen A. Knapp, sknapp AT megsinet.net
PhD candidate, Old Testament Biblical Studies
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Part time faculty: Department of Theology
Valparaiso University (Indiana)