b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: "Walter Mattfeld" <mattfeld AT mail.pjsnet.com>
- To: "Peter Kirk" <peter_kirk AT sil.org>
- Cc: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Genesis & Greek Parallels
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:17:43 +0100
Peter Kirk:
You haven't really answered my question. I will comment on just one
> point here. You allege that there are no Mesopotamian parallels to the
> Eden story.
WM: Sorry, you have misunderstood me. I have already explained in my paper
titled "Sabbath Origins and the Epic of Gilgamesh," that Eden is a reworking
of Dilmun and that Adam and Eve are transformations of Utnapishtim and wife,
while the Sabbath day, the seventh day of rest, is a reworking of the gods
resting on the seventh day after destroying man with the flood for violating
their rest.
PK: David Rohl (sorry to bring him up so much!), quoting S.N.
> Kramer, points out that this commonly stated point is just not true.
> For example, he points out that in Sumerian tales man was formed from
> clay but the female Nin-ti was formed from the rib of Enki.
WM: I have read the works of Kramer and have them in my personal library,
and I hold him in high regard. Yes, there are some motifs that can be traced
back to the Sumerian period in Greek works. But I have made a pretty
thorough search of Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Phoenician, Ugaritic, and
Egyptian myths and none of them have the "specific motifs" I earlier
identified as "unique" to Homer/Hesiod and Genesis. By the way, Nin-ti was
not made from Enki's rib, she was a goddesss made by Ninhursag to heal his
rib.
PK: And of
> course other parallels between early parts of Genesis and Gilgamesh
> etc are well established. That there are Greek parallels also is not
> surprising, but tells us little about dating. After all, Aegean myths
> could have come to Canaan much earlier e.g. with the Philistines.
I don't deny the possibility that the Philistines could have been the source
for Greek myths being introduced to a pre-exilic Israel. With their attested
Aegean origins its quite possible. Its just that one has to work with what
is available. The oldest written source is Homer and Hesiod and they mirror
Genesis in certain unique motifs not found in ANE myths.
I posit Genesis to be 5th century BCE on the basis of Madai's descent from
Japheth being a re-working of the Athenian Greek Medus myth. That said, it
is quite logical for me in constructing my paradigm to look at the older,
9-7th century BCE Homeric and Hesiodic stories as a source for some of
Genesis' motifs. I realize that Genesis has motifs that also can be traced
back to the Sumerians and the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Ostraca found at Tell Arad in the Negeb dated to the 7th century BCE mention
the Kittim with Greek names drawing provisions there. They could have just
of well been the source for a "late pre-exilic exposure" to Homeric/Hesiodic
motifs. These Kittim may have served as mercenaries for the Judaean
government or they may have been Egyptian mercenaries left behind to enforce
the collection of tribute demanded by Pharaoh Necoh.
PK: > Sorry, case still not proven.
WM: Peter, we both are scholars enough to know that one cannot "prove"
anything. All one can do is argue for plausibilities or implausibilities,
and try to construct historical scenarios to try and account for the
anomalies in the texts. That is what I am about. I do welcome criticism
though, because through it one grows in knowledge, and sometimes has to
acknowledge he is wrong and must abandon cherished notions. I know from
personal experience.
From 1990-1999 I pursued the notion that the Primary History (Genesis-2
Kings) might be a Hellenistic (Hasmonean) creation and assembled arguments
to support that notion. But a very thorough critique and a series of
exchanges over a period of several months back and forth, "battling for
position one over the other" with my critic, eventually worked me into a
corner from which I couldn't escape. I had to face it, I was in error, the
Hebrew Bible was indeed translated into Greek in the 3rd century BCE and I
had build a new paradigm, a 5th century BCE accounting for Genesis-2Kings.
So, yes, I make mistakes, and I am willing to think about criticisms, and
change my position.
All the best,
Walter
Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld
Walldorf by Heidelberg
Baden-Wurttemburg
Germany
-
Genesis & Greek Parallels,
Walter Mattfeld, 01/23/2000
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Genesis & Greek Parallels, Walter Mattfeld, 01/24/2000
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.