The Flood Story

[popaface]

Well, I'm not quite sure where to post this thread, so I decided to post it here.

I suppose that this is a response to two questions: What does the flood mean, and why was there a flood.

The sons of God (beni elohim) are gods and the daughters of humen are women. The offspring produced by these were the Nephilim (the fallen ones). The Nephilim have the appearance of being creatures that required to be destroyed in the mythical narratives. Elsewhere in the OT, it appears that the Nephilim and Aniqim are called by a more general term, the Rephaim (Deut 2:11). The Rephaim and the Anaqim are said to have been wiped out by Joshua (Josh 11:21-22), Moses (Josh 12:4-6; 13:12), and Caleb (Josh 15:14; Judg 1:20), though some stragglers remained to be slain by David and his men (2 Sam 21:18-22 cf. 1 Chr 20:4-8). According to one tradition, the huge bedstead of the last of the Rephaim, King Og of Bashan, could still be seen on display in Rabbah of Ammon (Deut 3:11).

There exists a contradiction in the traditions of the Nephilim. According to Gen 6:4 the Nephilim "were on the earth in those days," prior to the deluge, and thus ought to have been destroyed by the flood. Yet according to other traditions they are found in the land of Canaan by the early Israelites and are wiped out under the leadership of a great hero of Israel, either Moses, Joshua, Caleb or David. The battle between David and Goliath (1 Sam 17) appears to be related to the encounters between David's men and the last of the Rephaim. The function of the Nephilim - Rephaim in all of these traditions is constant - they exist in order to be wiped out: by the flood, by Moses, by David, and others. The function of the Nephilim in Israelite tradition, is to die. This can be seen also in the interesting description of the Nephilim as dead warriors of old in Ezek 32:27.

The same can be said of Greek heroes. The parallel Greek tradition for the motive of the Trojan War may or may not be cognate with Gen 6:1-4. I suspect that it is, and I would point out to the international era of the Late Bronze Age for the most liekly period of intermingling cultures, but historical linkage of the two traditions is not necessary for my point. Gen 6:1-4 presents a mixing of categories - of gods and mortals - and the procreation of a hybrid category of demigods which it is in the nature of the myth to suppress.

In the narrative itself, the explicit issue is brought about by Yhwh to Elohim, with Yhwh deciding to destroy the planet because of such impurity (cross reference, if you life, the high purity issues in the Pentateuch as well as the entire theological motif of "separation" - the Creation narrative as well as Lev 10:10).

The flood story represents a struggle between two deities (this is much more explicit in the Hebrew rather than English): One god is called Yahweh and the other Elohim.

Yahweh is more vehement and determined, he speaks of “wiping off ” all creatures, and ruthlessly enumerates all kinds of them that he will destroy (vi 6). Elohim acts as though this will happen in spite of himself, since he says that “the end of all flesh is come before me” (vi 13) and he speaks only generally about destruction, without any specification.

Elohim cares more about humankind and living creatures, since he instructs Noah how to build an ark and what living creatures assemble into it (vi 14-21), whereas Yahweh cares especially about the sufficient number of sacrificial animals and messenger birds (vii 1-3). Noah obeyed, of course, Elohim (vii 8-9, 15).

Only Yahweh is active in staging the flood, he announces that he will send rain over the earth for forty days and wipe out every living thing (vii 4); also the verb without explicit subject “he wiped out all existence” (vii 23) may hint at him. On the other hand, Elohim is active in ending the flood, he makes a wind pass over the earth to dry it up (viii 1); apparently, he brings about also the other stages of stopping the waters (viii 2-3).

Only Elohim takes care about Noah’s exit from the ark (viii 15-19); Noah, however, offers the sacrifice not to Elohim the main rescuer, but to Yahweh the main destroyer (viii 20) as if to appease him as probably more dangerous in the future.

After the rescue, Yahweh does not promise anything to Noah openly, only in secret “to his heart” using impersonal, abusive and violent expressions, as if unwillingly reconciling himself to the survival of humankind (viii 21-22); the promises made by Elohim are both friendly, lavish and expressed at length, and he even promises for the future a covenant with mankind (ix 1-17; cf. vi 18).

This story makes much more sense against its Mesopotamian background in which it is the wise and cunning god Enki/Ea, who disagrees with Enlil’s plan for total destruction and devises this means of thwarting it. Even though it's been shaped by centuries of redaction in the favour of monotheistic readings, it's still very plain in the text that there are two deities here envolved in the story.

Allan

[apostoli]

Hello popaface,

Well, I'm not quite sure where to post this thread, so I decided to post it here.

I suppose that this is a response to two questions: What does the flood mean, and why was there a flood.

The sons of God (beni elohim) are gods and the daughters of humen are women. The offspring produced by these were the Nephilim (the fallen ones). The Nephilim have the appearance of being creatures that required to be destroyed in the mythical narratives. Elsewhere in the OT, it appears that the Nephilim and Aniqim are called by a more general term, the Rephaim (Deut 2:11). The Rephaim and the Anaqim are said to have been wiped out by Joshua (Josh 11:21-22), Moses (Josh 12:4-6; 13:12), and Caleb (Josh 15:14; Judg 1:20), though some stragglers remained to be slain by David and his men (2 Sam 21:18-22 cf. 1 Chr 20:4-8). According to one tradition, the huge bedstead of the last of the Rephaim, King Og of Bashan, could still be seen on display in Rabbah of Ammon (Deut 3:11).

There exists a contradiction in the traditions of the Nephilim. According to Gen 6:4 the Nephilim "were on the earth in those days," prior to the deluge, and thus ought to have been destroyed by the flood. Yet according to other traditions they are found in the land of Canaan by the early Israelites and are wiped out under the leadership of a great hero of Israel, either Moses, Joshua, Caleb or David. The battle between David and Goliath (1 Sam 17) appears to be related to the encounters between David's men and the last of the Rephaim. The function of the Nephilim - Rephaim in all of these traditions is constant - they exist in order to be wiped out: by the flood, by Moses, by David, and others. The function of the Nephilim in Israelite tradition, is to die. This can be seen also in the interesting description of the Nephilim as dead warriors of old in Ezek 32:27.

The same can be said of Greek heroes. The parallel Greek tradition for the motive of the Trojan War may or may not be cognate with Gen 6:1-4. I suspect that it is, and I would point out to the international era of the Late Bronze Age for the most liekly period of intermingling cultures, but historical linkage of the two traditions is not necessary for my point. Gen 6:1-4 presents a mixing of categories - of gods and mortals - and the procreation of a hybrid category of demigods which it is in the nature of the myth to suppress.

In the narrative itself, the explicit issue is brought about by Yhwh to Elohim, with Yhwh deciding to destroy the planet because of such impurity (cross reference, if you life, the high purity issues in the Pentateuch as well as the entire theological motif of "separation" - the Creation narrative as well as Lev 10:10).

The flood story represents a struggle between two deities (this is much more explicit in the Hebrew rather than English): One god is called Yahweh and the other Elohim.

Yahweh is more vehement and determined, he speaks of “wiping off ” all creatures, and ruthlessly enumerates all kinds of them that he will destroy (vi 6). Elohim acts as though this will happen in spite of himself, since he says that “the end of all flesh is come before me” (vi 13) and he speaks only generally about destruction, without any specification.

Elohim cares more about humankind and living creatures, since he instructs Noah how to build an ark and what living creatures assemble into it (vi 14-21), whereas Yahweh cares especially about the sufficient number of sacrificial animals and messenger birds (vii 1-3). Noah obeyed, of course, Elohim (vii 8-9, 15).

Only Yahweh is active in staging the flood, he announces that he will send rain over the earth for forty days and wipe out every living thing (vii 4); also the verb without explicit subject “he wiped out all existence” (vii 23) may hint at him. On the other hand, Elohim is active in ending the flood, he makes a wind pass over the earth to dry it up (viii 1); apparently, he brings about also the other stages of stopping the waters (viii 2-3).

Only Elohim takes care about Noah’s exit from the ark (viii 15-19); Noah, however, offers the sacrifice not to Elohim the main rescuer, but to Yahweh the main destroyer (viii 20) as if to appease him as probably more dangerous in the future.

After the rescue, Yahweh does not promise anything to Noah openly, only in secret “to his heart” using impersonal, abusive and violent expressions, as if unwillingly reconciling himself to the survival of humankind (viii 21-22); the promises made by Elohim are both friendly, lavish and expressed at length, and he even promises for the future a covenant with mankind (ix 1-17; cf. vi 18).

This story makes much more sense against its Mesopotamian background in which it is the wise and cunning god Enki/Ea, who disagrees with Enlil’s plan for total destruction and devises this means of thwarting it. Even though it's been shaped by centuries of redaction in the favour of monotheistic readings, it's still very plain in the text that there are two deities here envolved in the story.

Allani'm well aware of the henotheism rampant in Genesis. From Exodos, imo, we have a reconciliation whereby YHWH & Elohim are reconciled into a singularity.

Imu, Olag according to jewish tradition clung to the side of the ark. Hence the perpetuation of the Nephilim. Imo, an interesting perspective on faith vs confirmation.

Imu of ancient history, Greece's establishment was via Egypt (just as Italy was first established via Greece). So I don't see any contradiction in accounts albeit different versions. The far east has similar tales albeit less dramatic than the OT account.

Peace

[seanD]

Read the book of Enoch and it will explain what happened. Don't worry, the NT apostles quoted from it. Basically angels became corrupt and started teaching advanced but forbidden technology to the people, including weapons of war. At this time, the angels also intermingled with human women, producing hybrid supermen who were not only much bigger and stronger, but much more evil. It got so evil that the hybrids began committing genocide on the humans, until all the Adamites were wiped out, save Noah's family. God had to wipe out the angels and their evil lineage.

[popaface]

SeanD, though I do think that it's important to read extra-canonical literature, (I would also like various books to be placed alongside the Christian canons). I don't think that Enoch or indeed Genesis are going to describe something actually historical. I think that the mythical extrapolation of the text is a very interesting way to interpret it, but at the moment I'm interested in any reviews of the interpretation I've offered. Perhaps later we can discuss the reception history of the texts and the evolutions of the myths. I think that might be a very fruitful conversation

And Apostoli, I actually don't understand what you wrote... I don't know what you're getting at or the 'internet language' that you use. I'm sorry.

Allan

[apostoli]

Apostoli, I actually don't understand what you wrote... I don't know what you're getting at or the 'internet language' that you use. I'm sorry.I wasn't using "internet language" merely the language of informed opinion.

Henotheism refers to a belief system whereby worshiping is directed to a single God while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities. This viewpoint is evident in Genesis whereby the patriarchs made their worship conditional (ie: if YHWH does such and such, he will be my God etc).

As for Olog and the perpetuation of the Nephilim after the flood there is an extensive written Jewish tradition. Much of which is available on the web. Do a search, have a read, have a think, if you are inclined.

Peace

[popaface]

I wasn't using "internet language" merely the language of informed opinion.

Henotheism refers to a belief system whereby worshiping is directed to a single God while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities. This viewpoint is evident in Genesis whereby the patriarchs made their worship conditional (ie: if YHWH does such and such, he will be my God etc).

As for Olog and the perpetuation of the Nephilim after the flood there is an extensive written Jewish tradition. Much of which is available on the web. Do a search, have a read, have a think, if you are inclined.

Peace

I'm aware of Henotheism, I'm not aware of what "imu" or "imo" mean.

I wasn't arguing for Henotheism I was arguing for a polytheistic background to the Flood Narrative. I see the text as a part of a broader ancient Near Eastern mythology.

Other than that, I've not encountered anything about Olag in my studies. But I'm not looking for one "correct" answer to the problem of the Nephilim, I'm not looking for someone trying to offer a "solution" to the contradiction. I'm looking for a reception of what I wrote about the Flood and the polytheistic background of the text.

Allan

[apostoli]

I'm aware of Henotheism, I'm not aware of what "imu" or "imo" mean.

I wasn't arguing for Henotheism I was arguing for a polytheistic background to the Flood Narrative. I see the text as a part of a broader ancient Near Eastern mythology.

Other than that, I've not encountered anything about Olag in my studies. But I'm not looking for one "correct" answer to the problem of the Nephilim, I'm not looking for someone trying to offer a "solution" to the contradiction. I'm looking for a reception of what I wrote about the Flood and the polytheistic background of the text. The central focus of Genesis is Abraham. He came out of a plolytheist society, however he and his forefathers apparently were henotheist, conditionally accepting YHWH as the only God they would worship.

I doubt that you or anyone can prove a polytheist attitude in the OT. Henotheism probably. eg: the battle between YHWH & Baal for the affection of the people.

imu = in my understanding (which is open to question)
imo = in my opinion (which is open to question)

Another shorthand term which I don't use but which you will regularly encounter is imho=in my humble opinion = no argument allowed.

Peace

[popaface]

The central focus of Genesis is Abraham. He came out of a plolytheist society, however he and his forefathers apparently were henotheist, conditionally accepting YHWH as the only God they would worship.

I doubt that you or anyone can prove a polytheist attitude in the OT. Henothesism probably. eg: the battle between YHWH & Baal for the affection of the people.

imu = in my understanding (which is open to question)
imo = in my opinion (which is open to question)

Another shorthand term which I don't use but which you will regularly encounter is imho=in my humble opinion = no argument allowed.

Peace

Thank you for explaining your terms now. I am most certainly not arguing against a Henotheistic attitude in the OT. What I'm arguing for though is a polytheistic background to very many stories in the OT, as I've just presented a brief exposition thereof in my first post on this thread. Brushing that under the table of "prove it!" is a simple way of saying, "I don't want to address your actual points and I probably won't even read them, but I'm going to post here and tell you that you're wrong anyway."

Allan

[apostoli]

Thank you for explaining your terms now. I am most certainly not arguing against a Henotheistic attitude in the OT. What I'm arguing for though is a polytheistic background to very many stories in the OT, as I've just presented a brief exposition thereof in my first post on this thread. Brushing that under the table of "prove it!" is a simple way of saying, "I don't want to address your actual points and I probably won't even read them, but I'm going to post here and tell you that you're wrong anyway."In my own mind (IMOM) I have addressed your ideas long ago. Guess you are on similar journey. Have a think about an individual in a multi god culture who decides he will only worship & trust in one of the prevailing gods. How would his culture react? How would he/they explain it?

In my opinion (imo) this is the perspective of Genesis,,,

Peace

[barnasha]

a multi god culture like those who have a 'god the father' 'god the son' and god the holy ghost' ?

[RBerman]

Read the book of Enoch and it will explain what happened. Don't worry, the NT apostles quoted from it. Basically angels became corrupt and started teaching advanced but forbidden technology to the people, including weapons of war. At this time, the angels also intermingled with human women, producing hybrid supermen who were not only much bigger and stronger, but much more evil. It got so evil that the hybrids began committing genocide on the humans, until all the Adamites were wiped out, save Noah's family. God had to wipe out the angels and their evil lineage.
Or, read "The Book of Enoch" as an example of what people do when they're not satisfied with a Biblical account which doesn't say everything they want to know: They make up a myth to flesh out the details. The Book of Enoch" is interesting from a sociological and literary perspective, but not as a missing book of the Bible. Jude's brief reference to Enoch is inadequate grounds to trust the whole book, as the early church knew.

[seanD]

Or, read "The Book of Enoch" as an example of what people do when they're not satisfied with a Biblical account which doesn't say everything they want to know: They make up a myth to flesh out the details. The Book of Enoch" is interesting from a sociological and literary perspective, but not as a missing book of the Bible. Jude's brief reference to Enoch is inadequate grounds to trust the whole book, as the early church knew.

The story is in Genesis.

[Bill the Cat]

a multi god culture like those who have a 'god the father' 'god the son' and god the holy ghost' ?

That's not multi-god. :no:

[apostoli]

a multi god culture like those who have a 'god the father' 'god the son' and god the holy ghost' ?Ask any Rabbi or churchman, God does not exist, it is a human apellation derived from paganism and applied to the one whom the patriarchs, the prophets and the nation of Israel experienced. Hence, YHWH says he will become their God, not that he is God.

A.John notes that no one has ever seen God. So who was it that the patriarchs saw & conversed with and made himself their God?

[RBerman]

The story is in Genesis.
Genesis says that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" had kids, and that the world was evil. That's all. No super-villains involved. "Sons of God" is a generic term for anyone on "God's team," including godly men.

Enoch spins a much more elaborate story full of details that smack much more of pagan mythology than of Biblical thought-patterns. The angels all have names and all have spheres of earthly expertise, just like Greek demigods. The angels act just like men, in fact. The Book of Enoch is a forgery dating from 300BC. Its name is a lie, which ought to be the first clue that it's a work of fiction.

[barnasha]

Ask any Rabbi or churchman, God does not exist, it is a human apellation derived from paganism and applied to the one whom the patriarchs, the prophets and the nation of Israel experienced. Hence, YHWH says he will become their God, not that he is God.

A.John notes that no one has ever seen God. So who was it that the patriarchs saw & conversed with and made himself their God?

We use metaphor and anthropocentrisms (human-like-understandings) of the purely abstract and spiritual....

Genesis says that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" had kids, and that the world was evil. That's all. No super-villains involved. "Sons of God" is a generic term for anyone on "God's team," including godly men.

I'd like to remark that I think this is a nice way to explain the meaning of 'son of God' in the scriptures (hebrew culture)

[RBerman]

I'd like to remark that I think this is a nice way to explain the meaning of 'son of God' in the scriptures (hebrew culture)
It is, with Christ being the example par excellence of the "Son of God." He is the only one who can say, "Whatever the Father does, I do." This is because Christ is in fact God, ontologically one with the Father. Scripture's sonship language is not an argument against the Trinity, but an argument for it.

[apostoli]

Genesis says that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" had kids, and that the world was evil. That's all. No super-villains involved. "Sons of God" is a generic term for anyone on "God's team," including godly men.

I'd like to remark that I think this is a nice way to explain the meaning of 'son of God' in the scriptures (hebrew culture)According to the NT, Jesus is the only son of God = the Greek word used is monogenus = only one of the kind. This is the word used for the only child of various individuals in the NT.

Of interest: the phrase sons of God refering exclusively to angels occurs in two books of the OT, 5 times in total. In another book the phrase is used once in regard to the nation of Israel. The phrase son of God occurs but once in the OT.

[popaface]

Or, read "The Book of Enoch" as an example of what people do when they're not satisfied with a Biblical account which doesn't say everything they want to know: They make up a myth to flesh out the details. The Book of Enoch" is interesting from a sociological and literary perspective, but not as a missing book of the Bible. Jude's brief reference to Enoch is inadequate grounds to trust the whole book, as the early church knew.

The book of Enoch is a Jewish midrash. One would expect that the earliest audience of the book of Genesis interpreted the book in a more than acceptable way, would you not?

Enoch is correct when it understands the Nephilim as the equivelant to the Greek heroes because just as in the Greek heroes, the Jewish Nephilim existed in the stories as figures who were pre-determined to fall, hence their name "fallen ones".

It is also a book that expounds mythically on a myth, written under a pseudonym (just as the "Law of Moses" is. In fact, the book of Enoch is just as historical as the book of Genesis. Why you think that this is a reason to discard it from theology is beyond me...

a multi god culture like those who have a 'god the father' 'god the son' and god the holy ghost' ?

The Trinity is not a "multi-god" theology, it is a different theology, when it has been fully developed, from both polytheism and monotheism. It's precedence is in Jewish binatarian theology which existed in the cultural and theological milieu of Judaisms up until the second century CE when it was discarded by Jews for its similarity with Christianity. It's apparent that Jews and Christians both forged their identity against one another, this with regard to their canon as well as their orthodoxy.

Jewish binatarian theology has its basis in a rich ancient Near Eastern culture of chaoskumpf, polytheism and significantly the Temple cults and practices. One of the precedence for Jewish binatarian theology can be seen in this chaoskumpf story of the Flood, which would have been read widely during ancient Israelite New Year festivals, Elohim and Yhwh both have a disagrement about what to do about the Nephilim, Yhwh angered about wants to destroy all the human race along with everything else on earth. Elohim doesn't, so Elohim saves a family and asks Noah to build an ark under his specifications and bring one of each animal into the ark, Noah agrees and Yhwh further tells Noah specifically to bring animals that he can sacrifice to him. Yhwh's repentance can be seen best in the later narratives when he names Abram Abraham and calls upon him to become his people, it's seen in the narratives as Yhwh's final acceptance of the human race.

Genesis says that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" had kids, and that the world was evil. That's all. No super-villains involved. "Sons of God" is a generic term for anyone on "God's team," including godly men.

Enoch spins a much more elaborate story full of details that smack much more of pagan mythology than of Biblical thought-patterns. The angels all have names and all have spheres of earthly expertise, just like Greek demigods. The angels act just like men, in fact. The Book of Enoch is a forgery dating from 300BC. Its name is a lie, which ought to be the first clue that it's a work of fiction.

The Nephilim were "super-villains", that's precisely how the Biblical narratives portray them in the dramas. And it makes little sense to read such an out of place interpretation of "sons of God" into the narrative when it fits much easier to the data that the Nephilim were a hybrid race of demi-gods who were a bastardization of both the human race and the divine race, one of the gods saw that it was best to destroy the entire planet than to let even one escape. It fits the narrative, it fits the drama, it fits the climax. What does not fit is such a large scale attack from the gods on the entire planet because "good people" were mingling with "bad people".

Again, it's not as simple as saying, "This is mythology thus it's pagan!" Jews had very many myths which they played with, Judaism itself is an intermingling of Greek culture and mythology with ancient Near Eastern culture and mythology. It's not just Enoch that's a Jewish myth, I firmly believe that most of what's in the Old Testament and the Deuterocanonicals and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha is mythological. And that's simply a genre format, and it's a side-note to what I'm trying to achieve on this thread. If you want to debate that fact then start your own thread, I'm asking people what they think our great and sacred myths mean!

Allan

[RBerman]

The book of Enoch is a Jewish midrash. One would expect that the earliest audience of the book of Genesis interpreted the book in a more than acceptable way, would you not?
Perhaps. But we don't have access to their interpretation, whatever it might have been. The Book of Enoch dates from much later.

It is also a book that expounds mythically on a myth, written under a pseudonym (just as the "Law of Moses" is. In fact, the book of Enoch is just as historical as the book of Genesis. Why you think that this is a reason to discard it from theology is beyond me...
I see no reason to consider it historical. I don't believe that any of the 66 canonical books are pseudonymous.

Again, it's not as simple as saying, "This is mythology thus it's pagan!" Jews had very many myths which they played with, Judaism itself is an intermingling of Greek culture and mythology with ancient Near Eastern culture and mythology. It's not just Enoch that's a Jewish myth, I firmly believe that most of what's in the Old Testament and the Deuterocanonicals and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha is mythological. And that's simply a genre format, and it's a side-note to what I'm trying to achieve on this thread. If you want to debate that fact then start your own thread, I'm asking people what they think our great and sacred myths mean!
We have radically different ideas about what constitutes Scripture, so I'll leave you to your thread.

[apostoli]

Hello Popaface,

Please read the following in full before you respond. It took most of my sabbath day to re-research and respond. Previously, I unintentionally demonstrated a degree of disrespect to your post/s (at least from what I detect as your perspective), for which I apologise. Here, I'm showing you respect. I expect the same in return...

Again, it's not as simple as saying, "This is mythology thus it's pagan!" Jews had very many myths which they played with, Judaism itself is an intermingling of Greek culture and mythology with ancient Near Eastern culture and mythology. It's not just Enoch that's a Jewish myth, I firmly believe that most of what's in the Old Testament and the Deuterocanonicals and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha is mythological. And that's simply a genre format, and it's a side-note to what I'm trying to achieve on this thread. If you want to debate that fact then start your own thread, I'm asking people what they think our great and sacred myths mean!We have radically different ideas about what constitutes Scripture, so I'll leave you to your thread.I suspect, I may have a different view of scripture than either you or RBerman.

I accept scripture as "God breathed" but not in the context of what we read is God's actual words. If we have a close read of scripture, particularly the OT, we have a consistent theme of failure, both in regard to human action and human perception of God.

Imo, Jesus underlines the human component of scripture when he criticizes Moses' divorce laws. He also speaks of the inappropriateness of the temple (The time will come when people will worship wherever they are, and in everything they do - John 4:23 cp. Is 66:1;Jer 7:4; 2 Chron 2:6; and for those "Christians" who think that a third temple is neccessary and will be built see Rev 21:22) and several more examples.

From my method, I see logical and accademic flaws in your posts, but I am prepared to examine your thoughts...

__________________

Now back to your post #8 to me, which I now have had time to properly respond...

I wasn't arguing for Henotheism I was arguing for a polytheistic background to the Flood Narrative. I see the text as a part of a broader ancient Near Eastern mythology. I doubt that you or anyone can prove a polytheist attitude in the OT. Henotheism probably. eg: the battle between YHWH & Baal for the affection of the people.What I'm arguing for though is a polytheistic background to very many stories in the OT, as I've just presented a brief exposition thereof in my first post on this thread. Brushing that under the table of "prove it!" is a simple way of saying, "I don't want to address your actual points and I probably won't even read them, but I'm going to post here and tell you that you're wrong anyway."
I didn't ask you prove a polytheist background. I merely suggested that I doubt it can be proved. eg: imu, archaelogical evidence (eg: the Ugarit tablets) suggests that the Canaanite religion started out monist = one God, many manifestations = Ha'dad = the Father [of all]. Of interest to the flood story Ha'dad was the Canaanite god who is the lord of the sky and who governs the rain. Ha'dad is the primary Ba'al. El, asserts authority (or upserts himself) over the pantheon, and resides on Mount Lel. El makes one of his sons, prince Yamm ("Sea") and judge Nahar ("River") king over the gods and informs Yamm that in order to secure his power, Yamm will have to drive ha'dad from his throne. Yam loses. El repents etc

As I suggested earlier, the central focus of Genesis is Abraham - a nomadic herder from Canaan - and it is presumed that the OT flood traditions preserved in Genesis came through his line via camp fire story telling. As far as I can ascertain, he was not inclined to dwell in cities, but prefered the desert. This is of particular importance, as it is well proven that temple culture and polytheism were essentially an urban phenomena. Nomadic herders in desert societies, imu, tended to be more monistic/henotheist. Have you ever gone bush, layed on your back and looked at the night sky?

The Ugarit tablets (which provide us the only real info about the Canaanite religion outside of polemics against it) have a fragment of the Atra'hasis epic but our most complete rendition is from the three surviving Babylonian flood stories (existing translations are diverse and are apparently considered inconsistent and dubious). Basically, the tablets have it that the gods of sky (Anu), wind (Enlil), and water (Enki) cast lots for their rulership, Anu got heaven, Enlil got the earth and Enki the waters. Enki as adviser to the gods suggested that humans be created to work the earth and maintain the waters. Man is thus created from the earth and the gods spittle, via the mother goddess Mami who forms them (later Mami is also requested to create death). The earth becomes over populated and population control measures (famine & disease) aren't working, so Enlil & Enki plot to destroy mankind with a flood. However, Enki has a change of heart and warns the man Atra'hasis, instructing him to build a boat and seal its planks with tar. Atra'hasis boards the boat with his family and animals and seals the door. The flood begins and lasts for seven days. Atra'hasis offers sacrifices to the gods in thanks giving. Enlil is furious with Enki, but bends to Enki's wisdom and they agree on other means of population control. From a Canaanite viewpoint that may have been the justification for human sacrifice.

The epic of Gilgamesh's account is described by scholars as a paraphrase (verbatum in parts) of the epic of Atra'hasis. Albeit, the Gilgamesh omits all clauses that suggest that the gods have human passions. Also, Utnapishtim, the hero of the Gilgamesh story is granted immortality by the gods.

The Sumerian Eridu Genesis is fragmentary, but it is also similar to the Atra'hasis epic. However, here Enki warns Ziu'sudra, and after the flood he is given eternal life.

Most scholars agree, because the stories refer to the flooding by a river, that these flood stories are local and do not correspond to a world flood as does Genesis.

As I said earlier. I see no similarity between these accounts (when read side by side) and the OT flood story what so ever.

__________________

Now concerning your post #1, which I deduced as having been plagerised from elsewhere. Heh I was young & impetuous once! So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and pressume it was your way of making an honest inquiry.

It would appear you derive some of your comments (almost word for word) from Ronald S. Hendel's paper "Of Demigods & the Deluge" ('http://rshendel.googlepages.com/HendelDemigods.pdf'), or some site that has misappropriated him. As for your other ideas on Genesis' flood account, they are internet familiar to me, so I presume you have been visiting some crackpot site/s and plagerised its/their comments to see what would happen. Fair enough! There is nothing original in the method or content, so though I had to spend time checking by facts, I can readily respond...

There exists a contradiction in the traditions of the Nephilim. According to Gen 6:4 the Nephilim "were on the earth in those days," prior to the deluge, and thus ought to have been destroyed by the flood. Yet according to other traditions they are found in the land of Canaan by the early Israelites and are wiped out under the leadership of a great hero of Israel, either Moses, Joshua, Caleb or David. The battle between David and Goliath (1 Sam 17) appears to be related to the encounters between David's men and the last of the Rephaim. The function of the Nephilim - Rephaim in all of these traditions is constant - they exist in order to be wiped out: by the flood, by Moses, by David, and others. The function of the Nephilim in Israelite tradition, is to die. This can be seen also in the interesting description of the Nephilim as dead warriors of old in Ezek 32:27.

There is no contradition. Thus no need for reconcilation. Your understanding of scripture appears to be deficient but thats easily remedied by actually reading the scriptural accounts fully and doing the occasional word study. I recommend a close read of the Genesis account with an appreciation for semite poetry & consequent idiom.

Nephilim basically means "to fall" or "to fall upon" (cp. usage of naphal at Job 1:15). Rephaim means "tall ones". And Anakim means decendents of Anak (Anak means "neck"; an equivalent Arabic term means "length of neck" thus stature). At Num 13:22 & 28 we have ha'Anaq thus "Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of the Anak". Joshua 15:13 says "to Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave...Kirjath Arba, which [is] Hebron ([Arba] was the father of Anak.)".

Genesis 6:4 in many English translations have "There were giants on the earth". The Hebrew grammarian, Gesenius, suggests this is an erroneous translation of nĕphiyl based on Arabic, the Hebrew term primarily means excellent, nobel, skilful. He goes on to accord with Aquila & other Hebrew interpreters in its common usage in respect of apostates and rebels, thus "to fall" or "to fall upon". Many modern renderings leave the word untranslated and simply render the Nethilim.

Have a close read of Numbers 13:30-31. "Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, "We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it." But the men who had gone up with him said, "We can't attack those people; they are stronger than we are." And [b]they spread among the Israelites a defamatory report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them."

Compare the accounts at Deuteronomy 1:28 & 9:2 "Where can we go up? Our brethren have made our hearts melt, saying, The people are bigger and taller than we; the cities are large and fortified to heaven. And besides, we saw the sons of the Anakim there....a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know and of whom you have heard it said, 'Who can stand before the sons of Anak?'"

In the KJV the rephaim (NIV etc rephaites) are only mentioned as one of the local defeated tribes at Gen 14:5 & Gen 15:20. There is no association of them with the nephilim of Genesis 6:4. All other references in the KJV are to the valley of Raphaim.

The KJV generally translates rephaim as giants. However, other versions leave the term untranslated. As Deut 2:10-11 makes plain, the term refers to very tall people "The Emites used to live there--a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites."

It is also worth noting that there are numerous near eastern texts which reference the Rephaim as ones dead ancestors (ie: "the greater ones") who reside in Sheol. Compare the OT references at Is 14:9 & Prov 2:18 (rapha', the shades of the dead, simply rendered "the dead" in the KJV).

The same can be said of Greek heroes. The parallel Greek tradition for the motive of the Trojan War may or may not be cognate with Gen 6:1-4. I suspect that it is, and I would point out to the international era of the Late Bronze Age for the most liekly period of intermingling cultures, but historical linkage of the two traditions is not necessary for my point. Gen 6:1-4 presents a mixing of categories - of gods and mortals - and the procreation of a hybrid category of demigods which it is in the nature of the myth to suppress.According to Hendel, Zeus' motive for the Trojan wars, as depicted by Hesiod (not Homer) relate to similar but older traditions, that accademics consider to have most likely derived from a semitic source (nb: those who became the Macedonians and Greeks are said to be originally migrants from Egypt).

In the [flood] narrative itself, the explicit issue is brought about by Yhwh to Elohim, with Yhwh deciding to destroy the planet because of such impurity...if you life, the high purity issues in the Pentateuch as well as the entire theological motif of "separation" - the Creation narrative as well as Lev 10:10).I've encountered this tripe over and over again on the internet and no one ever proves the point - they just recite each other as authoritive.

Read Genesis chapters 6 to 9 thoroughly, preferably in a translation that renders the tetragrammaton (YHWH = Yahwah = Jehovah) and you'll quickly realise that the only conversation going on is between YHWH who is elohiym, and Noah (despite the crap some people sprout abot the canaanite el, in the hebrew scriptures el as an appellation is not encountered until Gen 14; elowahh until Deut 32 & elahh until Ezra). Also you should note, that if you think YHWH & elohiym are two distinct individuals, they carrying out the same activity in terms of instructng Noah, causing the flood and dealing with the repercussions. Noah found favour with YHWH at Gen 6:8 with Elohiym at vs9. YHWH sees the ruin of the world by men and decided to destroy it at vs5 to 7, so does elohiym at vs 11-13. Elohiym instructs Noah about the ark in in the rest of chapter 6, as does YHWH from the start of chapter 7. Noah did all that elohiym instructed, as he did with all the YHWH had instructed (which isn't percular as they are the one instruction/s from the one individual) etc etc Then in vs 8:1 we have elohiym "remembering" Noah etc but later Noah built an alter (without instruction) and sacrfices to YHWH (vs8:20) and elohiym blesses him (vs 9:1).

The flood story represents a struggle between two deities (this is much more explicit in the Hebrew rather than English): One god is called Yahweh and the other Elohim.It ain't evident in the Hebrew! The exact opposite. You should check the falicies of the conspiracy theorists you have been reading. In the late 1960s the con man van Daniken made a fortune with his books about alien invasion and propagation of the earth. Ultimately, he was debunked absolutely and disappeared from the public eye once someone bothered to examine his claims (albeit at about 17/18yo his account of Ezekiel is what got me interested in reading scripture back then).

Yahweh is more vehement and determined, he speaks of “wiping off ” all creatures, and ruthlessly enumerates all kinds of them that he will destroy (vi 6). Elohim acts as though this will happen in spite of himself, since he says that “the end of all flesh is come before me” (vs 13) and he speaks only generally about destruction, without any specification.paniym translated "before me" literally means face ie: in the presence of something. In effect Elohiym is saying "they are throwing their corruption in my face". A huge insult!

Of particular interest "and behold, I will destroy them with the earth." As you should know that in near eastern religious systems, earth cannot be destroyed as it is elemental, so the idea that Genesis is associated with a near eastern pagan tradition falls on its face, especially if we take the two gods theory seriously.

Point of fact: vs 6:13 is simply what elohiym tells Noah in as a summary of his decision to destroy every animal, bird & insect upon the land. vs6:7 & 6:13 are inter-related, YHWH who is elohiym, specifies what will be destroyed at vs7 and includes only those things that dwell upon the land. It should be noted that plants and things in the waters aren't mentioned, so bang goes the "all creatures" emotionalism. It is the "merciful second god" elohiym that says he is going to wipe out everything that has breathe (vs 6:17) not YHWH.

Elohim cares more about humankind and living creatures, since he instructs Noah how to build an ark and what living creatures assemble into it (vi 14-21), whereas Yahweh cares especially about the sufficient number of sacrificial animals and messenger birds (vii 1-3). Noah obeyed, of course, Elohim (vii 8-9, 15).Nothing about sacrificial animals in chapter 7 or anywhere else, until Noah takes it into his own head to perform a sacrifice (in direct defiance of YHWH's stated purpose for the animals at vs 7:2-3). YHWH demonstrates great care for Noah & his family at vs 7:1. "Then the LORD said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth.

Only Yahweh is active in staging the flood..Guess your source missed 6:17 where elohiym says he is going to bring the deluge of waters, that will wipe out everything which breathes.

[Yahwah] announces that he will send rain over the earth for forty days and wipe out every living thing (vii 4); also the verb without explicit subject “he wiped out all existence” (vii 23) may hint at him.YHWH simply identifies the concept of "being", as the medieval Hebrew scholar, Maimonides points out, the double use of the Hebrew היה היה (which the KJV translates "I am who I am) has the subject defined adjectively as itself.

On the other hand, Elohim is active in ending the flood, he makes a wind pass over the earth to dry it up (viii 1); apparently, he brings about also the other stages of stopping the waters (viii 2-3).And yet it is YHWH that says that never again would he deal death to every living thing as had just been done (vs 8:21). We don't hear about the elohiym making a similar promise (a reinteration of YHWH's promise) until vs 9:11 and here he limits the promise to not doing the same thing with a flood.

We must appreciate semitic idiom, to pledge with the heart (say in the heart) is a greater affirmation that mere words spoken from the intellect (which could be an intellectual falsity).

Only Elohim takes care about Noah’s exit from the ark (viii 15-19); Noah, however, offers the sacrifice not to Elohim the main rescuer, but to Yahweh the main destroyer (viii 20) as if to appease him as probably more dangerous in the future.Comparing 8:21 with 9:11 the elohiym seems a far more threatening entity. But interestingly, this elohiym blesses Noah for all that is done in sacraficing etc, even though Noah defied YHWH in doing so (see 7:2-3).

After the rescue, Yahweh does not promise anything to Noah openly, only in secret “to his heart” using impersonal, abusive and violent expressions, as if unwillingly reconciling himself to the survival of humankind (viii 21-22); the promises made by Elohim are both friendly, lavish and expressed at length, and he even promises for the future a covenant with mankind (ix 1-17; cf. vi 18).See above. How did Noah (or Moses) know what YHWH did in his heart, if he didn't reveal it? And YHWH's language is not abusive nor violent in any rendition I've read. It's more of a lament for a continuous situation that he hasn't been able to resolve, because he has "mistakenly" granted man free will. Hence "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" and despite this YHWH says he will never again destroy every living creature".

This story makes much more sense against its Mesopotamian background in which it is the wise and cunning god Enki/Ea, who disagrees with Enlil’s plan for total destruction and devises this means of thwarting it. Even though it's been shaped by centuries of redaction in the favour of monotheistic readings, it's still very plain in the text that there are two deities here envolved in the story.Pointedly, there is no comparison to the two or three Mesopotamian accounts. The reasons, geography, repercussions and outcomes for the biblical flood has no comparison to the Atra'hasis or Utnapishtim accounts. For a start Noah doesn't become immortal.

Peace

[popaface]

Hi Apostoli,

That was a very long post that you’ve given me so as you can understand this post itself has taken quite some time to prepare.

I suspect, I may have a different view of scripture than either you or RBerman.

I accept scripture as "God breathed" but not in the context of what we read is God's actual words. If we have a close read of scripture, particularly the OT, we have a consistent theme of failure, both in regard to human action and human perception of God.

Imo, Jesus underlines the human component of scripture when he criticizes Moses' divorce laws. He also speaks of the inappropriateness of the temple (The time will come when people will worship wherever they are, and in everything they do - John 4:23 cp. Is 66:1;Jer 7:4; 2 Chron 2:6; and for those "Christians" who think that a third temple is neccessary and will be built see Rev 21:22) and several more examples.

Our views of Scriptures are not the most pertaining issues, I suspect. Rather, how we view documents to act in the ancient Near Eastern mythical and ritual milieu is the important issue. From a Christian perspective it is very important to understand Christ as the fulfilment of our Scriptures and all Scriptures pointing to Christ. That most certainly is how the Old Testament canon was written to be understood, with the prophetic literature last as if it was pointing towards the future fulfilment and, it would not be complete without the New Testament which acts in the literature as the fulfilment.

I differ from many scholars in that I don’t see Jesus’ words and deeds as about doing away with the Temple as such. I understand Jesus has having a self-identity or at least “experienced” identity as a high-priestly/kingly messiah figure after the order of Melchizedek, his actions against the Temple as such we actions of the Temple’s true priest/king figure; most certainly not actions of a sage figure who thought that “we-should-all-just-love-one-another”, though I’ve got a high respect for this thought, and I agree with it to a great extent, I don’t think it particularly goes back to Jesus. I think that in this self-understanding or perception of Jesus, he understood or was understood of as incarnating the Temple’s core ritual of Atonement in his death. If he didn’t interpret it this way, at least his disciples did and it most certainly does fit the data and what we know of Second Temple Judaisms.

Now back to your post #8 to me, which I now have had time to properly respond...

I didn't ask you prove a polytheist background. I merely suggested that I doubt it can be proved. eg: imu, archaelogical evidence (eg: the Ugarit tablets) suggests that the Canaanite religion started out monist = one God, many manifestations = Ha'dad = the Father [of all]. Of interest to the flood story Ha'dad was the Canaanite god who is the lord of the sky and who governs the rain. Ha'dad is the primary Ba'al. El, asserts authority (or upserts himself) over the pantheon, and resides on Mount Lel. El makes one of his sons, prince Yamm ("Sea") and judge Nahar ("River") king over the gods and informs Yamm that in order to secure his power, Yamm will have to drive ha'dad from his throne. Yam loses. El repents etc

That most certainly doesn’t sound like a monist cult; Baal-Hadad was one of the sons of El (or Eli or Il), El who had two wives and very many other children such as Yam and Mot. I don’t know of any scholar who has suggested that ancient Canaan was “monistic”. Is this a new way of saying that the ancient Israelite religion was henotheistic (thereby not polytheistic and thereby “valid”) because its predecessor was monistic? It seems to me as though Baal-Hadad was the Canaanite version of the Hittite “Teshub” or the Assyro-Babylonian “Adad”, all of whom were respective leaders of their pantheons not singular deities revealed in a multitude of ways by very many different names, such as what El was to become in later Israelite monotheism/henotheim.

As I suggested earlier, the central focus of Genesis is Abraham - a nomadic herder from Canaan - and it is presumed that the OT flood traditions preserved in Genesis came through his line via camp fire story telling. As far as I can ascertain, he was not inclined to dwell in cities, but prefered the desert. This is of particular importance, as it is well proven that temple culture and polytheism were essentially an urban phenomena. Nomadic herders in desert societies, imu, tended to be more monistic/henotheist. Have you ever gone bush, layed on your back and looked at the night sky?

That the central focus of Genesis is Abraham is not something that I’m disputing; I’m discussing the Israelite flood myth and a possible background and reason for it. What I don’t quite like is the “camp-fire story telling” joke. It plays on a non-existent “Oral culture” and all the “primitive” romanticism attached to the notion. What we have in the Old Testament are collections of ancient liturgical stories which were written by priests and scribes in Temple or cultic times in order to inform their rituals. That’s simply what myths do; they don’t develop from simple peasantry and evolve into ritualistic sacramental stories that become canonized while maintaining an ancient form of truth which simply could not have been achieved in any other way. No. These stories came from the educated elites in cultic settings.

Further, we don’t quite know what an ancient nomadic migrating family would have looked like, but I’m inclined to think that the Israelite myth of Abraham follows the suit of “urban life is bad and wilderness life is good”, a theme that re-occurs throughout the Old Testament, rather than that Abraham was an actual historical figure.

The Ugarit tablets (which provide us the only real info about the Canaanite religion outside of polemics against it) have a fragment of the Atra'hasis epic but our most complete rendition is from the three surviving Babylonian flood stories (existing translations are diverse and are apparently considered inconsistent and dubious). Basically, the tablets have it that the gods of sky (Anu), wind (Enlil), and water (Enki) cast lots for their rulership, Anu got heaven, Enlil got the earth and Enki the waters. Enki as adviser to the gods suggested that humans be created to work the earth and maintain the waters. Man is thus created from the earth and the gods spittle, via the mother goddess Mami who forms them (later Mami is also requested to create death). The earth becomes over populated and population control measures (famine & disease) aren't working, so Enlil & Enki plot to destroy mankind with a flood. However, Enki has a change of heart and warns the man Atra'hasis, instructing him to build a boat and seal its planks with tar. Atra'hasis boards the boat with his family and animals and seals the door. The flood begins and lasts for seven days. Atra'hasis offers sacrifices to the gods in thanks giving. Enlil is furious with Enki, but bends to Enki's wisdom and they agree on other means of population control. From a Canaanite viewpoint that may have been the justification for human sacrifice.

That story is fundamentally correct, and the parallels with the Genesis flood myth are numerous, the disagreement among the gods, the actions taken by one in order to save a family, the boat, the animals, the repentance of the god responsible for the flood and there’s even a motif earlier on in which Yhwh says that humankind shall live for less years on earth. What I don’t quite like is your loaded comment at the end, “From a Canaanite viewpoint that may have been the justification for human sacrifices.” It’s possible, I guess, but we’re looking at the myth itself we’re not poking fun at an ancient culture for being different to us. I think that runs another fundamental presupposition of yours which I cannot accept: the Israelite religion was the pure religion among the violent disgusting pagan religions. I’m afraid that history and archaeology show us that Israel was one among many, it was not different insofar as it was the “pure one” it was different insofar as the Canaanites were also different from the Hittites.

Most scholars agree, because the stories refer to the flooding by a river, that these flood stories are local and do not correspond to a world flood as does Genesis.

Surely, there are far too many similarities between the narratives to point to one issue and call into question any possible relationship, wouldn’t you agree? And who quite knows how the Old Testament flood story itself would have read, they most certainly did not have the same cosmology as us, a universal flood for ancient Israel would have been imagined very different to a “global” flood in our contemporary minds.

Now concerning your post #1, which I deduced as having been plagerised from elsewhere. Heh I was young & impetuous once! So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and pressume it was your way of making an honest inquiry.

It would appear you derive some of your comments (almost word for word) from Ronald S. Hendel's paper "Of Demigods & the Deluge" ('http://rshendel.googlepages.com/HendelDemigods.pdf'), or some site that has misappropriated him. As for your other ideas on Genesis' flood account, they are internet familiar to me, so I presume you have been visiting some crackpot site/s and plagerised its/their comments to see what would happen. Fair enough! There is nothing original in the method or content, so though I had to spend time checking by facts, I can readily respond...

Quite, I most certainly do think that a paper published in the SBL by an Old Testament scholar is much more reputable that what one might " find on Wikipedia..." ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(god)')

There is no contradition. Thus no need for reconcilation.

I don’t believe that there’s need for “reconciliation”, not because the passages are harmonious, but because they should be read as a particular “type” of myth. However, because Enoch plays with the story by having one of the Nephilim buried beneath the flood, it is apparent that early interpreters of Genesis considered that the story should be reconciled with other ancient Israelite stories.

Nephilim basically means "to fall" or "to fall upon" (cp. usage of naphal at Job 1:15). Rephaim means "tall ones". And Anakim means decendents of Anak (Anak means "neck"; an equivalent Arabic term means "length of neck" thus stature). At Num 13:22 & 28 we have ha'Anaq thus "Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of the Anak". Joshua 15:13 says "to Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave...Kirjath Arba, which [is] Hebron ([Arba] was the father of Anak.)".

Genesis 6:4 in many English translations have "There were giants on the earth". The Hebrew grammarian, Gesenius, suggests this is an erroneous translation of nĕphiyl based on Arabic, the Hebrew term primarily means excellent, nobel, skilful. He goes on to accord with Aquila & other Hebrew interpreters in its common usage in respect of apostates and rebels, thus "to fall" or "to fall upon". Many modern renderings leave the word untranslated and simply render the Nethilim.

That makes quite a bit of sense. Thank you for the exposition of Anakim and Rephaim. I don’t quite agree with that translation of Nephilim, though I do think that it carries with it the correct connotations. The Nephilim were, of course, demigods; a product of the inter-mingling between the gods and humans, so it makes perfect sense that they were “faster, bigger, better, stronger” than humans in every way. Again, this contradiction is not my major point; I don’t quite care for people who keep trying to defend the consistency of the Bible or people who keep trying to throw contradictions in your face. This is a debate between fundamentalist Christians or literalists or Biblicists and others. I’m interested in the stories, and as I said, and most probably like an early interpreter who wrote Enoch thought, these documents don’t show consistency here; but what they do show is a particular “type” of myth. If I wanted fundamentalist Christians to be angry about Biblical inconsistency then I might post it elsewhere (I don’t however), I came here because I’m quite certain that the “Unorthodox theology” section contains members who have studies these issues and are well versed enough to be able to comment on them.

According to Hendel, Zeus' motive for the Trojan wars, as depicted by Hesiod (not Homer) relate to similar but older traditions, that accademics consider to have most likely derived from a semitic source (nb: those who became the Macedonians and Greeks are said to be originally migrants from Egypt).

I've encountered this tripe over and over again on the internet and no one ever proves the point - they just recite each other as authoritive.

You may have encountered it. It makes quite a bit of sense to me though. There are similarities between the Greek myths and the ancient Semitic myths. Also, the architecture and the system of bureaucratic administration of the Minoans seem reminiscent of Egypt and the Middle East. This culture heavily influenced the later Mycenaean civilisation in Greece, the first known civilisation of mainland Greece. In fact, the craftsmanship of the Mycenaeans and Minoans becomes indistinguishable in later centuries.

Further, there’s a continual presence of trade between Asia and Greece. And as I’ve pointed out the Late Bronze Age is quite a time of internationalism, of trade and of tourism between the wealthy, elite Greeks and the wealthy, elite Egyptians, trade in this area has to pass through the Semitic regions, thus it’s possible that there was a large amount of communication between the Greeks, the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians. I would place the Old Testament as a product of the Iron Age most probably the Later than Early, and I quite doubt the presence of a strong civilisation of Israelites during the Late Bronze Age. I would agree with the Copenhagen school as well as various other scholars that Israelite monotheism is a species of Hellenism which developed in its full during the Hellenistic era.

Read Genesis chapters 6 to 9 thoroughly, preferably in a translation that renders the tetragrammaton (YHWH = Yahwah = Jehovah) and you'll quickly realise that the only conversation going on is between YHWH who is elohiym, and Noah (despite the crap some people sprout abot the canaanite el, in the hebrew scriptures el as an appellation is not encountered until Gen 14; elowahh until Deut 32 & elahh until Ezra). Also you should note, that if you think YHWH & elohiym are two distinct individuals, they carrying out the same activity in terms of instructng Noah, causing the flood and dealing with the repercussions. Noah found favour with YHWH at Gen 6:8 with Elohiym at vs9. YHWH sees the ruin of the world by men and decided to destroy it at vs5 to 7, so does elohiym at vs 11-13. Elohiym instructs Noah about the ark in in the rest of chapter 6, as does YHWH from the start of chapter 7. Noah did all that elohiym instructed, as he did with all the YHWH had instructed (which isn't percular as they are the one instruction/s from the one individual) etc etc Then in vs 8:1 we have elohiym "remembering" Noah etc but later Noah built an alter (without instruction) and sacrfices to YHWH (vs8:20) and elohiym blesses him (vs 9:1).

I believe that it is quite evident in the Hebrew though one has to approach these texts as redacted texts in order to appreciate it fully. I most certainly do not think that Elohim and Yhwh are carrying about the same sort of activity. What I can see in the text is that Yhwh is full of disappointment in humankind in 6:1-8, yet in Elohim understands the matter differently, in 6:11-22 a critical reader would understand that the Hebrew reads difficulty and shows evidence of redaction, of the more difficult phrases in this chapter, 6:13, “qes kol basar ba’ lepanay”, the issue here is one of correctly translating the phrase. This phrase has been translated various different ways by various different translators: the NIV has “I am going to put an end to all people”, the Harper Collins Study Bible has “I have determined to make an end to all flesh”, the NEB has “the loathsomeness (or end) of all mankind has become plain to me” and the Authorised Version has “the end of all flesh has come before me”. Many of course interpret “Lepanay” as intentional or in accordance to desire, however the meaning is most probably the same as that in Esther 9:11 “That very day the number of those slain was brought (l’ephney literally “came”) before the king”. When a matter is brought before the consideration of a king it is usually not his own doing and “desire” or “intention” are quite out of place categories for describing the event. Only Yhwh has decided the extermination of humankind, and Elohim, on the contrary, was about to foil his divine colleague’s decision and to save a remnant of them.

Let’s look at 6:9-13 then:

9b Noah walked with God (’et ha’elohim).
11 The earth was also corrupt (wattissahet) before God (lipne ha’elohim) and the earth was filled with violence
12 And God (’elohim) looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt (nishatah); for all flesh (kol basar) had corrupted (hishit) his way upon the earth.
13 And God (’elohim) said unto Noah, The end of all flesh has come before me (lepanay); for the earth is filled with violence through them (mippenehem), and behold, I will destroy them with the earth (wehinneni mashitam ’et ha’ares).

Interestingly, the drop of the definite article in this section indicates that it could be read as the plural “gods” or “divine council”. The reason for this are the possible translations of various other passages, for instance Exodus 18:19, “God (’elohim) be with you! You should represent the people before the (oracular) gods (mul ha’elohim).” This translation is possible because of the different roles of the alternating forms in the phrase: ha’elohim is never the subject in both passages, the heroes are walking with him/them (5: 22, 24; 6:9) or the earth is corrupted before him/them (6:11), and there is no possibility to recognize whether it is to be conceived as singular (as usually) or plural (as many times). When ’elohim appears as subject—he takes Enoch (5:24), he sees the earth (6:12) or speaks to Noah (6:13)—the verbs are in singular. He is undoubtedly Elohim, God. However, the additional definite article is conspicuous in this setting which gives the possible reading of “gods” or “divine council”.

Now to the more complex matters which are passages like 6:13 “...I (Elohim is speaking) will destroy them, the earth” (hinneni mashitam ’et ha’ares). The problem with this statement is the impossible double accusative which gives indication that the verse went through a life of heavy redaction from the original. In fact, translators are still very perplexed as to how to translate this particular phrasing correctly, and only from the presupposition of a clear monotheist tradition keeps translators from exploring avenues such as mine. My hypothesis about this verse, in keeping with the observations about the previous statement analysed, is that the original may have read (wehinnam mashitam ’et ha’ares) “and they (i.e. the gods) are to destroy the earth.” The redactors tried to monotheize an unacceptably polytheistic text and didn’t want to deviate too much from the traditional wording.

Of course, I hope I do not sound like I’m begging questions here about hypothetical texts which do not exist anymore. I’ve given a few possible renditions of the redactions of the text with the clear hypothesis that ancient Israel was a polytheistic people who became monotheistic people. This is supported of course by the very many other texts in the Bible which claim that ancient Israelites worshipped other gods and goddesses as well as archaeological digs which have discovered that there was a wide variety of rich culture and cultic worship in ancient Israel. It would be obvious that by the time of the Persian Empire the monotheistic push in Israel would have been so strong that they would have edited their more ancient texts in the favour of a monotheistic theology, correct? Further, it is most certainly not as if a monotheistic interpretation of the passage itself is the easiest reading, even now after all the obvious redactions, redactions such as 6:13 which simply do not read as correct Hebrew grammar.

It ain't evident in the Hebrew! The exact opposite. You should check the falicies of the conspiracy theorists you have been reading. In the late 1960s the con man van Daniken made a fortune with his books about alien invasion and propagation of the earth. Ultimately, he was debunked absolutely and disappeared from the public eye once someone bothered to examine his claims (albeit at about 17/18yo his account of Ezekiel is what got me interested in reading scripture back then).

Please don’t try to equate what serious contemporary Old Testament scholars are saying with strange conspiracy theorists of the 60’s as if because Erich von Daniken’s work was debunked it means that what scholars like John Levinson or Lemche or Thompson are saying is wrong... If that’s what you’re trying to say then you should read into your own “fallacies” (and maybe also spelling).

Pointedly, there is no comparison to the two or three Mesopotamian accounts. The reasons, geography, repercussions and outcomes for the biblical flood has no comparison to the Atra'hasis or Utnapishtim accounts. For a start Noah doesn't become immortal.

Simply saying it doesn’t make it true, you’ve described the various flood stories and there are notable similarities. Also, the way that I’m describing the Flood story in its pre-redaction history gives indication of very many more parallels which the text allows.

Now there are obviously other points that you brought to light, none of which I find convincing and most of which I simply do not have the time to comment on at the moment. Perhaps though further in our discussion.

Allan

[apostoli]

Hello Popaface,

That was a very long post that you’ve given me so as you can understand this post itself has taken quite some time to prepare.And I reciprocate appreciation for your time and effort. Sorry about the length of my last post, but your post #1 was very long and I attempted to respond to each point as succintly as I could. Likewise this one. To shorten the posts possibly you could prioritise what point/s you wish to emphasis and evolve the discussion, rather than have a full frontal ;-)

For now I'll reply to your post #22 as fully as time permits. For now, I thought we might share what background info we each have and seek out some common ground.

That most certainly doesn’t sound like a monist cult;From the polemics against it (our main source of info) the Canaanite religion ultimately seems to have become polytheist. However, there are scholars that suggest that the early religious ideas of most cultures either evolve from ancestor worship or animism both of which often leading to some form of polytheism. eg: the father of the tribe becomes a god to his family, thus his sons etc. Ultimately, all father myths might be traced to a particular individual.

There is another school of thought that argues that the accounts we have are inconsistent, and probably misunderstood. Whether or not this is a revisionist view or not, I have no idea. But a modern example of misinformation given is Hinduism. The Hindus I know, deny their religion is polytheist, explaining that each of their gods is simply a manifestation of some aspect of the one supreme God, Brahman.

Baal-Hadad was one of the sons of El (or Eli or Il)I'm not aware of that. I've read Ha'dad became the son of Dagon (?) It seems a bit upside down, grain (Dagon) fathers the rain (?). I concede El is often depicted as the Father of all the gods, but this fatherhood seems to be limited to things fixed upon the earth (?)

Imu, the ancient Greeks identified El with Cronus not Zeus. Whereas Ha'dad is identified with Zeus. The Karatepe inscriptions lists El after Ba'al Shamim, 'Lord of Heaven', a title scholars say applies to Ha'dad.

I don’t know of any scholar who has suggested that ancient Canaan was “monistic”.The argument is that they started out something like monists, if not monotheist, but became polytheist as urbanisation increased. There are also scholars that argue that there is no evidence in the archaelogical record that indicates they performed human sacrifice in the earliest of their days.

I'm not pushing any one view concerning the Canaanite religious view. However, imo, given Jacob's conditionality concerning exclusively accepting YHWH as his God, I'm inclined to suggest that his forefathers at least, were henotheist. If such is true then we have a possible logical evolution from the time of Noah - monotheist to monist to henotheist to outright polytheism. That is: assuming Noah was monotheist (something I doubt (given his society) but something I don't discard out of hand. Albeit, I don't perceive him, via the account we have, as a polytheist).

Is this a new way of saying that the ancient Israelite religion was henotheistic (thereby not polytheistic and thereby “valid”) because its predecessor was monistic?No. It is a curiosity statement of the various opinions around. Just as the common understanding of Hinduism as polytheist is wrong in the understanding of the Hindus themselves. If we can be wrong on modern ideas, how great is our misunderstanding of ancient Canaan, given that scholars can't agree on the translation of what little of their perspective of themselves we have. Our major knowledge of them is late polemics against them.

It seems to me as though Baal-Hadad was the Canaanite version of the Hittite “Teshub” or the Assyro-Babylonian “Adad”, all of whom were respective leaders of their pantheons not singular deities revealed in a multitude of ways by very many different names, such as what El was to become in later Israelite monotheism/henotheim.Imu, apart from being son of Dagon, Ha'dad is also the son of the sky (Anu). Though as the god of rain, this could be viewed as a perspective rather than an identity, as with his other accolade rammanu = the thunderer.

all of whom were respective leaders of their pantheons not singular deities revealed in a multitude of ways by very many different names, such as what El was to become in later Israelite monotheism/henotheim.I do not dispute that the Canaanites ultimately became polytheistic but I suggest their religion went through some form of evolution, possibly via the assimilation of waring tribes. Imu, El (only used 250 times in the OT) was not incorporated into the Abrahamic religion, but the plural of majesty, Elohim was (used 2,570 in the OT). Both terms are used in the OT for kings, judges, angels, idols but never of YHWH without qualification eg: el shaddai, el elyon, el olam, el berith, el gibhor.

That the central focus of Genesis is Abraham is not something that I’m disputing; I’m discussing the Israelite flood myth and a possible background and reason for it.Which requires Abraham in the equation as the relevence of the flood story is that he like Noah was selected because of his like righteousness and was descended from Noah's son Shem, and it is from his line that it is assumed that the OT flood story was inherited. If we accept the traditions, and chronologies, Abraham was nearly 60yo when Noah died and Shem (according to Jewish tradition) out lived Abraham. So it is held that we have a first hand account that the Abrahamic tribe preserved. As far as I know, it can't be proved outside of the scriptures.

What I don’t quite like is the “camp-fire story telling” joke.No joke. Even in this day and age there are peoples who pass their lore by oral tradition. In fact until the rise in literacy over the last hundred or so years, this has been the practice of all societies (one of the reason the RCC for centuries maintained that only their priests should preach & teach).

It plays on a non-existent “Oral culture” and all the “primitive” romanticism attached to the notion.No romanticism. Fact of life in many parts of the world to this day, where literacy rates are low to non existent. Imo, we should never view primitive society from the viewpoint of the 21st century with its instant messaging and non verbal communication.

What we have in the Old Testament are collections of ancient liturgical storiesI can't see how the stories in Genesis are liturgical. Imo, all they do is set the background to Exodus.

...which were written by priests and scribes in Temple or cultic times in order to inform their rituals.What ritual does the flood story initiate?

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the priests make up the stories and have them written down by the scribes? And then convinced everyone to throw away the fables of their fathers and believe this new invention. I think it far more probable that the priests had the scribes write down the tradition of their people (just as anthropologists have been doing with the Australian aborigines dream time tales).

That’s simply what myths do; they don’t develop from simple peasantry and evolve into ritualistic sacramental stories that become canonized while maintaining an ancient form of truth which simply could not have been achieved in any other way. No. These stories came from the educated elites in cultic settings.A brave statement, contradicted by societies such as the Australian aborigine. If we credit Moses with having Genesis written, it would seem perculiar that he didn't relate his Genesis account in accord with the Egyptian tales, unless there was an alternative tradition within the Abrahamic tribes.

Further, we don’t quite know what an ancient nomadic migrating family would have looked likeActually we have a pretty good idea. The Bedouin until four or so decades ago lived the life of their fathers in the same way for a few thousand years.

but I’m inclined to think that the Israelite myth of Abraham follows the suit of “urban life is bad and wilderness life is good”, a theme that re-occurs throughout the Old Testament, rather than that Abraham was an actual historical figure.Imu, more particularly the farmer is bad and the herder good.

But while the accounts might be questioned there is no reason to dispute Abraham's existence. The semitic people take huge pride in tracing their genealogies, and very often this is/was done orally.

By example: One of my sons has been working out of Alice Springs (central Australia) and in his job as a health worker he visits remote aborigine communities. Generally the old people are illiterate but have a wealth of oral tradition that covers everything from tool making, hunting, down to the tribe's genealogy (and each individual in it). When a stranger comes in from another tribe they recite their genealogy, until a common ancestor or relative is found. Which can take some time.

Where I might agree with you: there is at times some percularities in the biblical chronology and the biblical genealogies eg: the Jews are said to have been enslaved in Egypt for 430 years (Ex 12:40 cp. Gen 15:13) but Moses' line to Abraham is traced through his great grandfather Levi. Levi was one of Joseph's elder brothers. Joseph rose to power in Egypt when he was in his thirties. So Levi was well over 30 when he moved to Egypt. And he only lived until he was 137yo, as did Moses father, and Moses was about 80yo when he led the Jews out of captivity. The usual explanation links Ex 12:40 to Gen 15:13 and thus the birth of Isaac which occured when Abraham departed from the promised land.

That story is fundamentally correct, and the parallels with the Genesis flood myth are numerousVery few parallels actually. Imu, the Ugarit doesn't have Enlil and Enki arguing until after the flood. Enlil couldn't cause the flood, as Enki had control of the waters, and it was Enki that intervened on behalf of the man Atra'hasis. And in the other accounts Atra'hasis achieve immortality.

...the disagreement among the gods, the actions taken by one in order to save a family, the boat, the animals, the repentance of the god responsible for the flood and there’s even a motif earlier on in which Yhwh says that humankind shall live for less years on earth.For a start Enlil couldn't cause a flood, he only had control of the land so enlisted Enki's help. There was no argument until Enki saved the man. Next the flood only lasted 7 days. Next the animals on board were already owned by Atra'hasis, it was his family & his animal's that are preserved. And in the babylonian & Sumarian accounts the hero is rewarded with eternal life. The only thing I can see in common with the biblical account is there was a flood and a particular family was saved.

What I don’t quite like is your loaded comment at the end, “From a Canaanite viewpoint that may have been the justification for human sacrifices.”All ancient myths tend to have a purpose justifying something or other. Why something is so, or how something came to be. The central plank in the non biblical stories is that the land was over populated. If I recall correctly Enlil's major complaint was the human's were too noisey.

It’s possible, I guess, but we’re looking at the myth itself we’re not poking fun at an ancient culture for being different to us.No poking fun what so ever. The Canaanite priests would have had to justify human sacrifice some way.

I think that runs another fundamental presupposition of yours which I cannot accept: the Israelite religion was the pure religion among the violent disgusting pagan religions.Not a premise of mine. It is apparent the patriarchs weren't pure in any form from the viewpoint of our standards. Noah in fact is depicted as going against YHWH's orders in sacrificing the animals. Hence YHWH's lament "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth"


I’m afraid that history and archaeology show us that Israel was one among many, it was not different insofar as it was the “pure one” it was different insofar as the Canaanites were also different from the Hittites.To an extent I agree. Though the Canaanite known as Abraham was called out from amongst them and his people guided towards better righteousness. I doubt all around were debauched. Moses himself married a Midianite, whose father was a priest in the local religion.

Have to leave it here for now...

Peace

[apostoli]

Hi again Popaface,

I would agree with the Copenhagen school as well as various other scholars that Israelite monotheism is a species of Hellenism which developed in its full during the Hellenistic era.Imu, a vocal minority of "scholars", with the writings of one Thomas L Thompson as chief advocate, holding that the OT was contrived under the Macabees.

Supporters of such are often described as selective in what they will receive from the archeological record, and too "exclusive' in their "accademic" approach. The opposing view is that monotheism is perculiar to the general world view in ancient times, so it would require a lengthy time to evolve. The OT's account of Israel's lapses into a world view would seem to support this appraisal more conclusively.

Personally, I don't perceive a Hellenised influence in the flood stories. Imu, the Greek's didn't have a comparable flood story until around 8CE.

The other thing that inclines me to reject the hellenist theories is that the Macabees rose to power by organising revolt against the Seleucids, and claimed linage to the older Hebrew traditions to gather their armies. The earlist I could accept an intentional redaction would be the time of Ezra when he "refound" the lost books of the temple. But I can't see why he'd so such. The Samaritans are said to have preserved the language and traditions while the elite of the Jews were restrained in Babylon. One point in favour of an Ezra redaction is the obvious friction between Ezra & the Samaritans.

As I understood you to have suggested, the flood story has a middle east / near east perspective.

____________________

The full text of the Gilgamesh ('http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/eog/index.htm') is available at www.sacred-texts.com. I just did another re-read to see if I could come to a better understanding of your assertions...

Gilgamesh & Enkidu defy the gods (especially Enlil & Ishtar) and give what seems exclusive devotion to Shamash (the sun). Albeit Gilgamesh also has a personal god = his father Lugalbanda, who doesn't seem to do anything. When Enkidu dies (tablets 7&8), Gilgamesh makes lavish offerings to Shamash.

In tablet 7 there is a council of the great gods "Anu, Enlil, and Shamash held a council, and Anu spoke to Enlil: 'Because they killed the Bull of Heaven and have also slain Humbaba, the one of them who pulled up the Cedar of the Mountain must die!' Enlil said:'Let Enkidu die, but Gilgamesh must not die!' But the Sun God of Heaven replied to valiant Enlil: 'Was it not at my command that they killed the Bull of Heaven and Humbaba! Should now innocent Enkidu die!' Then Enlil became angry at Shamash, saying: 'it is you who are responsible because you traveled daily with them as their friend!"'

In tablet 9 we encounter our first mention of Utanapishtim the hero of the flood story. Gilgamesh says to the scorpion-beings who gaurd the gate to "Mount Mashu, which daily guards the rising and setting of the Sun". Gilgamesh declares "I have come on account of my ancestor Utanapishtim, who joined the Assembly of the Gods, and was given eternal life. About Death and Life I must ask him!"

In tablet 10 we find Gilgamesh still in mourning over Enkidu asking directions to Utanapishtim and the innkeeper saying "The (only) one who crosses the sea is valiant Shamash, except for him who can cross! The crossing is difficult, its ways are treacherous--and in between are the Waters of Death that bar its approaches." Gilgamesh then entreats the ferryman Urshanabi to guide him to Utanapishtim. When they arrive at the waters of death Utanapishtim approaches and speaks to Gilgamesh.

Finally in tablet 11 ('http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm') we have the flood story...

"Gilgamesh spoke to Utanapishtim, the Faraway: I have been looking at you, but your appearance is not strange--you are like me...Tell me, how is it that you stand in the Assembly of the Gods, and have found life! Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying: I will reveal to you, Gilgamesh, a thing that is hidden, a secret of the gods I will tell you. Shuruppak, a city that you surely know, situated on the banks of the Euphrates, that city was very old, and there were gods inside it. The hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the Flood. Their Father Anu uttered the oath (of secrecy), Valiant Enlil was their Adviser, Ninurta was their Chamberlain, Ennugi was their Minister of Canals. Ea, the Clever Prince(?), was under oath with them...O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu: Tear down the house and build a boat! Abandon wealth and seek living beings! Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings! Make all living beings go up into the boat. The boat which you are to build, its dimensions must measure equal to each other...I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea: 'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered I will heed and will do it. But what shall I answer the city, the populace, and the Elders!"

Each time I read the Gilgamesh Utanapishtim account, I find more discrepancies with the OT Noah account...

* The secret of the great gods to destroy the land came to Utanapishtim in a dream. Noah is said to have had a direct converstation with YHWH-elohim.

* The Gods have Utanapishtim conceal the reason he is building a boat. Genesis is silent on the matter, though Jewish tradition has it, as he took around a hundred years to build the ark, there was ample time for him to warn the people of the impending doom. Imu, the Koran has it, he did warn the people and 83 people were saved.

* the specifications given to Noah/Utanapishtim for the ark/boat are in conflict. Utanapishtim decides what he will load onto the boat and this includes gold etc

* In Utanapishtim account the boat took less than a week to build.

* Utanapishtim has the whole land assisting him in building the boat, thinking Enlil would bless them by removing Utanapishtim from their presence.

* Utanapishtim has more than his family onboard, and the beasts loaded are limited to those of the field "I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat, all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I had go up." No mention of perpetuation of species that we find in Genesis.

* Utanapishtim's flood lasts only seven days. Noah etc board the ark and wait 7 days for the flood to occur. Noah's flood lasts over a year.

* As Utanapishtim sacrifices, Beletili (the mother goddess) decrees "The gods may come to the incense offering, but Enlil may not come to the incense offering, because without considering he brought about the Flood and consigned my people to annihilation."

* Enlil is chastised, repents and "Enlil went up inside the boat and, grasping my hand, made me go up. He had my wife go up and kneel by my side. He touched our forehead and, standing between us, he blessed us: Previously Utanapishtim was a human being. But now let Utanapishtim and his wife become like us, the gods!" Noah & his wife don't become gods.

* Enlil then decrees that "Let Utanapishtim [and his wife] reside far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers" because they had become like the gods. Noah & his wife stay with their family.

* the climax of the story is that Gilgamesh wants eternal life, and Utanapishtim will grant his wish if Gilgamesh stays awake for 6 days and seven nights. Gilgamesh fails and Utanapishtim sends him on his way. But Utanapishtim's wife intervenes and he tells Gilgamesh of a plant that will bring back his youth. Gilgamesh determines to test it on an old man before taking it himself. On the journey back home, a snake eats the plant and sheds its skin.

What we have in common with Noah's account is the boat/ark came to rest on a mountain top. Birds were sent out. And a thanksgiving sacrifice to the gods/God was performed. However, in the Gilgamesh, the one who invoked the flood Enlil is refused access to the sacrifice.

Peace

[carelinks]

Learned siblings, thanks for your contributions, I've enjoyed reading them. Family and other matters preclude me contributing as I'd like to, but here's a clip about this stuff from my material at http://www.realdevil.info/5-3.htm

3. “There were giants in the earth in those days”. The Hebrew syntax here would suggest that this is a notice that at this time, there were giants in the earth. The giants aren't described as being the offspring of the relationship between the sons of God and daughters of men. The word “giants” has two possible meanings: “fallen ones” (which would be relevant to their being the “sons of God” who had spiritually fallen away) and “assailants, hackers, tyrants”- the definition provided by Martin Luther and H.C. Leupold (1). This is the root of the Hebrew word for “giant”, and is used in 2 Kings 3:19 & 25, to describe a vicious attack on the Moabites by Israel. Thus we get the impression that there were men, perhaps of great physical size and strength, who went around viciously attacking people. They became famous (or infamous) - “men of renown”. Job (22:15-17) comments upon them: “Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood: which said unto God, Depart from us”. Notice that this refers to men, not angels. In passing, it would seem these men may have their latter day counterpart in the gang warfare and its associated mentality of our modern world. We have shown in Digression 3 that the intention of Moses in Genesis was to explain Israel's surrounding world to them, and deconstruct the false ideas they encountered in surrounding myth. The people were frightened by the "giants" they met in the land of Canaan (Num. 13:33). These nephilim [LXX gigantes] had their origin explained by Moses in Genesis 6- the righteous seed intermarried with the wicked, and their offspring were these nephilim, mighty men of the world. Note in passing how Ez. 32:27 LXX uses this same word gigantes to describe pagan warriors who died- no hint that they were superhuman or Angels.

4. The idea of cosmic beings coming to earth and having sexual relations with human women is a classic piece of pagan myth; and the Jews came to adopt these into their interpretations of the Genesis 6 passage, e.g. in the Book of Enoch. Josephus brings out the similarities: "The angels of God united with women... the actions attributed to them by our tradition [note that- "our tradition", not Scripture itself!] resemble the bold exploits which the Greeks recount about the Giants" (2). Clearly, Jewish thinking sought to accommodate the pagan myths.

5. The Israelites were aware of the existence of unusually large people- the Zamzumin, Zumin, Rephaim, Nephilim, Emim, and Anakim (Dt. 1:28, 2:10-11, 20-21, 3:11). The bed of Og, King of Bashan, a Rephaim, was nine cubits long, over 14 feet (Dt. 3:11). In Canaanite mythology these giants came from intermarriage between human beings and the gods; but Moses in Genesis 6 is surely addressing this myth and correcting it. He's saying (by implication) that this didn't happen, but rather the Godly seed and the wicked intermarried; and yes, at that time, there were giants in the earth, but they were judged and destroyed by the flood, and the implication surely was that the Israel who first heard Moses' inspired history could take comfort that the giants they faced in Canaan would likewise be overcome by God.

6. We have elsewhere commented on how apostate Jewish theology sought to minimize human sin and blame it on a Satan figure. It's significant that when the inspired New Testament writers refer to the flood, there is no suggestion by them that they accepted the idea that sinful Angels somehow led humanity into sin. Instead, they repeatedly underscore the fact that it was human sin which led God to punish humanity. The uninspired Book Of Jubilees, written about 150 BC, claims that Noah complained to God about "the unclean demons" leading his grandchildren into sin and asked God to judge these demons, thus resulting in the flood (Jubilees 10:1-7). That is mere fantasy- and quite the opposite of what the Genesis record states- where clearly it is human wickedness which leads God to judge humans. What I find so highly significant is that the Lord Jesus and His apostles stress that it was indeed human sin which led to Divine judgment through the flood. Effectively, they're thus deconstructing these false ideas which were circulating and upholding the Biblical emphasis against the sophistry of the false theology about Satan / demons which was circulating. It's a tragedy that the same false understandings still circulate, and so many still refuse to face up to the clear teaching of Scripture- that human beings sin and must take responsibility and bear judgment for that sin.

7. I commented at some lengthelsewhere how this passage is actively deconstructing false Canaanite myths about sinful gods, giants, demons etc. It could be argued that this passage, along with much of early Genesis, is actually deconstructing the wrong ideas about Angels, demons, Satan etc. which Israel had encountered in Egypt and amongst the Canaanite tribes. It is teaching that the giants which Israel had noticed were in fact only human, and no more. They were "mighty men", "men of renown". Later Scripture does likewise- the Rephaim had children like other human beings (2 Sam. 21:16,18; Dt. 3:11), inhabiting an area known as the valley of Rephaim (Josh. 15:8). Cassuto comments: "The intention of the section is actually to contradict certain folk-tales, and to erase, as far as possible, their mythological features" (3). Elsewhere, Cassuto draws attention to the significance of God's comment upon the sin of the 'sons of God' in Gen. 6:3: "My spirit shall not abide in [or, strive with] man for ever". God comments upon the human condition, not upon anything out in the cosmos. He comments: "[this] implies: Do not believe the heathen tales about human beings of divine origin, who were rendered immortal; this is untrue, for in the end every man must die, "in as much as he, too, is flesh"... the Torah's intention is to counteract the pagan legends and to reduce to a minimum the content of the ancient traditions concerning the giants" (4). The record of the flood which follows that of the mention of the 'giants' can be read as a further deconstruction of the myths about them. The Biblical record states that God opened the "windows of Heaven" (Gen. 7:11). The identical term in Ugaritic occurs in Tablet 2 AB, col. 7 line 17 of the Ras Shamra tablets. Cassuto explains that "The Canaanites used to tell of the god Baal that at one stage he built for himself a palace in the sky and opened therein windows... the Canaanites attributed to Baal the sending down of rain from heaven", but that the giants / offspring of the wicked gods "set down their feet and closed up the deep, and they placed their hands on the windows" (5). The Genesis record stresses that the giants were mere men; and that it was God and not the giants who opened and closed the windows of Heaven and sent the rain of the flood. This would fit in with wider evidence that the flood record, like that of the sons of God and daughters of men, is also purposefully deconstructing pagan myths about the flood. Just one example: Gen. 8:2 states clearly that it was God who caused the flood rains to cease and the waters to subside- whereas the pagan myths claim that it was the sun god who appeared and caused the waters to evaporate. The Biblical record says nothing about the waters disappearing by solar evaporation, but claims they subsided as a result of the work of Israel's God.

Notes

(1) H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, Vol. 1 (Ann Arbor, MI: Wartburg Press, 1942), p. 250.

(2) Antiquities Of The Jews 1.3.1.

(3) Umberto Cassuto, Biblical And Oriental Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975) Vol. 2 p. 108.

(4) Umberto Cassuto, Commentary On The Book Of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998 ed.) Vol. 1 p. 300.

(5) References in Umberto Cassuto, Commentary On The Book Of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992 ed.) Vol. 2 pp. 86,87.