On Materialist Conceptions of Origins, Part Second, With Considerations of Human Language

About 2 weeks ago, while checking out the portfolio of a random web design firm, I ran across the website of an organization that was offering a free DVD which they claimed provided “proof” that evolution is wrong and that creationism is right. Unable to resist, I quickly surrendered my email and mailing address, and within 2 weeks (wow, what service!) I received my free DVD. Brimming over with excitement, I quickly abandoned my evening with family and popped it in the DVD player. I cranked the speakers to 11, grabbed a stiff glass of Diet Coke (on the rocks), and curled into my oversized leather couch, my eyes and ears prepared for outstanding revelations.

It turned out, to my immediate dismay, that this DVD was of a lecture series delivered by Kent Hovind, better known as “Dr. Dino.” For those who are familiar with Hovind’s “arguments,” I need say little more. For those who are unfamiliar, imagine arguing with someone whose main line of debate is mischaracterizations, over-generalizations, and deflection through cheesy jokes, insults, and terrible clip-art-ridden power-point shows. Enough said.

As I watched and listened to the 129 minutes of Mr. Hovind’s lecture, some things became immediately clear:

1.) He offered no actual “scientific” proof for his claims, even though the claim of the video was exactly this.

2.) The entire discussion was based upon an attempt to characterize cosmological and biological theories of evolution as atheistic, humanistic propaganda.

3.) The main lines of his arguments revolved around trying to make evolutionists look foolish. However, in doing so, he did not interact with any critical, scholarly material, but rather based his discussion upon popular notions of evolutionary theory, outdated 2nd grade biology textbooks, and other insignificant sources.

4.) Similar to no. 1, at no time did Hovan offer a critical theory that would explain an alternative perspective for origins. Basically, his argument boiled down to, “The KJV Bible says this, I have to interpret it according certain hermeneutical paradigms, and that’s the end of the story.”

ANYWAY...I do not wish to devote this post to all of the horrible misrepresentations, inaccuracies, etc. of Hovind’s lectures, nor of his methodology. Rather, I would like to focus on a very interesting comment that he made. Noting this comment, I would like to revisit some of the considerations I pursued in my previous post on Materialist Conceptions of Origins, as well as tie in some of the thinking I have been doing in regard to considerations of human language in speaking about the divine. So without further ado....

Let me set the stage: Hovind was relating a story of a time when he conversed with a Berkeley professor during a plane ride. In this conversation, Hovind questioned the professor on several issues relating to evolution, and boastingly related that the professor was unable to sufficiently answer the questions. One question in particular grabbed my attention. Hovind questioned the professor as to the origin of the universe. Not surprisingly, the professor suggested that all matter and energy in the universe could be reduced, chronologically, to a singularity, an infinitely small and dense point. Undeterred, Hovind pressed further and asked, “So where did the singularity [universe] come from?” Unable to respond, Hovind offered that all matter and energy [universe] came from God in precisely the way that the book of Genesis relates (according to his interpretive paradigm of this passage, that is).

I would like to focus on this phrase, “Where did the universe come from?” According to Hovind, the fact that the big bang cosmologist cannot successfully answer this question overturns big bang cosmology, or, at the very least, requires that the big bang adherent posit the eternal existence of the universe, which would, of course, suggest a thoroughgoing materialist cosmology. Furthermore, Hovind asserts that because the universe has to come from “somewhere,” the only reasonable answer can be that it came “from God.”

Although he would vehemently deny it, I would assert that Hovind’s offering succombs to exactly the same criticism (of materialism), at least if one outlines his cosmology on the basis of his line of questioning outline above.

Let’s examine his question:

“Where did the universe come from?”

Although this seems to be a reasonably straightforward question, the linguistic structuring of this question mitigates against it technically adhering to a Christian cosmology.

But first, consider this: Christians affirm the ex nihilo, “out of nothingness,” origin of all that exists and which is "other than" God. In light of this, a Christian cosmology specifically denies any conception that the universe is uncreated and eternal (per Aristotle and most cosmological assumptions until the last 200 years). The universe did not exist as chaos that was organized by God, nor was it a soup of eternally existing matter that was arranged in particular structures. The “nothingness” out of which creation was created does not have ontological existence, as if it is simply “empty space” (for “space” is not really “empty”). Additionally, a Christian cosmology rejects that creation is merely an emanation of the being of God. Rather, the universe really is “other” than God, even though its existence and preservation is dependent upon God.

Now, back to the question:

“Where did the universe come from?”

If we affirm a Christian cosmology of creation ex nihilo, this question is perspicuously contradictory. Consider the word “where.” By utilizing the normal understanding of the word “where,” one is referring to a spatial reality. For example, if I ask, “Where is the pencil,” one’s answer will have a proximal value as its referential, i.e., "the pencil is on the desk." Even if one responds with an admission of ignorance (“I don’t know where the pencil is"), this is still a proximally qualified answer, for one is not denying the existence of the pencil in its location, but rather merely knowledge of what this location might be. And even a denial of the existence of the pencil is proximally qualified, for the "not-anywhere-ness" of the pencil is necessarily referential to the "where-ness" of that context in which the pencil does not exist.

If we apply these considerations to the question posed by Hovind, we see how a materialist conception of the origins of the universe comes into play. After all, if we affirm that the universe (matter and energy) came “from somewhere,” we must posit the existence of another reality that is commensurate with the nature of the universe wherein it is appropriate that the latter should come from the former. In that referring to this reality as “God” would violate the Christian cosmological principle of creation ex nihilo, one is merely moving the origin of the universe back to another material reality from which the known universe originated.

Let me get at this another way. If one says that the universe came “from God,” one is speaking on the level of space/time. As already noted, in order to determine the “whereness” and “fromness” of a particular reality (whether it be a pencil, a refrigerator, an abstract thought, or even a non-existent object [which is categorically impossible, linguistically]), one must appeal to the spatial/temporal context in which these realities occur. But if we say that creation came “from God,” we are doing the unthinkable. By delineating the origin and mechanism of creation on the basis of spatial referents (“where,” “from”), we are expanding the spatial/temporal context of creation upon the divine and eternal nature of God. Therefore, in saying this very simple phrase, "the universe came from God," we are philosophically operating under the assumption that not only are the parameters of space/time the proper paradigm through which to describe the origin and mechanism of God’s relationship to the creation, but we are actually positing the existence of these paradigms over and against the existence of God, requiring that the infinite and eternal God operate within these parameters (which conclusion, obviously, negates the actuality of God’s infinitude and eternality).

With these considerations in mind, I realize that very few people–-and probably no one, actually—when they respond to the question, “Where did the universe come from” with the answer, “God,” consciously affirm the conclusions I have outlined above. However, this is not my point. What I am getting at is the way in which our language lies to us, often without anyone actually realizing it, revealing unconscious philosophical presuppositions that, if explicitly stated, we would vehemently eschew. As with Hovind, he obviously detests a “naturalistic” explanation of the origin of the universe. However, given the language which he deploys, and coupled with his insistence upon the mechanisms of creation mentioned in Genesis (which are themselves naturalistic), his conclusions are hardly different in consequence from those which he rejects (other than being unrelated to any of the naturalistic evidence that is available).

Conclusion

It is difficult to conclude this kind of examination, for the issue—contrary to what human nature desires—cannot be definitively resolved. Regardless of what mechanisms we use to describe the origins of the universe, the earth, or ourselves, our language will consistently force us into speaking in terms of spatiality/temporality, and our speech will be riddled with contingent, causally demarcated words and phrases. Therefore, we must always use caution in how we utilize language about God and the relationship between the divine being and that which is created and “other.”

Specifically, I would propose that the question, “Where did the universe come from,” is unanswerable, both for the big bang cosmologist and the creationist. Human language is simply incapable of describing creation ex nihilo in a propositional way that will avoid running aground
on the rocks of materialism that I have described above.

Should we then simply leave off talking about "origins" completely? No, I do not suggest that we should. Rather, we should simply hold to faith-affirmation of the power and creativity of the divine Creator. While this runs contrary to the desire of human nature to identify a material source and cause for creation, mystery is better than blasphemy. Moreover, we should honestly and actively engage our senses in the universe in which we live. If we conclude that evolutionary theory best describes the way in which our universe developed, let us rejoice in it. As God’s creative activity in the universe cannot be reduced or located within any particular set of causal mechanisms, the field is wide open and all bets are off as to "how" the creative work of God can be displayed (as if the conclusion were up to us to begin with) within the universe in which we live.

Human Language and the Divine

Over the last several months–and especially within the last few days–I have been involved in numerous conversations about the nature and function of human language in describing God. What follows is not meant to be a fully-developed essay, but is rather intended to be somewhat of a summary of the lines of thinking I have pursued and the very tentative conclusions which I have reached.

Obviously, one of the most prescient issues is to what extent one can affirm that human language is capable of literally expressing and/or encapsulating truth about the nature of God. The initial, and I believe correct, answer is that human language is insufficient to do this. After all, we are speaking about a finite medium (human language) through which we attempt to speak about that which is infinite. To use a material example, such would be like the proverbial two-dimensional Flatlander attempting to shake the hand of the three-dimensional invader of the two-dimensional plane. While the Flatlander may be able to intersect a two-dimensional cross-section of the three-dimensional visitor, the Flatlander will be, by virtue of his “difference,” incapable of fully engaging or encapsulating the reality of his new higher-dimensional friend. In a similar and more profound way, it is not possible that human language could somehow directly and fully engage the reality of the divine.

Despite this obvious conclusion, we persist in the attempt. Our language en toto, but also (and more) specifically in relation to the divine, is filled with propositional, absolutized words, phrases and linguistic expressions. This is, in actuality, unavoidable. After all, language, by its very nature, is absolutizing. To speak is to form and reflect some conception of the world. While the appropriateness of the linguistic symbols attached to the meanings being expressed may be questioned, it is clear that to speak is to construct; to speak is to make a declaration about the nature and meaning of the reality which one perceives.

The problem with the necessity of this functional reality in human language is that human language is necessarily self-referential. In the act of speaking, the content of language is rooted in that which we know. We cannot speak of that which we do not know, and that which we do know determines the shape and form of our language. An interesting example of this is Anselm’s “proof” for the existence of God. While the full argument will not be pursued here, the basic thrust of Anselm’s argument is that God is the “being than which no greater being can be conceived.” In essence, Anselm argument is two-fold: Humans have an idea of a perfect being–God. Concomitantly, human beings are not perfect. Therefore, to Anselm, the fact that finite, imperfect humans have a conception of a perfect being lends evidence to the fact that this perfect being–God–does, in fact, exist.

As history relates, Anselm’s argument was quickly dismantled by his antagonists. Guanilo, for example, mocked Anselm’s theory by using the example of “the perfect island,” asserting that the mere imagining of a “perfect island” by no means necessitates or proves its existence. However, what both Anselm and Guanilo miss is that it is the function and nature of human language—not the limitations of human epistemology—which renders Anselm’s argument moot.

Consider Anselm’s statement about God: “God is the being than whom no greater being can be imagined.” The beginning problem with such a proposition is that its very criterion is dependent upon human language. Determining the attributes of “greatest of all beings” requires an appeal to human descriptive language, and the greatness of God is delineated on the basis of these stated attributes. However, how does human language gain access to these attributes? Again, the very categorizing of properly “divine” attributes is dependent upon the absolutizing of human language about, suprise suprise!, human attributes. In this sense, the language by which one describes God is not truly reflective of the divine nature in an absolute sense, but is merely the infinitized form of human language about human experience. In such a scenario, God, at best, is the “biggest human,” or, at worst, has an existence dependent upon human consciousness.

The obvious dilemma that this creates is that propositionalizing about God necessitates a functional, if not actual, affirmation of the eternality of that which is “other” than God. After all, if God is said to be “such and such” litany of attributes that are merely the infinitized and absolutized versions of human attributes, there is no possible way in which to speak about God apart from that which God is affirmed to have created. In this sense, the Creator is dependent upon the creation, if nothing else, to simply exist within human language.

Another more generic example would be the biblical language of “God is love.” The truthfulness of this statement is not disputed by many, and any objections would not be to the linguistic construction of the statement, but would rather proceed along the lines of arguing that God is “x” other than “love.” However, if we look at the utilization of the language in this propositional statement, the anthropologically absolutizing nature of human language is seen to be deviously present. If one says, “God is love,” the presence of the qualifier “is” represents that a comparison is being made---the nature of “God” is delineated by the qualifier “love.” Alternatively, the phraseology of the statement could be just as accurately deployed as follows: “God exhibits all those characteristics and/or is composed (in nature) in such a way that God can be said to be equivalent, or wholly like unto the characteristics and/or composition (in nature) of love.”

Do we see what has happened in this statement, however? In the attempt to propositionalize about God, we have alternatively asserted that there is something to which God can be compared. But by necessity, if there is something by which the character of God can be adjudicated, we must naturally conclude that this qualifier is independent in nature from God and/or greater than or equal to God such that it is appropriate that God be likened unto “x.” In the case of the propositional statement, “God is love,” our linguistic construction, if literalized, affirms that this category of “love” is conceived to exist in such a way that it can be taken independently of God, and that God may be spoken of as fulfilling, in nature, the particular characteristics which would create the propriety of equating God with the property of love.

The above is said not for the intention of evacuating all meaning from phrases such as “God is love.” On a practical, functional level, it would seem apparent that the affirmation of “God is love” is not meant to convey that God is equal in nature (and substance?) to an independent property such as “love.” Rather, the phrase is deployed simply as a description–i.e., we have a notion of “love” and conceptualize God to be the height and, in fact, source of the same.

At the same time, however, this brief examination of human language in relation to the divine does highlight an important consideration: that is, we must always use extreme caution in how definitively and propositionally we affirm human language to encapsulate or even represent truth-statements about the divine nature. As our language will always fall short, simply by virtue of its finitude and anthropocentric nature, we cannot uncritically deploy language about the divine while concomitantly assuming that we have spoken something absolute or truth-encapsulating.

Conclusion

If the above-referenced lines of thinking are reasonable, how then should we pursue language about the divine? In closing, I would offer two suggestions.

1.) Our language must allow that God has existence apart from human language and experience. While this may seem like a foregone conclusion, the ways in which we deploy language about the divine often betrays this fact. If our language, and subsequent theologizing, cannot rise above (or below, as it may be) the tendency to resolve the divine upon the altars of linguistic absolutization and propositionalizing, we will forever speak only of ourselves; God will be merely a linguistic category that contains the trumped up self-evaluation of the human ego.

2.) Counter-intuitively enough, I believe the first suggestion is resolved in the second, that is, that our language of the divine must be thoroughly Christological. As Christians affirm, Christ, the eternal Logos of God as Incarnate in the person of Jesus, is the self-revelation of God. Yet interestingly enough, this self-revelation of the divine occurs on the level of human finitude, a level of messiness, imprecision, and contradictoriness. While the Incarnate nature of God’s self-revelation will certainly heighten the temptation for anthropologically exclusive language about the divine, it will also, if pursued circumspectly, mitigate significantly against the same, for any “sure” propositionalizing about the divine, eternal nature will require consideration of a bloody cross.

Before letting off, I must extend my thanks to Tim for spurring some of these ideas in my brain. For some interesting posts that he has made on these issues, see this post, as well as this one.

Tagged Book List

Okay, I've recently been "tagged" to reveal a book list. Here it is. I am also tagging 5 others (listed at the bottom). Do it now.

1. One book that changed your life :
Fear and Trembling, by Soren Kierkegaard

2. One book you've read more than once:
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams

3. One book you'd want on a deserted island:
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, by Susanna Clarke

4. One book that made you laugh:
The Attributes of God, by A.W. Pink

5. One book that made you cry (or feel really sad):
Where the Red Fern Grows, by Wilson Rowes

6. One book that you wish had been written:
Harry Potter: The Horcrux of Time [Book 7], by J.K. Rowling (It’s taking FOREVER for the seventh and last book to come out!!!)

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
None. I’m glad for every book that’s been written. Better that books be written than not.

8. One book you're currently reading:
The Poe Shadow, by Matthew Pearl

9. One book you've been meaning to read:
Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, by Soren Kierkegaard

Okay. Here's my tagged 5, now 6:

deviant monk

mofast manna

nathan crawford

fides cogitat

benrambling

biblio baggins

God of the Feminine - Reflections on Genesis 1:26-27

As I have been studying the numerous connections between the structures and themes within the Hebrew Scriptures and other ancient Near Eastern literature, I have been particularly drawn towards the correlations between the respective creation stories. Although the Genesis text is by far the most popular creation text, there are numerous others that share very similar features that presumably influenced the final form of the Genesis text. One interesting feature of the creation-epic literature of the ancient Near East is the dual role of masculine and feminine divine figures in the act of creation. In numerous stories, gendered gods and goddesses are utilized to describe the unique way in which the creation came to be.

As I have been reflecting upon the significance of the identification of the masculine and feminine in the ANE creation stories, an interesting thought occurred to me: perhaps this male/female connection exists within the biblical text as well. The primary candidate for such a consideration, I believe, is Genesis 1:26-27:

“Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

The most immediately apparent feature of the Genesis narrative is that God is pictured—in opposition to many other ANE creation accounts—as a solitary creator. However, when one gets to verse 26, the solitariness is suddenly fractured as God uses the self-referential “Us.”

Growing up, I was taught the “classic” interpretative approaches to explain this “plurality” in the identity of God. They are as follows:

1.) This is a sort of Old Testament Trinitarian revelation: While a popular notion amongst Christians, such an interpretation would seem to make little sense to the Hebrews who were attempting—through the very nature of this creation account—to counter the polytheistic creation epics of the surrounding nations.

2.) The use of the plural is a form of “royal” address; i.e., kings often refer to themselves in the plural in official pronouncements, correspondence, laws, etc.: A better option than 1.), it is odd that this is the singular occurrence of such self-reference.

3.) The use of the plural “us” is God speaking to the angelic host: Probably better than 1.) and 2.), this theory seems to cohere somewhat with the testimony in Psalms that humanity has been made “a little lower” than the angels. However, as with 1.), there does seem to be a distinct danger of presenting a polytheistic conception of the manner of creation, as if the angels are somehow co-creators with the one God.

While I do not presume to be able to rebut any one of the three options presented above, I would like to suggest a fourth alternative, which follows below.

As noted in the opening paragraph, many of ANE creation epics utilized both male and female divine beings in the acts of creation. Rather than simply reflecting the make-up of the various pantheons of ancient thought, the inclusion of both the male and female deities had a very intense theological purpose. After all, by describing the creation of all from the creative works of the masculine and feminine, the ancients had a coherent and comprehensive means of describing both the differences and value of both the masculine and the feminine in relation to human personhood. In short, these stories were not simply fantastic mythology that meant to entertain; rather, the stories reflected the people’s thinking about the very depths of personhood, and what it means to be gendered. While some may scoff at the way in which the ancients provided answers to these very existential questions, it is obvious that these stories communicated a very real and meaningful set of ideas about the nature, value and function of human gender and sexuality.

If we keep these considerations in mind, we must conclude that these same needs to communicate belief and instruction about the origin, nature and function of human sexuality and gender were prescient for the writers of the biblical creation stories.

It is upon this basis that I would suggest an alternative interpretation of Genesis 1:26. Could it be that the “us” of verse 26 does not refer to the Triune nature of God, a royal proclamation, or a conversation with the angelic host? Could it be that the divine “us” of 26 is a metaphorical recasting of the divine person as masculine and feminine? While this conclusion might seem somewhat odd at first glance, verse 27 brings it into focus. This verse affirms that both “male and female” are created in the divine image. If this is indeed true, could not the “us” of 26 refer to the metaphorical masculinity and femininity of the divine in whose image the human couple is created?

In response, one might argue that such a separation is susceptible to the same charges of polytheism to which option 1.) appears to be prone. I do not think this is necessary, however, for the narratival positing of masculinity and femininity in the nature of God need not be substantival for the writers of the Hebrew narrative. Rather, even as the male and female humans are ultimately created to become “one flesh” (2:24), so also are the masculine and feminine in the divine the “one God.” And even as the two-ness of human creation is reflective of the one divine nature, so the one divine Creator’s image is self-referential for the two-made-one-ness of the male and the female creation.

If this interpretation is reasonably close to the author’s intention, I think it is a stroke of genius on the writer’s behalf. After all, in maintaining the solitariness of Yahweh as Creator, the writer has completely overturned the polytheism of similar creation epics, infusing the Hebrew narrative with a radical and audacious claim about the particularity of the identity of true God over and against the pantheons of the gods and goddesses of the surrounding nations. Moreover, the writer has managed to retain the crucially important existential issues about the origin, nature and function of human sexuality and gender. Yet he has done so without resorting to compartmentalizing gender within the identity of particular deific figures; rather, in a brilliant literary stroke, the author has revealed that Yahweh, the true God who is one, encapsulates human gender in such a way that particularity can exist while concomitantly affirming the identically primal source of gender and existence in the life of Yahweh. In this way, the writer affirms that not only does Yahweh encapsulate human sexuality and gender, but moreover Yahweh transcends the limitations of both, for Yahweh cannot be reduced to or identified with one or the other. Rather, Yahweh is the source of both; the divine image, free and unbounded, in reflected in the diversity of both the masculine and the feminine.

Calvinism, a Syllogism, and the Origin of Evil

Those who affirm the canons of Calvinistic philosophy often laud the “logical” coherence of its systematic formulation. In this post, I would like to turn the tables on this methodological assumption, showing how Calvinistic philosophy, while perhaps “logical,” leads to a horribly perverse image of the divine nature and will of God. I shall do this through a syllogistic form and shall concentrate upon the origin of evil.

A: God has eternally decreed all that comes to pass.
B: That which God decrees proceeds from the free and boundless will of God.
C: The will of God is essential with God’s being.

Proposition: Evil exists.

Therefore:

A: Because God has eternally decreed that evil should exist, or come to pass:
B: Because the existence and perpetuity of evil proceeds from the free and boundless will of God.
C: Because the will of God is essential with God’s being;
D: It is logically concluded that evil is essential with the being of God.

In response, I suspect a couple different approaches may (and will) be taken. I assume many will argue with the relationship between “will” and “being.” Note that I have carefully qualified the language: “essential with.” I think this prevents a bifurcating of will and being, while also avoiding conflating them en toto.

With that caveat, some may object that the syllogism doesn’t stand because it is based upon a pejorative argument; i.e., if “evil exists” were replaced with the less negative “humans exist,” perhaps the syllogism would fall. While I considered this in my statement of the syllogism, I eventually decided to proceed, for my issue with Calvinistic philosophy is not limited to its inadequate accounting for the existence of evil, but more importantly is directed against the concept of “eternal decrees” altogether. I think the entire notion of eternal decrees is philosophically untenable not only in reference to origin of evil, but also in relation to everything else that is not “God.” In other words, replacing “evil” with “puppies” creates just as horrid of a picture of God, for puppies are no more essential to the nature of God than is evil. When speaking of God, we must avoid an all-too-easy anthropological reductionism. That is, we must allow for the reality that God’s existence is not dependant upon nor qualified by God’s relationship to creation. While this may be difficult or perhaps even impossible to express through human language (which is, by default, anthropologically qualified at every level), we must resist capitulating our conception of the eternality of God to the limitations of our means of expressing it. This is, in my opinion, where Calvinistic philosophy fundamentally fails, for it makes that which should be metaphorical and mysterious into rigid propositional statements and affirmations. By doing so, however, Calvinism has adopted a thoroughly human-centric approach to speaking about God, one which necessarily makes that which God has ordained intrinsically essential to the very being and nature of God.

Erasmus on James

As most students of historical theology will note, Erasmus has often been ignored within Protestant theological study because of Luther's fierce polemics against him. Despite this neglect, I think Erasmus has some very interesting insights into the nature of faith. I recently ran across this excerpt from Erasmus’ Paraphrase of the New Testament. This selection, from the book of James, powerfully captures the intimate and indivisible nature of faith and action.

But what is faith without love? Love moreover is a living thing; it does not go on holiday; it is not idle; it expresses itself in kind acts wherever it is present. If these acts are lacking, my brothers, I ask you, will the empty word “faith” save a person? Faith which does not work through love is unproductive; no, it is faith in name only. An example here will make clear what I mean. If someone says blandly to a brother or a sister who lacks clothing or daily food, “Depart in peace, keep warm, and remember to eat well,” and after saying this, gives him or her none of the things the body needs, will his fine talk be of any use to the ones in need? They will be no less cold and hungry for all his fine talk, which is of no help to their need. He gives them only verbal support, but does nothing in actual fact. A profession of faith will certainly be equally useless if it consists only of words and does nothing except remain inactive as though dead. It should no more be called faith than a human corpse merits the name of human being. Love is to faith what the soul is to the body. Take away love and the word faith is like something dead and inert. It will do you no more good before God to confess in words an idle faith than fine speech benefits a neighbor in need when he must be helped with action. People think they are being mocked when you say to them, “Keep warm and well fed,” and give them neither food nor clothing. Just so, the person who offers no tangible proofs of his faith but repeats every day, “I believe in God, I believe in God,” seems to be mocking God. A person who gives lip-service to love possesses a fruitless charity. In the same way a person whose belief is only a matter of words possesses a faith that serves no purpose.

Quotation from Achtemeier, Paul J., Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson, Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Message. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 2001, p. 510.

More Correlations Between the Hebrew Scriptures and Ancient Near-Eastern Literature

Continuing in my research concerning the parallels between Hebrew and other ancient Near Eastern writing, I would like to share some additional interesting correlations in some of the texts. In the following, I have quoted, at length, the various texts under considerations. At the end of each section is a concluding discussion about similarities. I would point the reader in the direction of these if they do not wish to read the cited texts at length.

The Birth of Moses and The Sargon Legend:

The Birth of Moses

Now a man from the house of Levi went and married a daughter of Levi. The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw that he was beautiful, she hid him for three months. But when she could hide him no longer, she got him a wicker basket and covered it over with tar and pitch Then she put the child into it and set it among the reeds by the bank of the Nile. His sister stood at a distance to find out what would happen to him. The daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the Nile, with her maidens walking alongside the Nile; and she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid, and she brought it to her. When she opened it, she saw the child, and behold, the boy was crying. And she had pity on him and said, "This is one of the Hebrews' children." Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and call a nurse for you from the Hebrew women that she may nurse the child for you?" Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go ahead." So the girl went and called the child's mother. Then Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Take this child away and nurse him for me and I will give you your wages." So the woman took the child and nursed him.

(Exodus 2:1-9 NASB)

The Sargon Legend

Sargon, strong king, king of Agade, am I. My mother was a high priestess, my father I do not know. My paternal kin inhabit the mountain region. My city (of birth) is Azupiranu, which lies on the bank of the Euphrates. My mother, a high priestess, conceived me, in secret she bore me. She placed me in a reed basket, with bitumen she caulked my hatch. She abandoned me to the river from which I could not escape. The river carried me along: to Aqqi, the water drawer, it brought me. Aqqi, the water drawer, when immersing his bucket lifted me up. Aqqi, the water drawer, raised me as his adopted son. Aqqi, the water drawer, set me to his garden work. During my garden work, Istar loved me (so that) 55 years I ruled as king.

(Brian Lewis, The Sargon Legend (American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978)

Observations:

Obviously, there are many differences between the texts. One of the most apparent is the identity of the rescuer of the water-bound infant boys. In Moses' story, the savior is Pharoah's daughter, while Sargon is rescued by Aqqi, the water bearer.

Though there are differences, there are also many very conspicuous similarities.

1.) Both mothers are identified with the priestly class. Sargon's mother is identified as the "highpriestess," while Moses' mother is a "dauther of Levi" (who will later become the priestly class).

2.) Both mothers raise their sons in secret, later to abandon them to the water.

3.) Both texts make explicit reference to the means used to secure the baskets for travel upon the waters. Despite conjecture about the possibility of "exposure," it seems more likely that such detailed preparation would be intended for the survival, not disposal, of the child.

4.) Both texts culminate with royal implications. In the Birth of Moses, Moses is raised in the royal palace, while Sargon is identified as becoming king and reigning for 55 years.

Creation Epics:

As scholars have long known, there are numerous correlations between the Hebrew creation epics and earlier Near-Eastern creation mythology. Consider the following:

The Assur Bilingual Creation Story

1. The holy house, the house of the gods in the holy place had not yet bene made.
2. No reed had sprung up, not tree had been made.
3. No brick had been laid, no structure of brick had been erected.
4. No house had been made, no city had been built.
5. No city had been made, no creature had been constituted.
6. Enlil’s city (i.e., Nippur) had not been made, Ekur had not been built.
7. Erech had not been made, E-Anna had not been built.
8. The Deep (or Abyss) had not been made, Eridu had not been built.
9. Of the holy house, the house of the gods, the dwelling-place had not been made.
10. All the lands were sea.
11. At the time that the mid-most sea was [shaped like] a trough,
12. At that time Eridu was made, and E-sagil was built.
13. The E-sagil, where in thd midst of the Deep the god Lugal-dul-azaga dwelleth.
14. Babylon was made, E-sagil was completed.
15. The gods the Anunnaki he created at one time.
16. They proclaimed supreme the holy city, the dwelling of their heart’s happiness.
17. Marduk laid a rush mat upon the face of the waters.
18. He mixed up earth and moulded it upon the rush mat,
19. To enable the gods to dwell in the place where they would fain be
20. He fashioned man
21. The goddess Aruru with him created the seed of mankind
22. He created the beasts of the field and [all] the living things in the field.
23. He created the river Idiglat (Tigris) and the river Purattu (Euphrates), and he set them in their places,
24. He proclaimed their names rightly.
25. He created grass, the vegetation of the march, seed and shrub;
26. He created the green plants of the plain,
27. Lands, marshes swamps,
28. The wild cow and the calf she carried, the wild calf, the sheep and the young she carried, the lamb of the fold,
29. Plantations and shrub land,
30. The he-goat and the mountain goat...
31. The lord Marduk piled up a dam in the region of the sea (i.e., he reclaimed land)
32. He...a swamp, he founded a marsh.
33. ...he made to be.
34. Reeds he created, trees he created,
35. ...in place he created
36. He laid bricks, he built a brick-work,
37. He constructed houses, he formed cities.
38. He constructed cities, creatures he set [therein].
39. Nippur he made, E-Kur he built.
40. [Erech he mad, E-Anna] he built.
    

Genesis 1

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
5. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."
7. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
8. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.
10. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the landthat bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
12. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14. And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
15. and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
16. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
18. to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20. And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
21. So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
23. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
25. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and femalehe created them.
28. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29. Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
30. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Correlations:

As seen, there are several very interesting correlations between these two creation epics. A few of the similarities are as follows:

1.) In both epics, the original state of the universe is characterized as “empty” (“without form, void” [Genesis], lack of “building” [Assur]), except for the abundance of waters (Assur 10, Genesis 1:2).

2.) Both epics make reference to the existence of “The Deep” [Abyss] (Assur 8, Genesis 1:2)

3.) In each of the original creations, the drama unfolds near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

4.) In both accounts, “earth” is considered a “breaking” of the waters; in Genesis, the waters are “gathered” and dry ground appears, while is Assur, ground is built upon a “rush mat” that has been placed upon the waters. In each case, water is the primaeval substance that is somehow manipulated to account for the presence of land.

5.) Both epics recount the creation of “celestial bodies” (the sun, moon and stars in Genesis and the various gods and goddesses of the pantheon in Assur).

6.) Each account have an interesting order of creation of living things: Assur proceeds human–animal–plant, while Genesis inverts this order, plant–animal–human.

7.) There is also a potential correlation in the dual-deity creation of humanity. In Assur, Marduk and the goddess Aruru combine powers to create humanity. While Yahweh in Genesis is alone, there is an interesting exchange in the creation of humanity when Yahweh proclaims, “Let us,” using a plural pronoun to refer to the creative activity. Moreover, the creation of the male and female in the “image of God” could suggest an allusion to the feminine.

Flood Myths:

The Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI

1. The hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the Flood.
2. Their Father Anu uttered the oath (of secrecy),
3. Valiant Enlil was their Adviser,
4. Ninurta was their Chamberlain,
5. Ennugi was their Minister of Canals.
6. Ea, the Clever Prince(?), was under oath with them
7. so he repeated their talk to the reed house:
8. 'Reed house, reed house! Wall, wall!
9. O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
10. Tear down the house and build a boat!
11. Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
12. Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
13. Make all living beings go up into the boat.
14. The boat which you are to build,
15. its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
16. its length must correspond to its width.
17. Roof it over like the Apsu.
18. I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea:
19. 'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered
20. I will heed and will do it.
21. But what shall I answer the city, the populace, and the Elders!'
22. Ea spoke, commanding me, his servant:
23. 'You, well then, this is what you must say to them:
24. "It appears that Enlil is rejecting me
25. so I cannot reside in your city (?),
26. nor set foot on Enlil's earth.
27. I will go down to the Apsu to live with my lord, Ea,
28. and upon you he will rain down abundance,
29. a profusion of fowl, myriad(!) fishes.
30. He will bring to you a harvest of wealth,
31. in the morning he will let loaves of bread shower down,
32. and in the evening a rain of wheat!"'
33. Just as dawn began to glow
34. the land assembled around me-
35. the carpenter carried his hatchet,
36. the reed worker carried his (flattening) stone,
37. ... the men ...
38. The child carried the pitch,
39. the weak brought whatever else was needed.
40. On the fifth day I laid out her exterior.
41. It was a field in area,
42. its walls were each 10 times 12 cubits in height,
43. the sides of its top were of equal length, 10 times It cubits each.
44. I laid out its (interior) structure and drew a picture of it (?).
45. I provided it with six decks,
46. thus dividing it into seven (levels).
47. The inside of it I divided into nine (compartments).
48. I drove plugs (to keep out) water in its middle part.
49. I saw to the punting poles and laid in what was necessary.
50. Three times 3,600 (units) of raw bitumen I poured into the bitumen kiln,
51. three times 3,600 (units of) pitch ...into it,
52. there were three times 3,600 porters of casks who carried (vegetable) oil,
53. apart from the 3,600 (units of) oil which they consumed (!)
54. and two times 3,600 (units of) oil which the boatman stored away.
55. I butchered oxen for the meat(!),
56. and day upon day I slaughtered sheep.
57. I gave the workmen(?) ale, beer, oil, and wine, as if it were river water,
58. so they could make a party like the New Year's Festival.
59. ... and I set my hand to the oiling(!).
60. The boat was finished by sunset.
61. The launching was very difficult.
62. They had to keep carrying a runway of poles front to back,
63. until two-thirds of it had gone into the water(?).
64. Whatever I had I loaded on it:
65. whatever silver I had I loaded on it,
66. whatever gold I had I loaded on it.
67. All the living beings that I had I loaded on it,
68. I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat,
69. all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I had go up.
70. Shamash had set a stated time:
71. 'In the morning I will let loaves of bread shower down,
72. and in the evening a rain of wheat!
73. Go inside the boat, seal the entry!'
74. That stated time had arrived.
75. In the morning he let loaves of bread shower down,
76. and in the evening a rain of wheat.
77. I watched the appearance of the weather--
78. the weather was frightful to behold!
79. I went into the boat and sealed the entry.
80. For the caulking of the boat, to Puzuramurri, the boatman,
81. I gave the palace together with its contents.
82. Just as dawn began to glow
83. there arose from the horizon a black cloud.
84. Adad rumbled inside of it,
85. before him went Shullat and Hanish,
86. heralds going over mountain and land.
87. Erragal pulled out the mooring poles,
88. forth went Ninurta and made the dikes overflow.
89. The Anunnaki lifted up the torches,
90. setting the land ablaze with their flare.
91. Stunned shock over Adad's deeds overtook the heavens,
92. and turned to blackness all that had been light.
93. The... land shattered like a... pot.
94. All day long the South Wind blew ...,
95. blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water,
96. overwhelming the people like an attack.
97. No one could see his fellow,
98. they could not recognize each other in the torrent.
99. The gods were frightened by the Flood,
100. and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu.
101. The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall.
102. Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth,
103. the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed:
104. 'The olden days have alas turned to clay,
105. because I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods!
106. How could I say evil things in the Assembly of the Gods,
107. ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people!!
108. No sooner have I given birth to my dear people
109. than they fill the sea like so many fish!'
110. The gods--those of the Anunnaki--were weeping with her,
111. the gods humbly sat weeping, sobbing with grief(?),
112. their lips burning, parched with thirst.
113. Six days and seven nights
114. came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land.
115. When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding,
116. the flood was a war--struggling with itself like a woman writhing (in labor).
117. The sea calmed, fell still, the whirlwind (and) flood stopped up.
118. I looked around all day long--quiet had set in
119. and all the human beings had turned to clay!
120. The terrain was as flat as a roof.
121. I opened a vent and fresh air (daylight!) fell upon the side of my nose.
122. I fell to my knees and sat weeping,
123. tears streaming down the side of my nose.
124. I looked around for coastlines in the expanse of the sea,
125. and at twelve leagues there emerged a region (of land).
126. On Mt. Nimush the boat lodged firm,
127. Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
128. One day and a second Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
129. A third day, a fourth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
130. A fifth day, a sixth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
131. When a seventh day arrived
132. I sent forth a dove and released it.
133. The dove went off, but came back to me;
134. no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
135. I sent forth a swallow and released it.
136. The swallow went off, but came back to me;
137. no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
138. I sent forth a raven and released it.
139. The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.
140. It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.
141. Then I sent out everything in all directions and sacrificed (a sheep).
142. I offered incense in front of the mountain-ziggurat.
143. Seven and seven cult vessels I put in place,
144. and (into the fire) underneath (or: into their bowls) I poured reeds, cedar, and myrtle.
145. The gods smelled the savor,
146. the gods smelled the sweet savor,
147. and collected like flies over a (sheep) sacrifice.
148. Just then Beletili arrived.
149. She lifted up the large flies (beads) which Anu had made for his enjoyment(!):
150. 'You gods, as surely as I shall not forget this lapis lazuli around my neck,
151. may I be mindful of these days, and never forget them

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

Genesis 6:9-8:22; 9:12-17*

1. The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
2. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
3. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."
4. But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
5. This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
6. Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
7. Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence.
8. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.
9. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
10. So make yourself an ark of cypress [c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.
11. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. [d]
12. Make a roof for it and finish [e] the ark to within 18 inches [f] of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.
13. I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
14. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you.
15. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
16. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
17. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
18. Noah did everything just as God commanded him.
19. The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.
20. Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,
21. and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
22. Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
23. And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him.
24. Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.
25. And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.
26. Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,
27. male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.
28. And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
29. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
30. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
31. On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.
32. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings.
33. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.
34. The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
35. For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth.
36. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
37. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
38. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b] , [c]
39. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.
40. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
41. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
42. The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
43. But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded.
44. Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.
45. The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down,
46. and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
47. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
48. After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark
49. and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth.
50. Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.
51. But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark.
52. He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark.
53. When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.
54. He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.
55. By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry.
56. By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.
57. Then God said to Noah,
58. "Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives.
59. Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it."
60. So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons' wives.
61. All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds—everything that moves on the earth—came out of the ark, one kind after another.
62. Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.
63. The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
64. "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."
65. And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come:
66. I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
67. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds,
68. I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.
69. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."
70. So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."

* I have numbered these lines as a single text for ease of citation below.

Correlations:

1.) In each story, the protagonist is warned by a deity about the impending flood (Epic, 8-13; Genesis 9).

2.) Each protagonist is given explicit instructions about the building of a boat, from the materials to be used, to the size that the boat is supposed to encompass (Epic, 33-60; Genesis, 10-12).

3.) Both protagonists are commanded to take into the boats their families and animals, as well as provisions for their journey (Epic, 64-69; Genesis, 14-21)

4.) In each, the protagonists are told explicitly when the flood will come, “tomorrow morning” (Epic) and “in seven days” (Genesis).

5.) Both stories note the length of the flood (seven days, Epis, 113-117; forty days and nights, Genesis, 35).

6.) In each account, we are told that those who were not on the ark were destroyed (Epic, 119; Genesis, 39-41).

7.) In each account, the boats comes to rest on mountain tops (Epic, 126-130; Genesis, 46).

8.) After the floods, the protagonists each send out, birds to search for dry ground, a dove, swallow and raven in Epic, and a raven and three doves in Genesis.

9.) Both protagonists, after finding dry ground, offer sacrifices to the deities (Epic, 142-147; Genesis, 62).

10.) As a sign of remembrance of the flood, the goddess Beletili (Istar) is given a colorful necklace of lapis lazuli; in the Genesis account, a rainbow is placed in the heavens.

CONCLUSIONS:

Throughout this informal "series" of postings on the correlations between the Hebrew Scriptures and other ancient Near-Eastern literature, I have continually raised the question, "What does this mean for the person that believes in the "inspiration" of Scripture?" After all, if the correlations noted above are even remotely tenable, we must conclude that at least some of the content in the Hebrew Scriptures 1.) directly borrows from other literature extant at the time of composition or 2.) borrows conceptually from common stories that existed in the cultural consciousness of the Mesopotamian peoples (and their descendants).

Obviously, one could assert, on the basis of a philosophical presupposition about the Hebrew texts, that every other ancient Near-Eastern story that shares common features is a copy or perversion of the original Hebrew story. The immediate problem one faces with this theory, however, is that much of the Near-Eastern examplars predate the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures and were produced by nations/peoples that were much larger and more powerful (and therefore, more internationally influential) than the Hebrews, even at the height of their power. Another major problem with such an assertion is that it is historically reductionistic in that it divorces the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures from the historical contexts in which the writers lived. It further suggests that the world history which the rest of the nations before and at the time of the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures affirmed within their mythical/religious/historical writings was formed and experienced exclusively by the Hebrew peoples. Such a perspective, as already noted, anachronistically assumes an influence upon world history and literature that is entirely disproportionate with the size and impact of Hebrew culture in the ancient world.

If these conclusions are reasonable, what then do we do with the presence of common ancient Near-Eastern mythos in the writings of the Hebrews? I would suggest that closer attention should be paid not to the supposed "originality" of the stories and epics in Hebrew literature, but rather to the way in which the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures deployed these stories.

For example, as a cursory comparison of the creation and flood epics will reveal, while there are numerous and undeniable similarities, there are also extremely crucial differences. For example, in the Assur creation epic, Enlil and Marduk create within the concert of the pantheon of the gods. In the Hebrew text, however, Yahweh is the sole creative personality (even the mention of the potential reference to another deity in the plural address mentioned above does not explicitly detract from Yahweh's "alone-ness" in creation). Morever, in the flood epic of Gilgamesh, the pantheon once again emerges, and the movements of the natural world are attributed to their actions and desires. In the flood narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures, Yahweh is again alone, and the devastation which occurs is the result of natural phenomenon.

As seen, both writers deploy a common epic understanding of world history and cosmological origins. However, the Hebrew writer departs significantly in the way these stories are deployed. Instead of following the identification of natural processes with deitific figures, the Hebrew writer, true to the monotheistic cultus of Hebrew thought, attributes all creation to Yahweh, yet creates a differentiation between Yahweh and the natural processes. In other words, although Yahweh controls the natural order, the natural order is not Yahweh.

In light of the fact that all other Near Eastern creation narratives and flood epics follow the Assur and Gilgamesh epics in their utilization of the pantheonic presence, the Hebrew text stands out significantly in revising the meaning of these events, attributing all to Yahweh alone. To those ancients who were thoroughly ingrained with the common pantheon-istic understanding of the creation and flood, such a departure would have been radical, to say the least. Such a revision strikes at the very heart and tradition of the common stories of the ancient peoples, reimagining them as the story of sovereign Yahweh in the context of human history. Moreover, from the creation epics to the flood story, the Hebrew writers pursued a demythologizistic hermeneutic, refusing to locate the natural forces of the world with divine beings.

From my perspective, it is at this level that the concept of "inspiration" is engaged. While it is true that many changes were made in ancient stories for propogandistic purposes, these revisions usually involved the changing of names and locations. What we find in the Hebrew readaptations, however, is a reordering of the entire complex of theistic belief. Rather than simply trading the pantheon for Yahweh, the Hebrew writers are reinventing these stories from a drastically different theological perspective. By appropriating these stories and calling them their own, the writers are, in a sense, appropriating human history and showing that it is Yahweh who is true God.

Therefore, while we may not be able to affirm every story of the Hebrew Scriptures as "historical" (which many equate with "inspired"), this does not prevent us from affirming the inspiration of these documents. If we follow the perspective outlined above, I think the concept of inspiration takes on an even more powerful meaning. After all, the redeployment of the ancient stories of humanity as the story of Yahweh is a radical claim; it asserts that all of human life--even its myths, legends, epics, imaginations, etc.--are claimed by and encapsulated by Yahweh, the true God.