Enns and the historicity of the OT

[sotzo]

I'm trying to gain an understanding from those more "in the know" of Enns' critics as to how they deal with the historicity of the OT in light of ancient texts like the Enuma Elish...can anyone give a link or a general overview of how Enns' critics resolve / compare the OT events in light of these other ANE texts?

 

[sotzo]

bump

 

[Ravens]

Here is a post dealing with this very issue that I made in the Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle? thread:

As someone who has taken a deep interest in world mythologies throughout my life, I realize that a "cosmogonic link" could be established between the creation account of almost any given culture and the account given in Scripture. In my opinion there is no extraordinarily uncommon similarity between the ANE and the Biblical accounts that one could not find in other cultures. Example.

Quote:

Voluspa:

3: Young were the years when Ymir made his settlement,
there was no sand nor sea nor cool waves;
earth was nowhere nor the sky above,
chaos yawned, grass was there nowhere.

4: First the sons of Bur brought up the earth,
the glorious ones who shaped the world between;
the sun shone from the south on the hall of stones,
then the soil was grown over with green plants.

5: From the south, Sun, companion of the moon,
threw her right hand round the edge of heaven;
Sun did not know where her hall might be,
the starts did not know where their place might be,
the moon did not know what power he had.

6: Then all the Powers went to the thrones of fate,
the sacrosanct gods, and considered this:
to night and her children they gave names,
morning they named and midday,
afternoon and evening, to reckon up the years.

***

17: Until three gods, strong and loving,
came from that company to the world;
they found on land Ash and Embla,
capable of little, lacking in fate.

18: Breath they had not, spirit they had not,
character nor vital spark nor fresh complexions;
breath gave Odin, spirit gave Haenir,
vital spark gave Lodur, and fresh complexions.

Taken from the Poetic Edda, translated by Carolyne Larrington, pp. 4, 6.

I've known of the Voluspa since I was a teenager dabbling in Asatru, but I never thought about the sequence of events until the past couple of days. Note the sequence:

1) Chaos: Without quibbling over words, I think it is fair to portray stanza 3 as a chaotic situation. Snorri seems to speak of a chaotic Ginnungagap between Niflheim and Muspell. No differentiation, no earth, no sky, no sea, just yawning chaos.

2) The Earth: It says that the sons of Bur "brought up the earth". As she notes in the foreward, in some Norse poems, the earth was made from the body of Ymir, and in some cases it was brought up from the sea. So at least in some Norse traditions, this earth was "brought up from the sea". If I felt rowdy I'd make a fun comparison between the destruction of Ymir and Tiamat and the construction of the earth, but I'll pass.

3) Plants: At the end of the fourth stanza, plant life is mentioned. The soil is grown over with plants.

4) Sun, Moon, Stars: Incredibly, the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, is the very next stanza. Even more incredibly, the explicit purpose of their creation is "to reckon up the years."

5) Creation of Man: Three gods then create man and woman. From Snorri we learn that they were made from two trees. Notice that the fundamental things they lacked were breath and spirit. So, a "Divine Council" [sic] if you will, creates man from pre-existing elements, through the medium of giving divine breath and spirit.

To recap:

1) Chaos
2) Earth rises from Sea
3) Plants cover earth
4) Creation of sun, moon, and stars, to "reckon up the years."
5) Creation of man via the impartation of divine breath

I daresay that there are just as many, if not more, thematic and substantial parallels between Genesis 1 and the Voluspa as there are between Genesis 1 and the Enuma Elish.

There is nothing unique, in my opinion, about the connection between Genesis and the Enuma Elish that constitutes dependence or polemic. At the end of the day one would have to base his entire argument, unless I am mistaken, on nothing more than geological proximity. Similar to the case of evolution, all "transitional forms" of mangled creation documents or tablets are missing, and one is left, really, with an ipse dixit, at least as I see it.

I typed out the Voluspa by hand, so from this point on, I'll use internet sources for some of the Native American legends:

Kiowa Apache: "In the beginning nothing existed--no earth, no sky, no sun, no moon, only darkness was everywhere." The Creator next went on to create Light, followed by the Earth. Google the Cherokee, Creek, Inuit, and other legends, and you'll see a same theme, namely, chaos and/or water being the primal element, followed by the creation of all other things.

Some of the Hindu myths, the Japanese myths, and the Egyptian myths, as well as some African myths, also start out with either chaos, water, or, at times, "chaos/water."

Some cultures reflect and retain the original sequence more than others. In some, animals already exist, in others, the earth is created prior to the seas, but in many cases the sequence is stunning.

Even Ovid, despite being entangled by the Five Element view, seems to reflect the very same order:

The Creation of the World

Of bodies chang'd to various forms, I sing:
Ye Gods, from whom these miracles did spring,
Inspire my numbers with coelestial heat;
'Till I my long laborious work compleat:
And add perpetual tenour to my rhimes,
Deduc'd from Nature's birth, to Caesar's times.
Before the seas, and this terrestrial ball,
And Heav'n's high canopy, that covers all,
One was the face of Nature; if a face:
Rather a rude and indigested mass:
A lifeless lump, unfashion'd, and unfram'd,
Of jarring seeds; and justly Chaos nam'd.
No sun was lighted up, the world to view;
No moon did yet her blunted horns renew:
Nor yet was Earth suspended in the sky,
Nor pois'd, did on her own foundations lye:
Nor seas about the shores their arms had thrown;
But earth, and air, and water, were in one.
Thus air was void of light, and earth unstable,
And water's dark abyss unnavigable.
No certain form on any was imprest;
All were confus'd, and each disturb'd the rest.
For hot and cold were in one body fixt;
And soft with hard, and light with heavy mixt.

But God, or Nature, while they thus contend,
To these intestine discords put an end:
Then earth from air, and seas from earth were driv'n,
And grosser air sunk from aetherial Heav'n.
Thus disembroil'd, they take their proper place;
The next of kin, contiguously embrace;
And foes are sunder'd, by a larger space.
The force of fire ascended first on high,
And took its dwelling in the vaulted sky:
Then air succeeds, in lightness next to fire;
Whose atoms from unactive earth retire.
Earth sinks beneath, and draws a num'rous throng
Of pondrous, thick, unwieldy seeds along.
About her coasts, unruly waters roar;
And rising, on a ridge, insult the shore.
Thus when the God, whatever God was he,
Had form'd the whole, and made the parts agree,
That no unequal portions might be found,
He moulded Earth into a spacious round:
Then with a breath, he gave the winds to blow;
And bad the congregated waters flow.
He adds the running springs, and standing lakes;
And bounding banks for winding rivers makes.
Some part, in Earth are swallow'd up, the most
In ample oceans, disembogu'd, are lost.
He shades the woods, the vallies he restrains
With rocky mountains, and extends the plains.

***

High o'er the clouds, and empty realms of wind,
The God a clearer space for Heav'n design'd;
Where fields of light, and liquid aether flow;
Purg'd from the pondrous dregs of Earth below.

Scarce had the Pow'r distinguish'd these, when streight
The stars, no longer overlaid with weight,
Exert their heads, from underneath the mass;
And upward shoot, and kindle as they pass,
And with diffusive light adorn their heav'nly place.
Then, every void of Nature to supply,
With forms of Gods he fills the vacant sky:
New herds of beasts he sends, the plains to share:
New colonies of birds, to people air:
And to their oozy beds, the finny fish repair.

A creature of a more exalted kind
Was wanting yet, and then was Man design'd:
Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast,
For empire form'd, and fit to rule the rest:
Whether with particles of heav'nly fire
The God of Nature did his soul inspire,
Or Earth, but new divided from the sky,
And, pliant, still retain'd th' aetherial energy:
Which wise Prometheus temper'd into paste,
And, mixt with living streams, the godlike image cast.

Thus, while the mute creation downward bend
Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,
Man looks aloft; and with erected eyes
Beholds his own hereditary skies.
From such rude principles our form began;
And earth was metamorphos'd into Man.

1) Chaos
2) Distinguishing Between Earth, Sea, and Sky
3) Stars
4) Animals
5) Man

So, my question is, why exactly do almost all ancient cultures start out with a chaos, or "unformed lump"; either that, or "universal waters", followed by a "separation" period wherein the earth, sea, and sky are distinguished, followed by the creation of stars, animals, and man.

Granted, I'm not acting as if these myths have not been garbled. I'm not ignoring Spider Woman, inconsistencies, preexisting animals, etc. But at least for me, it's just as plausible to think that, if all mankind descended from Noah and his sons, that they retained the account of creation (in their oral, and later written, cultures) and preserved the basic "gist", while particular elements became garbled over time.

I realize this post is long. My only point is, when a scholar engages in "freeplay", he can create links and tomes and peer-reviewed papers about anything he wants. A scholar could have a field day with the Voluspa. But of course, he can't. Geographical proximity, however, allows the scholar to do so when it comes to the ANE.

I noticed you said "there might be some Egyptian elements". I don't know if you are referring to Currid's work or not, but to be honest, I found even his treatment of the Egyptian myths with their "creation by word" and how it relates to Genesis unsettling.

I thought about posting that months ago, but never did. Namely, I realize it's too easy on the PB for anonymous laymen to "lay into" accredited scholars and pastors. Nevertheless, his treatment very much made me uncomfortable.

At the end of the day, I believe that Noah and his sons had an oral and/or written creation account, and that this was passed on to their posterity, all of whom garbled it in some manner or another. But it was interesting, at least to me, that they usually follow a similar sequence, and almost always begin with chaos/water.

I guess that explanation is too simplistic for some.

 

[Stomata leontôn]

Here is a post dealing with this very issue that I made in the Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?

So I think what you are saying is that all over the earth, there were pieces of the truth that were corrupted over time from the Truth that all men had when the ark alighted on dry land. This should be used apologetically to uphold the truthfulness of the Bible and not to say that the Bible derives revelation from the corrupted myths of men.

You mention Norse mythology, which holds a number of examples that would support that thesis. For example the "All-father" is one of three brothers who are named, but nothing specific is said about two of them. The remaining brother, Woden (Odinn) is identified as the All-father, but he himself has a father (the "bearer") and a grandfather (the "bairn" or "child"). Thus there is no concept of the ultimate or even what we would call God.

Without an ultimate, without God, origins are extended back in time in an infinite regression without beginning. Unable to explain the ultimate origin of things, the explanation ends in a storyteller's joke: to the question of where Woden's grandfather came from is the answer that he just showed up in the primeval ice one day. How? A big cow licked some ice-blocks which were salty!

The biblical story, however, is coherent and consistent. The Father of all does not have brothers, but there are three Persons of one God. The Father of all does not have a father or an origin, he is the origin of all things. Simple!

So to relate this back to JDWiseman's post, the incoherence and inconsistency of the myths are well explained as a corruption of truth. Each of the cosmogonic myths all over the world have something in common, indicating a common historical origin. Each is likewise confusing and inconsistent, therefore a corruption of the original. Genesis is clear and consistent, showing all the signs of truth. It has no more in common with the regional mythology of the Middle East than it has with other mythologies, such as the Norse. It is coherent and consistent -- the earmarks of truth. True accounts do not descend from false accounts, all the mythologies of man are clearly corrupt and untrue, so the existence of truth, Genesis, can only be explained by divine revelation.

 

[TimV]

At the end of the day, I believe that Noah and his sons had an oral and/or written creation account, and that this was passed on to their posterity, all of whom garbled it in some manner or another. But it was interesting, at least to me, that they usually follow a similar sequence, and almost always begin with chaos/water.

I guess that explanation is too simplistic for some.

It's not simplistic, it's a cop out. "Well, Mary was SYMBOLICALLY a virgin" "Christ FIGURATIVELY rose from the dead".

Really, what's the use of a Bible if you personally get to choose the parts you think are true? You use the word chaos a lot, and that's what you get when everything is of any one's own personal opinion.

 

[sotzo]

Great to see this thread going now...let's dig in:

Starting first with a point Enns makes, namely, that the assumption that the Bible would be free from all parallels due to its divine status....Josh do you agree? I think from your post you would and I agree as well. The nature of the Bible being both inerrant and inspired does not require it to be free of all parallels. Hence, inerrancy and inspiration should be rooted ultimately in what Scripture says about itself rather than how many parallels line up. I guess the only way this would not work is if the parallels were aligned to such an extent as to make them virtually identical to the text of the Bible itself. This is probably where the stumbling begins because different folks are going to tolerate these extents of similarity to higher or lesser degrees.


Tim, I don't think Josh is "picking and choosing" what parts are true. In fact, he is saying that these parallels written by Noah's descendents were garbled while the Bible was preserved.

So, going back to my OP, for those who are contra-Enns (that is, for those who see Enns' "inspired myth" as a problem), how do you deal with the existence of these ANE parallels? Josh has given an answer above (parallels are inaccurate renditions of the same account). What are some others?

I've read Enns and am now trying to sort out the way those against his view would deal with the parallels.

 

[Herald]

I've read Enns and am now trying to sort out the way those against his view would deal with the parallels.

This is a really stupid question but that has never stopped me before. Why the need to sort out parallels? It's a given that history was communicated orally and via non-inspired writings prior to the Pentateuch. That said, what actually needs to be sorted out?

 

[TimV]

Tim, I don't think Josh is "picking and choosing" what parts are true. In fact, he is saying that these parallels written by Noah's descendents were garbled while the Bible was preserved.

Thanks, it looks like I read it wrong.

 

[panta dokimazete]

The problem comes when the Scriptures are placed in parallel with anything other than themselves. It is like taking a photograph and comparing the truthfulness and accuracy of the captured scene with children's drawings of the same scene - you'll see some broad images, but they have no comparison, in terms of clarity.

 

[sotzo]

I've read Enns and am now trying to sort out the way those against his view would deal with the parallels.

This is a really stupid question but that has never stopped me before. Why the need to sort out parallels? It's a given that history was communicated orally and via non-inspired writings prior to the Pentateuch. That said, what actually needs to be sorted out?

I think what needs to be sorted out, at least from an apologetics standpoint, is the question of "why the Bible and not these other writings as true?". Do we essentially stand on the assumed fact that the OT stands on the same ground as God-breathed Scripture (BTW, not making light of that assumption!)? Or is there a way in which we can evidentially show these parallels to be inferior although perhaps pointing to the same event in broad strokes?

 

[Ravens]

Tim,

You did read me wrong. That being said, I didn't put a lot of background or lead-up into my post, so that's partly my fault. Here's a snippet from the pasted post that I didn't include in this thread:

It pains me to see ... posting on these cosmogonic interpretations. Perhaps it shall turn out that I am wrong, when all is said and done. But nevertheless, at the moment, it saddens me to see someone so committed to the Scriptures buying in to the typical claims made about Biblical and ANE literature that could be heard in any liberal, apostate seminary throughout the country, even if such theories are "tweaked" in order to make them more palatable to more orthodox Christians.

I would imagine that we are on the same page.

 

[Ravens]

Joel,

Let me say, first of all, that I have no idea what Dr. Enns teaches. If you would like me to refrain from posting on this thread on that account, I'd be happy to comply. I was just commenting on the "parallels" between the Enuma Elish and the book of Genesis.

This issue is somewhat dear to me, as it was something that I encountered as a teenager, and never received any good and solid answers to.

Normally the "parallels" and "similarities" between the Enuma Elish and Genesis are taken as self-evident and "obvious" proof that the documents share a common origin. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. However, it depends on what is meant by "common origin". If one means that both accounts are historical records which have their origin in the actual events, then I would happily concur. Genesis gives us the inspired, reliable history, while the Enuma Elish gives us the slightly garbled "secular" account.

However, too often, the assumption is made that Genesis is derived from the text of the Enuma Elish, or from some other Babylonian or Sumerian or Near Eastern myth. That is a vastly different claim, and I haven't read the slightest bit of evidence to substantiate that, other than that the oldest extant texts of the Enuma Elish are supposedly older than the oldest extant texts of Genesis.

In a sense it is ironically parallel to the issues surrounding "Evolution": No "transitional forms" exist (in this case, transitional documents), but the theory is accepted wholesale anyway, with or without the most crucial and substantiating factors.

One of my points in referencing Ovid and the Voluspa is to show that there are striking parallels between those accounts and the Creation Account we have in the book of Genesis. In fact, I think that they are just as (or more) striking than those found in the Enuma Elish. I would perhaps go so far as to say that, at the very least, an argument can be made for some form of Ur-Account, or Proto-Account of Creation.

My tentative guess is that this would have derived from Noah and his three sons, and this presumes that God gave them some knowledge along the lines of Genesis 1.

Back to the parallels: As I said, there are no "transitional documents". No one can prove that the Genesis text is derived from the Enuma Elish. It is just taken as a self-evident "fact" due to the similarity between the documents. But if other ancient texts are as similar, or more similar, then that removes the whole brunt of the argument. In my opinion, the most that one could say is, "Well, Israel is closer to Babylon than to Scandinavia..."

Are we really going to give up inspiration and inerrancy due to geographical proximity, and nothing else? If one does away with the notion that the "parallels" necessitate that one was derived from the other, then that is what one is left with: A vague notion that Israel probably got their creation account from others in the Near East, since they were near them.

I don't see how that kind of speculation or hypothesizing would pass muster in any other sphere of legitimate academic inquiry, but it has become almost unquestionable nowadays, and with every little actual evidence.

So, in my opinion, one is left with a variety of creation accounts throughout the world, many of which tend to follow a certain pattern, and almost all of which begin with chaos/water. Furthermore, anthropologists speak of the "cultural constant" of the Global Flood, that is, most of these cultures with similar creation myths also believed in some terrible watery cataclysm.

In my opinion, this "problem" or complex of issues can be viewed as a lock.

Which key fits best?

If "they" are right, then multiple texts from all over the world sprang up mirroring one another for no apparent reason. If they were consistent, then they should try to establish some sort of textual genealogies between Babylon and Scandinavia, or Babylon and Greece. But clearly the Voluspa, Ovid, and Native American myths can not all be derived from the Enuma Elish, especially on their presuppositions and view of history.

Moreover, all of these cultures dealt with local problems: Local famines, local fires, local plagues, local earthquakes, etc. Yet all across the world men chose to take one local disaster (flooding) and Mythologize it, make it Global, and package it as a myth.

On all accounts, in my opinion, the key of Christianity actually fits the lock better than the key offered by secular historians of religion.

I believe that with all my heart.

Christianity can explain a pan-human, pan-national, pan-tribal, pan-linguistic commonality in ideas of origin, the Flood, etc. In fact, we would expect to find the kind of world that we actually inhabit if the Bible were true! I think sometimes we take this world for granted.

I would believe the Bible anyway, but it would certainly be odd if no other culture had any record in their myths or history of a devastating Flood which wiped out the human race. After all, if we all derived from Noah and his sons, then we would probably expect to find some garbled recollection of these events. And that is precisely what we find. Everywhere.

It seems Biblical (even avoiding all of Hyslop's ideas, and I confess I have not read his work) to assume that the first post-Flood civilization was in Sumeria, Babylon, what have you (that region). So why wouldn't we expect a literate, highly intelligent civilization, only a few handfuls of generations removed from Noah, to record the things that had been passed on to them?

And if all other people and linguistic groups had an immediate and sharp origin from the Babel event (or at least the major families), then one would expect them to have recollections also.

To make a long story short, let me parallel this issue with the "debate" over the "historical Jesus."

I view the Enuma Elish and, to a lesser extent, the Voluspa, et al., in the same way that I would view Josephus and Tacitus. And in that sense, to answer your question, we would expect to find parallels if, in fact, the history in the Bible actually happened.

Does that make sense?

They are historical and cultural writings and memories of the same events which Genesis records, yet they are not inspired or infallible. Yet Josephus and Tacitus, in their own way, serve to confirm the truth of Scripture. I think that the Enuma Elish does also, in that we would expect the first Post-Flood civilization to have some written records that dealt with global floods, etc.; and apparently, at least in my opinion, Noah spoke with them of creation as well.

 

[Christusregnat]

It has no more in common with the regional mythology of the Middle East than it has with other mythologies, such as the Norse. It is coherent and consistent -- the earmarks of truth. True accounts do not descend from false accounts, all the mythologies of man are clearly corrupt and untrue, so the existence of truth, Genesis, can only be explained by divine revelation.

Amen!

Here is what God thinks of comparative religion:

Exodus 34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: 13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: 14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Deuteronomy 12:1 These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the LORD God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth. 2 Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: 3 And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. 4 Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God.

Joshua 23:6 Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left; 7 That ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you; neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them: 8 But cleave unto the LORD your God, as ye have done unto this day.


Let me put this in contemporary language: when you find anyone trying to compare God, the jealous God, with some other foolish, satan-inspired, falsehood, you can be sure that such a man, if he truly believes that Jehovah is comparable with any other god, or that Jehovah's Word is comparable to any other history, such a man hates God.

It really doesn't matter whom he says he loves; anyone who puts God's revelation next to the handiwork of Satan hates God.

If a man does not hate all of the falsehood of wicked religions (can you say ANE?), and does not do all to erradicate their gods, and their lies about this world, about who God is, and about what God has done in history, such a man is worthy to be spat upon by all the saints. Why does this question even arise? Because we didn't listen to God's instruction from Moses, and we're still interested in Satan's vantage point on the creation, and the flood, and redemption, and inspiration, and on and on.

This is exactly why the church is a byword and a laughingstock; we allow God haters into the fold. And then we wonder "Where's all the power?" We asked Him to leave.

Adam

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Adam.

 

[sotzo]

Adam:

I think there is a difference between looking at these parallels from a standpoint committed to the inerrancy of the Bible and looking at them as if all bets are off on whose revelation is true. I agree with your point about preventing church / seminary leaders from being from the latter camp...but, I'm most concerned with how we who confess can provide a response to some of the questions out there.

 

[Ravens]

Adam,

I'm assuming that you aren't referring to me. Is that correct? It was somewhat hard for me to understand exactly what you were getting at (i.e., is it wrong to deal with the mythology of the world in general, and look for traces of Biblical history, or is it only wrong to deal with it from an unbelieving standpoint), and I didn't want to respond if you weren't addressing me.

 

[Christusregnat]

Adam,

I'm assuming that you aren't referring to me. Is that correct? It was somewhat hard for me to understand exactly what you were getting at (i.e., is it wrong to deal with the mythology of the world in general, and look for traces of Biblical history, or is it only wrong to deal with it from an unbelieving standpoint), and I didn't want to respond if you weren't addressing me.

Josh,

I was responding to Peter's thoughts, which I quoted in my post.

The logical extension of the passages in Deuteronomy, Joshua and Exodus is that God hates other religions. If He hates their religious services, how much more odious are their religious writings?

We should all hate the ANE mythology, their religions, their "creation stories", their versions of heaven and hell, etc. If we don't, then we hate God. That was my point. If you don't hate the mythology that Satan has inspired, then my post applies to you. If you hate it with all your soul, and hate all the works of the devil, then I see no problem with being interested in studying mythology in order to defeat it.

A case study of this was the Apostle Paul, who in his rabbinical training was taught Greek philosophy in order to defeat the arguments of his contemporaries. An excellent example of this is Acts 17 where Paul slaps the Epicureans, Stoics, and general Athenian population in the face with His assertions of a resurrection of bodies, our common ancestry from one blood, etc. It was not wrong for Paul to study paganism, as then (as an apologist) he was equipped to "demolish every high thought that exalted itself against he knowledge of Christ". I don't think that he would have read the pagans in order to learn "truth", or to gain "knowledge", as he elsewhere argues that all of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ, and that God's word is Truth.

So, no, I was not directly addressing you or anyone; I was addressing the idea of assuming God's Word can be supplemented, corrected, or compared with anything but itself.

By the by, thank you for your gentleness in not assuming that my words were directed against you; that is a very good virtue to have.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Christusregnat]

Adam:

I think there is a difference between looking at these parallels from a standpoint committed to the inerrancy of the Bible and looking at them as if all bets are off on whose revelation is true. I agree with your point about preventing church / seminary leaders from being from the latter camp...but, I'm most concerned with how we who confess can provide a response to some of the questions out there.

Joel,

I think that we who confess should exactly what our Standards say: God's Work is incomparable, and we are here to throw down all of its adversaries.

Scholars like to sound important, and to have something new to say. That, in my opinion, is what the whole ANE issue is about. Man's heart is a factory of idols, and it is often disguised with "scholarship". I could care less about Satan's ideas, unless their is some practical situation where I can demolish his strongholds using such writings. There is very little practical use for ANE writings, except to fill up journals and sound smart. An apologist would be better served to study the Quran, or the Satanic Verses than to study ANE; it has no practical benefit. That is, unless you want to demolish the unbelieving ANE scholars' arguments.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Davidius]

Adam,

Do you mean that we hate God if we enjoy reading, say, Greek mythology for leisure?

 

[Ravens]

Adam,

I can anticipate us talking past one another on this issue. I can almost agree with some of the things that you are saying, in a sense, but it isn't quite clear to me where you are drawing some crucial lines.

That being said, I'll state my position succinctly, and you can let me know what you think about it (and that way I can avoid trying to assume what you are thinking). I do not think that it is wrong in the least to use ancient mythological texts in Christian apologetics. Whether you think that it is worthwhile or not is a separate issue; perhaps it is worthless. Whether it is sin, or not, is a separate issue.

For what it is worth, Turretin does exactly the same thing that I am trying to do in the Ninth Topic of his Systematic theology, Question VII., paragraph XII:

Nor did this altogether escape the Gentiles themselves. They seem not obscurely to refer to this. See what is related by Pherecydes of Syros concerning Ophion, whom he calls leader of the demons (whom Jupiter hurled from heaven); and what is said by others concerning the serpent Python killed by Apollo; and concerning him to whom the Cumaean Sibyl in Virgil threatens destruction (the virgin returning and the illustrious offspring of god; the great increase of Jove bringing back the Saturnian kingdom); also what is related concerning the dragon, the watchful guardian of the golden apples in the garden of the Hesperides. Nor for any other reason did Satan seem to have had so much zeal for the introduction of religious worship to serpents by the Egyptians and others, unless he had successfully employed the serpent in the seduction of man. Hence the ancient Ophites, of whom Augustine and Epiphanius speak, held the serpent in the highest veneration because he had opened the yees of our first parents and introduced them to wisdom.

In my opinion he is doing the same thing as Paul, that is, taking pagan writings, or pagan poets, and saying, "See, even you know this is true!"

It is a simple fact that ANE writings have been a major cannon (at least in the manner they are used) against the Biblical account of creation for decades now. Together with evolution it forms some type of double-barreled shotgun.

We could simply say, "These are lies of Satan. If God has chosen you, He will reveal the truth." But, if we played that out consistently, it seems like we would dump all of apologetics together. Apply the same thing to the historical Jesus. One could say, "Christ is Lord, and if you deny that you are the seed of Satan, and there's no point in turning to pagans to try to prove it." We could stop all discussions about Thallus, Suetonius, Josephus, Tacitus, et al. Do we really want to go there?

I might be over-laboring my point, and if so, forgive me. It just seems as if what I think you are saying might shut down apologetics in general.

Many cultures viewed their "myths" as history. What we see as "myths", they viewed as history. Should we really ignore the fact that the Global Flood is probably the most common cultural story in world history? Really, that is a powerful apologetic tool. It is exactly what we would find if, indeed, Genesis were true.

I bring up Norse mythology, Greek mythology, and Hindu mythology with a purpose, and that purpose is to show the advocates of an ANE derivation of the book of Genesis their own inconsistency. Because, as I said in my longer post, the only arguments for the whole position is that, 1) These writings are similar, and 2) There is geographical proximity.

But if we remove their 1) by showing that similarity exists across a broad spectrum of creation stories, then all they are left with is 2), that is, geographical proximity. And the argument is actually quite weak and completely contrived, that is, that because two similar texts exist in proximity, one must be derived from the other, and specifically, Genesis from the Enuma Elish.

Then I turn the tables, and say, "Ah, but none of this makes sense from the evolutionary, secular worldview. But it makes perfect and complete sense from the Christian worldview, and this is exactly the type of world that we would expect to find if a Global Flood did in fact happen, or if Noah really did speak of creation with his offspring."

I really don't understand how anyone could take issue with that.

 

[Christusregnat]

Adam,

Do you mean that we hate God if we enjoy reading, say, Greek mythology for leisure?

Do you enjoy reading the Satanic Verses for leisure? Would it be a sin to do so? What about The Satanic Bible?

If we can put ourselves in the ancient Hebrew's sandals, what would be the logical conclusion of destroying the Canaanites' sacred shrines, their manner of worship, the "names" of their gods? Pick up their sacred text and begin to enjoy it? God said to hate them, to wipe out the names of their gods, and to have nothing to do with their satanically-inspired falsehood.

Is this any different from reading about the "great god" being a pedophile? If you hate their gods, and their falsehood, does it make sense to pick up their books and read? What communion has God with the devil, or the table of the Lord with that of demons?

It is not without reason that Justin Martyr argues that the "gods" of these mythologies are demons. Again, where is the pleasure in reading satan's books?

Please don't misunderstand me Davidius, I'm not singling this issue out as the super-and-only sin, and that "I'm super holy". All I'm asking is that we recognize these writings for what they are: satanic deception.

Whether or not it's a sin for you to read them in leisure is a question that depends upon your motive; a motive that I can't judge. If you tell me that you like it, then I would wonder what about satan's stories you like?

I hope that makes sense.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Christusregnat]

Josh,

See responses below.

For what it is worth, Turretin does exactly the same thing that I am trying to do in the Ninth Topic of his Systematic theology, Question VII., paragraph XII:

Nor did this altogether escape the Gentiles themselves. They seem not obscurely to refer to this. See what is related by Pherecydes of Syros concerning Ophion, whom he calls leader of the demons (whom Jupiter hurled from heaven); and what is said by others concerning the serpent Python killed by Apollo; and concerning him to whom the Cumaean Sibyl in Virgil threatens destruction (the virgin returning and the illustrious offspring of god; the great increase of Jove bringing back the Saturnian kingdom); also what is related concerning the dragon, the watchful guardian of the golden apples in the garden of the Hesperides. Nor for any other reason did Satan seem to have had so much zeal for the introduction of religious worship to serpents by the Egyptians and others, unless he had successfully employed the serpent in the seduction of man. Hence the ancient Ophites, of whom Augustine and Epiphanius speak, held the serpent in the highest veneration because he had opened the yees of our first parents and introduced them to wisdom.

It appears to me that he's showing how satanic and serpentine paganism is; sounds like he had a good command of the literature, for a good reason.

In my opinion he is doing the same thing as Paul, that is, taking pagan writings, or pagan poets, and saying, "See, even you know this is true!"

It sounds more like he's saying that the pagan religions are satan-inspired, and worship the snake. Could be wrong. I know that some of the Reformers held to a strong esteem for the classical pagan authors. I think they were misguided in this, and it (in my opinion) was a contributing factor to the demise of the Reformed faith.

It is a simple fact that ANE writings have been a major cannon (at least in the manner they are used) against the Biblical account of creation for decades now. Together with evolution it forms some type of double-barreled shotgun.

I neglected to mention this in my previous post: I see a major flaw in reacting against contemporary trends. Princeton did this with rationalism and evolution by trying to create parallels in the bible, or in biblical studies. I think this was no small part of why it fell. Rather than totally rejecting humanism, they adopted it as part of their apologetic. Warfield came to the conclusion that he couldn't speak with certainty for or against Darwin's theory; the coming generations were less uncertain, and began to speak for Darwin. Just because fools create anti-God philosphies doesn't mean that we should adopt their measures.

We could simply say, "These are lies of Satan. If God has chosen you, He will reveal the truth." But, if we played that out consistently, it seems like we would dump all of apologetics together. Apply the same thing to the historical Jesus. One could say, "Christ is Lord, and if you deny that you are the seed of Satan, and there's no point in turning to pagans to try to prove it." We could stop all discussions about Thallus, Suetonius, Josephus, Tacitus, et al. Do we really want to go there?

Apologetics can't save anyone. It may gain their respect; it may silence their mouths; it may answer objections, but it can't save. We declare the Scripture's message about God, man, the Law, the Cross, etc., and God can turn men to Himself; and He will. The foolishness of the cross is wiser than men. This is not throwing out apologetics; it just puts it in its proper place: a servant to evangelism. If we really think that researching ANE will save anyone, we are seriously deluded: the declaration of the Gospel by the Spirit's power will save.

I might be over-laboring my point, and if so, forgive me. It just seems as if what I think you are saying might shut down apologetics in general.

My intention is not to shut down apologetics, my intention is to put it in its place, and not allow man's wisdom to push aside the offense of the cross.

Many cultures viewed their "myths" as history. What we see as "myths", they viewed as history. Should we really ignore the fact that the Global Flood is probably the most common cultural story in world history? Really, that is a powerful apologetic tool. It is exactly what we would find if, indeed, Genesis were true.

This is one of the problems with Evidential apologetics: it takes the certainty of God's revelation and of the cross, and turns them into possibilities. That's the best that man's wisdom can do. The whole world lies in the power of the evil one; their foolish hearts were darkened; they rejected God and He rejected them. That is the sum and substance of the heathens' mythologies.

I bring up Norse mythology, Greek mythology, and Hindu mythology with a purpose, and that purpose is to show the advocates of an ANE derivation of the book of Genesis their own inconsistency. Because, as I said in my longer post, the only arguments for the whole position is that, 1) These writings are similar, and 2) There is geographical proximity.

I see no fault in your procedure; it sounds to me like you are simply answering the fool according to his folly. If you stopped there (which I don't imagine you would), than you haven't gotten to evangelism, but it is a start.

I really don't understand how anyone could take issue with that.

I agree.

Good discussion; thank you for the questions!

Adam

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Great discussion. Since my training has largely focused on Old Testament studies, I've tried to follow and comment on the controversy raised by Peter Enns's Inspiration & Incarnation. I actually do believe the study of the historical background and milieu of the Old Testament can shed light on the vocabulary, literary forms, and even institutions of the Old Testament. Caution must be exercised. And a commitment to the self-attesting, self-authenticating word of God is, in my opinion, a vital presupposition in doing comparative studies. But scholars with such a commitment, like Meredith Kline, have demonstrated the good fruit that an acquaintance with the ANE data can bear. Jeffrey Niehaus, who follows somewhat in the footsteps of Kline, has just published a book entitled Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology (Kregel Academic, 2008). For a comparison of his approach to ANE studies and the OT to that of Peter Enns, see my post Peter Enns, Jeffrey Niehaus, the Ancient Near East and Inspiration.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Great discussion. . . . Caution must be exercised. And a commitment to the self-attesting, self-authenticating word of God is, in my opinion, a vital presupposition in doing comparative studies. . .

Although you guys are likely more informed on ANE issues than I, your caution (quoted above) seems paramount. Some would suggest that Kline and his ANE treaty work may have pushed the bounds of acceptance. It seems that interpreting the meaning of the OT in light of ANE is like putting the cart before the horse. Why not rather see the ANE evidence as a development (and perhaps perversion) of the self-attesting biblical priority. Granted that light may be shed "on the vocabulary, literary forms, and even institutions of the Old Testament," but we should be careful in deriving critical meaning strictly from the ANE and laying that on the OT when the analogy of faith would indicate otherwise.

 

[fredtgreco]

Adam,

Do you mean that we hate God if we enjoy reading, say, Greek mythology for leisure?

Do you enjoy reading the Satanic Verses for leisure? Would it be a sin to do so? What about The Satanic Bible?

If we can put ourselves in the ancient Hebrew's sandals, what would be the logical conclusion of destroying the Canaanites' sacred shrines, their manner of worship, the "names" of their gods? Pick up their sacred text and begin to enjoy it? God said to hate them, to wipe out the names of their gods, and to have nothing to do with their satanically-inspired falsehood.

Is this any different from reading about the "great god" being a pedophile? If you hate their gods, and their falsehood, does it make sense to pick up their books and read? What communion has God with the devil, or the table of the Lord with that of demons?

It is not without reason that Justin Martyr argues that the "gods" of these mythologies are demons. Again, where is the pleasure in reading satan's books?

Please don't misunderstand me Davidius, I'm not singling this issue out as the super-and-only sin, and that "I'm super holy". All I'm asking is that we recognize these writings for what they are: satanic deception.

Whether or not it's a sin for you to read them in leisure is a question that depends upon your motive; a motive that I can't judge. If you tell me that you like it, then I would wonder what about satan's stories you like?

I hope that makes sense.

Cheers,

Adam

You do realize that virtually every Reformer and Church father disagrees with your position re: whether we can read Classical literature, don't you?

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Great discussion. . . . Caution must be exercised. And a commitment to the self-attesting, self-authenticating word of God is, in my opinion, a vital presupposition in doing comparative studies. . .

Although you guys are likely more informed on ANE issues than I, your caution (quoted above) seems paramount. Some would suggest that Kline and his ANE treaty work may have pushed the bounds of acceptance. It seems that interpreting the meaning of the OT in light of ANE is like putting the cart before the horse. Why not rather see the ANE evidence as a development (and perhaps perversion) of the self-attesting biblical priority. Granted that light may be shed "on the vocabulary, literary forms, and even institutions of the Old Testament," but we should be careful in deriving critical meaning strictly from the ANE and laying that on the OT when the analogy of faith would indicate otherwise.

Hi, Jim. I agree with your cautions. We certainly should be wary of any conclusions drawn from comparative studies that either compromise our commitment to the uniqueness of Scripture or contradict teaching elsewhere in Scripture. Though I don't agree with everything Kline's written, I do think the parallels he and other OT scholars have seen between ANE suzerain-vassal treaties or royal grants and the divine-human biblical covenants of Scripture have validity. In fact, Kline's studies not only support the conservative view of the canon but also serve as a corrective to some of the inadequate views of divine-human covenants today. To state it in other words, Kline's view of a divine-human covenant corresponds more closely with that of the Reformers and Puritans than the view of scholars like John Murray.

Another discovery that has shed light on the primeval history is that of ANE kingship ideology. As it turns out, the concept "image of God" antedated the writings of Moses and is found in both Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts. When Moses taught the Israelites that Yahweh-Elohim created man "as his image," they would have been familiar with the fact that that title was applied to Mesopotamian and Egyptian suzerains. This would confirm the reading that sees the imago Dei as denoting not merely a constitutional analogy (i.e., man is constitutively like God) but also a functional analogy (i.e., man is functionally like God), namely, man as created to be God's vice-regent and rule has his visible representative. Of course, this conclusion can be inferred from the Genesis text itself (1:26, 28). But the ANE kingship ideology confirms such a reading. And, as I've argued in an article elsewhere, it supports the view that sees a primordial covenant in Genesis 1 & 2, which Reformed and Puritan theologians have properly described as a covenant of works.

In sum, with a commitment to the God-breathed nature of OT Scripture and cautious discernment one may use comparative studies to enhance our knowledge of the OT.