The Adamic Myth

[moralorel]

I'm simply saying that if one wants to accept the Bible at face value, as we're taught to accept it, then that's fine.

From a broader viewpoint, the histories of the Hebrews are largely based on accounts, the reliability of which is increasingly questioned as archaeology and scholarship advances. Archaeological evidence often challenges these narratives.

Does that mean the Bible is false? No. It means that the Bible, and the narratives therein, are not a forensic historical record, they are a narrative of self-understanding of a people called to a particular relationship with the Divine – one of a monotheism which was, I think, unique.

That is the over-arching importance of the Hebrew Scriptures for me.

The questions of the actuality of persons like Abraham or Moses is less important to me. What matters is the stories they tell, or what their stories tell us.

I'm not even claiming the Bible is true. I'm just claiming the Hebrews seem to have a better grasp of the original stories.

We can either believe that the people who wrote snuff pieces about the flood and the gods wrote about it and the Hebrews edited to make it more realistic. Or we can believe that the Hebrews, the only ones who actually cited books for their research and who told a story that at least had some believability to it, actually knew more about the original story.

 

[moralorel]

I suppose the big distinction I would make is that:
1: I hold the narrative as more important that physical history;
2: I think myth is a genre of narrative that conveys transcendent truths in a more concise and direct manner.

You and I see many matters from opposite views. I think that's a good thing. So I hope you know not to take anything personal. We will never learn anything if we just sit on our own viewpoints.

 

[Thomas]

Exactly .. but why were they "chosen" ?

Earlier than that, even – the Call of Abram, Genesis 12?

If you mean that throughout history, mankind strays away from monotheism,
OF COURSE they do .. which is one of the main reasons that G-d sent prophets/messengers
to remind them.

Agreed – but this does not rule out henotheism or monolatry, which was the point I was making.

 

[Thomas]

I'm not even claiming the Bible is true. I'm just claiming the Hebrews seem to have a better grasp of the original stories.

If we had the original stories, I might be able to discuss that point, but as we don't, I'm not sure on what basis you make the claim?

We can either believe that the people who wrote snuff pieces about the flood and the gods wrote about it and the Hebrews edited to make it more realistic.

More realistic from who's point of view?

Or we can believe that the Hebrews, the only ones who actually cited books for their research and who told a story that at least had some believability to it, actually knew more about the original story.

I find that the hardest to believe, as it assumes too much, and make no account of the contemporary outlook ... remember Abram took Agar, the bondswoman of his wife Sarai "to wife" (Genesis 16:3), with Divine approval, despite the Adamic code of marriage (Genesis 2:24).

And this is much later than the time of the creation or the flood – but the morality at play here is hardly laudable.

Genesis 20: Abraham concocts some bizarre idea to cast Sarah as his sisterm rather than his wife, on the basis that he will be killed for his wife, whereas if she is his sister, she will be taken by someone of higher social status – in this case Abimelech – whether he agrees or not – and this is regarded as customary and not treated as out of the ordinary.

God warns Abimelech in a dream that Sarah is Abraham's wife, and therefore he'll die if he touches her. Abimelech then claims righteous innocence, believing she was his sister, and God agrees that he is both righteous and innocent – so God sees no problem with the taking of women in the social context – whereas a lower-born person taking the wife of a higher-born is, of course, an outrage and unacceptable.

Either way, the woman has no say in the matter.

Genesis 21: Sarai, who was immediately jealous of Agar the moment she bore Abram a son, even though the whole thing was her idea, then sees her stepson Ismael playing with her natural son Isaac, for which she complained that the poeple were laughing at her, an old woman having a baby, then tells Abraham to throw Agar and his first-born out, because she wants her son to inherit ... in all this, Sarah hardly comes across as a nice person.

So you will excuse me if I treat your 'snuff' comment with a pinch of salt. Pots and kettles, and all that!

 

[Thomas]

So I hope you know not to take anything personal. We will never learn anything if we just sit on our own viewpoints.

Not at all! I'm learning a lot. I'm looking at my 'reliable sources' with more question and discernment in light of our conversations.

 

[Thomas]

At least we three – @muhammad_isa included – believe in God, and, I think, believes the other believes in God, which is enough in itself.

Or, as He might put it – I've got enough to contend with, without you guys bickering over the details!

 

[Thomas]

What's in a name?

@moralorel:
10. The explanation for Elohim and Yahweh is very simple. Elohim is what God is and Yahweh is who He is.

@Thomas:
That's certainly elegant, but it doesn't explain origins.

@TheLightWithin:
What does that mean?

+++

Elohim as a generic name for God is not disputed – but as ever, there's more to it than that.

In the Talmud: "The name Elohim denotes God’s attribute of justice, as it is written: 'God of faith without iniquity, righteous and fair is He' Deuteronomy 32:4, Talmud, Berakhot 7a

In Rabbinic Judaism, "Elohim is the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, when He exercises retribution, as it is written: 'Then the earth shook and quaked, the foundations of heaven trembled; they shook when He was angry' Psalms 18:8" Midrash Tanhuma, Naso 16

"Elohim represents God’s attribute of justice and power, whereas the name YHVH (pronounced Adonai) represents His attribute of mercy and compassion." Rambam (Maimonides), Guide for the Perplexed

Interestingly, on the Cross, Jesus cries out: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34) which echoes Psalm 22:1, In which the Hebrew reads "El, El", a name for God used in Hebrew poetry and song.

"As for God (El), his way is perfect: the word of the Lord (JHWH) is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him
For who is God (Eloha) save the Lord (JHWH)? or who is a rock save our God (Elohim)?" (Psalm 18:30-31).

I only bring this up as, in His direst moment, Jesus might cry out "God", but He knows the Father intimately.

+++

Whilst on this topic, and the history of the Divine Name, another name also has an interesting background:

The Temple at Jerusalem was, most likely, already a shrine to Shemesh, the Canaanite Sun-God, in his aspect as Shalim, the God of Dusk, hence the name Yerushalem / Yerushalayim.

Excavations in Jerusalem have uncovered walls built by the Canaanites (c. 17th century BCE). These fortifications signify a well-organised and advanced Canaanite settlement. A rock-cut tunnel demonstrates sophisticated engineering.

In Egyptian Execration Texts (c. 19th–18th century BCE) the city is named Urušalim, which scholars interpret as "Foundation of Shalem," a Canaanite deity.

The Amarna Letters (c. 1350 BCE) are from a Canaanite ruler, Abdi-Heba, governor of Urusalim. He pleads with Pharaoh for military aide against invaders, confirming Jerusalem's status as a significant Canaanite city-state and vassal of Egypt.

The biblical narrative identifies the pre-Israelite inhabitants as Jebusites, a Canaanite tribe, referring to the city as Jebus before its conquest by King David.

Later Jewish tradition reinterpreted the name by associating it with Hebrew words for peace and divine provision – Yireh (יראה), 'He will see' or 'the Lord provides' and Shalem (שלם), 'peace', 'completeness' or 'wholeness'.

 

[Thomas]

What's in a Name? 2

Exodus 6:3:
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name (JHWH) was I not known to them."

So the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton, was not known, from Abraham to Moses, yet it is by this name that the Lord God is spoken of more than 150 times in Genesis. A literal reading then, would set up a contradiction.

The common solutions are:
The name Yahweh was in use, but the meaning was unknown.
The name was in use before Exodus 6, but was 'known' in a relational sense.
That Moses retrospectively wrote the name 'Yahweh'.
That Exodus 6 is a question, not a statement, ie "By my name Yahweh, did I not make myself known to them?"

 

[moralorel]

If we had the original stories, I might be able to discuss that point, but as we don't, I'm not sure on what basis you make the claim?


More realistic from who's point of view?


I find that the hardest to believe, as it assumes too much, and make no account of the contemporary outlook ... remember Abram took Agar, the bondswoman of his wife Sarai "to wife" (Genesis 16:3), with Divine approval, despite the Adamic code of marriage (Genesis 2:24).

And this is much later than the time of the creation or the flood – but the morality at play here is hardly laudable.

Genesis 20: Abraham concocts some bizarre idea to cast Sarah as his sisterm rather than his wife, on the basis that he will be killed for his wife, whereas if she is his sister, she will be taken by someone of higher social status – in this case Abimelech – whether he agrees or not – and this is regarded as customary and not treated as out of the ordinary.

God warns Abimelech in a dream that Sarah is Abraham's wife, and therefore he'll die if he touches her. Abimelech then claims righteous innocence, believing she was his sister, and God agrees that he is both righteous and innocent – so God sees no problem with the taking of women in the social context – whereas a lower-born person taking the wife of a higher-born is, of course, an outrage and unacceptable.

Either way, the woman has no say in the matter.

Genesis 21: Sarai, who was immediately jealous of Agar the moment she bore Abram a son, even though the whole thing was her idea, then sees her stepson Ismael playing with her natural son Isaac, for which she complained that the poeple were laughing at her, an old woman having a baby, then tells Abraham to throw Agar and his first-born out, because she wants her son to inherit ... in all this, Sarah hardly comes across as a nice person.

So you will excuse me if I treat your 'snuff' comment with a pinch of salt. Pots and kettles, and all that!

1. I'm repeating myself again, but the Hebrew stories at least had some plausibility. It took years to make the ark, instead of just a few days. The design of the ark in Genesis would have actually floated. In the other stories, probably not. The serpent losing its legs is a true event. The waters came from underground and from the air, not from the tears of a god or whichever explanation was given in each ANE story. The Genesis lifespans were much closer to reality.

The stories from Genesis go into detail. For example, the Tower of Babel. The Bible tells us that it was made from fire brick, something that would have been only used for Ziggurats during that time period. The ANE stories don't go into these details. They tell us that a large building was being built. The other stories are quite vague and unrealistic.

One thing to add is that the Genesis story is the only one with the two trees. The Tree of Life is not part of any of these stories. But the Halaf people had metal impressions of a tree surrounded by a man and woman along with the serpent. The story existed but didn't survive except with the Hebrews.

And of course the Hebrews used an old Sumerian style of writing. They even referenced old customs that didn't exist anymore, such as returning to a home to fetch your gods. These writings styles and customs were normal around 2000 BCE. But the other ANE stories don't reference ancient customs nor resort to using older styles of writing.

At least the Hebrews cited sources. If they were telling the truth they were citing old sources. The ANE writings did no such thing.

2. Realistic for any person using common sense? Read above.

3. You obviously haven't read the uncensored ANE stories. The universe begins because a god ejaculated. But hey, Adam lied about his wife being his wife. Same thing. Or Gilgamesh raping every woman in his kingdom. Same thing. The Bible often shows how ridiculous the customs were of the neighboring cultures. The ANE stories defended these ridiculous customs.

 

[Carlos]

I'm working from the Hebrew Genesis 2:17:
וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ טֹ֣וב וָרָ֔ע לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּ֗י בְּיֹ֛ום אֲכָלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת׃
and specifically: בְּיֹ֛ום (yôm) "in the day". In all reasonability, the understanding of the Hebrew term is, of course, contextual. Does it mean that very day, or does it mean at some time in the future, as a result of the choice made at that point? Really, I think, it's probably impossible to say.

For on the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.

A known burglar was taking goods from neighbors. The goods were usually small things, like few screws and nails, empty containers, things of relatively not much value. Some neighbor reported him anyways and police knocked his door. The police officer told him that no one has made a demand about the stealing, but advised him to stop his actions, for on the day he steals something of considered value, he shall surely be arrested, judged and sent to prison.

It is understood that the arresting, judging and prison not necessarily will happen on the day of the crime but later on.

In the scriptures, when reading the punishing to Adam, Eve and the serpent, one can notice that the capital penalty was not enforce "on that day" but later one. So, contrary to your opinion, is is possible to say or find out that their death happened later on.

 

[Carlos]

I'm working from the Hebrew Genesis 2:17:
וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ טֹ֣וב וָרָ֔ע לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּ֗י בְּיֹ֛ום אֲכָלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת׃
and specifically: בְּיֹ֛ום (yôm) "in the day".

In all reasonability, the understanding of the Hebrew term is, of course, contextual. Does it mean that very day, or does it mean at some time in the future, as a result of the choice made at that point? Really, I think, it's probably impossible to say.

But one has to bear in mind that the first labourers in the various mythological gardens of the ancient Near East were not immortal, so they were going to die some day. And it's quite likely that it does not mean 'a spiritual death', as this is a very late understanding in Judaism.

Was this text part of the original myth woven into Genesis 1-11, along with others, or is it a later understanding? Put another way, was the whole 'snake' thing in Genesis 3, written around 500BCE after the exile and Josiah's reforms, a text composed to conform to the (then) contemporary teaching and far removed from the myth's original?

I'm inclined to think the snake was there – it's there is the earlier myths – but Genesis 3 is a reworking to fit a post-exilic theology.

(In the same way, the Jahweh of pre-exilic texts is a very different being to the understanding of Jahweh as emerges from the reforms initiated by King Josiah, the 16th King of Judah (640-609BC).)

What is clear is that if we're being honest, we have to compare the myths in Genesis 2 and 3 to the myths from which they derived, which had been around for perhaps two millennia before Genesis was written, and stem from cultures that predate Israel and Judah.

David Carr in The Formation of Genesis 1-11 discusses the Eden narrative, and how the story resonates with the narratives focusing on human mortality in the Ancient Near East myths and lore, where mortality distinguishes human beings from divine entities. His premise is that Genesis 1-11 is a Priestly reworking of the ür-text, dating from the 5th century BCE.

He does ask some interesting questions: Why did Adam and Eve not eat of the Tree of Immortality? and why didn’t God forbid them from eating from that tree also?

This leads to speculation about What would happen if they had? Or what would have happened had they hadn't eaten from either tree?

The answer is that, in the minds of the storyteller, that's irrelevant, because we are not immortal and, according to our theologies, we have fallen out of favour with God. These myths tell us why things are they way they are, they don't speculate on the alternatives.

Carr observes:
"These considerations can be important as we look back on the story and attempt to determine the reason for God’s forbidding of the tree of knowledge in 2:17a and assess the accuracy of God’s statement in 2:17b that the human would “surely die” if he ate of the forbidden fruit. The human’s eating of the fruit did not lead to immediate death, to be sure, and in that sense the snake’s statement in 3:4– 5 (“you will not surely die”) was correct. But we see in 3:22-24 that the human’s gaining of godlike knowledge from eating the fruit did lead YHWH to permanently exclude him from the garden and a chance to gain immortality through eating of the tree of life. In that sense, he will now “surely die” in a way that was not (necessarily) the case before eating the fruit." (p 50-51).

This seems a meaningless point until we look at the origin picture – Unknowingly given the chance of immortality – that tree is not forbidden – Adam and Eve lose that chance, by eating from the wrong tree. This loss is similar to, and is perhaps the residue of, the Epic of Gilgamesh in which Adapa’s unknowing refusal of the food of immortality or Gilgamesh’s loss of the plant of rejuvenation while taking a swim.

The way in which the text is presented in Genesis, however, implies that:
"God’s prohibition of eating from the tree of knowledge in 2:17 can be read as a divine provision for keeping the human in the garden, aimed at preserving the human (and soon his wife) in the special, elevated position of tending God’s sacred garden that he gained in 2:15. In this sense, the prohibition of 2:17 is consistent with God’s prior generous provision of other garden fruit (2:16) and God’s subsequent care in providing the human with a corresponding “helper” in the garden work (2:18-22). All of these acts reflect God’s initial gracious intent for humanity to live with God in the abundant Eden garden. And all of this was lost when humans chose to eat of the forbidden fruit, thereby growing up in gaining a modicum of godlike “knowledge of good and evil,” but losing their privileged position as God’s garden attendants and their chance at godlike immortality." (ibid).


Because Genesis is much later than the Sumerian and Akkadian texts, and was reworked from a 5th century Judean monotheistic perspective.

Notice that eating from the tree of life wasn't prohibited to Adam and Eve while they weren't capable to discern good and evil, but it became taboo for them after eating the forbidden fruit.

Let's rake it this way. Adam and Eve ate from the tree or life after eating the forbidden fruit. Now the are capable to do things where consciously malice can be involved. Both of them have eternity on their side to destroy the entire creation if they decided to do so. That is not a desirable scenario.

 

[Carlos]

In the same way, many Hebrew law codes follow on from pre-existing law codes. 'An eye for an eye' and other laws in Exodus and Deuteronomy derives from the Code of Hammurabi, 18the century BCE.

Even the 10 Commandments are largely pre-biblical. The only Hebrew element is the observance of a strict monotheism – One God.

I find a tremendous error or a certain kind of ignorance from the scholar who says that the 10 Commandments are copy or a derivation of the Hammurabi Code.

Let's go to chronology.

It is correct that the Laws received by Moses was an event happened way after the writing of the Code of Hammurabi.

However, Hammurabi Code is practically the copy or derivation of the Laws taught by Melchizedek to Abram (Abraham). Abraham existed way before the Code of Hammurabi.

And it is known the renewed promise of the creator to Issac when Issac was told: "...and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your offspring. Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and observed My safeguards, My commandments, My decrees, and My Torahs".

Can be noticed that Abraham learned the commandments, statures, laws and precepts of the creator from Melchizedek, and that Melchizedek was not a private priest but in general a priest of the Laws, precepts, commandments of the creator. Then, it is understood that many families, clans, and tribes in those lands learned the same teachings.

What we can read in the scriptures is that in the times of Exodus, the Israelite was found assimilated to the Egyptian culture, and was a need for the laws, commandments and precepts of the creator to be given again not orally only but also in writing.

 

[Thomas]

I find a tremendous error or a certain kind of ignorance from the scholar who says that the 10 Commandments are copy or a derivation of the Hammurabi Code.

Hi Carlos – and welcome aboard, by the way!

I think the way to look at it is the Hebrews, as a people, as a group that emerged in the Ancient Near East when Abram led his family/clan out of Ur and made the journey to Canaan. They were not a people isolated from the rest of their world.

Laws against murder, theft, adultery, false witness and so forth are just about universal, and were common laws among the peoples of the ANE, so when Moses received them, they were not new, they were what one would expect.

What is significant in the 10 Commandments is the relationship between HaShem and the people.

With regard to societal law, Hammurabi's was not the oldest Code, his was a revision of a pre-existing Code. And there were others, equally as ancient, now lost to us, but mentioned in writings that have survived.

The Code of Ur-Nammu dates back to 2100BCE and is the oldest known surviving law code. Others date to 1900BCE. It's notable that the Ur-Nammu Code establishes laws to protect the rights of the weaker party, such as widows and orphans. This is significant because it establishes an idea of a just society where the weak have the right to legal redress against the strong.

All Codes were regarded as having been delivered to the sovereign by their respective gods.

+++

These Law Codes are far more detailed and sophisticated than the 10 Commandments, and detail a number of legislative matters that are not covered in the Decalogue – complex relationships between contending legal parties over various rights – of inheritance, property, wives, slaves and so forth. Not what we would endorse today, but it was a start.

To be fair, Moses was not established in a city-state, he was in a people-on-the-move situation, so the 10 Commandments were the very basic set of a basic Code. I'm sure they already had a fair deal of permissions and prohibitions in operation which did not require HaShem's validation.

+++

Scholars have noted the similarities between the Code of Hammurabi and the 10 Commandments, and also on further Jewish legislation. The law of 'reciprocal justice' – "an eye for an eye" – appears on the Hammurabi stele, and it's there in the other law codes – it was not something new to the people of the Exodus.

I note also that Hammurabi refers to himself as a shepherd to his people. As I saying that Jesus copied Hammurabi? Not at all. What I am saying is the idea of a a leader being described as a shepherd was a culturally-understood idea. Jesus identified Himself in terms the people would understand.

However, Hammurabi Code is practically the copy or derivation of the Laws taught by Melchizedek to Abram (Abraham). Abraham existed way before the Code of Hammurabi.

Well, that's a bold statement ... but is there evidence to support it?

As for Melchizedek, well this being the History and Mythology board, we should have a fun time exploring him!

(PS: As a Catholic, I'd go into the Eucharistic presentification, but over on the Christianity board.)

 

[Carlos]

Hi Carlos – and welcome aboard, by the way!

I think the way to look at it is the Hebrews, as a people, as a group that emerged in the Ancient Near East when Abram led his family/clan out of Ur and made the journey to Canaan. They were not a people isolated from the rest of their world.

Laws against murder, theft, adultery, false witness and so forth are just about universal, and were common laws among the peoples of the ANE, so when Moses received them, they were not new, they were what one would expect.

What is significant in the 10 Commandments is the relationship between HaShem and the people.

With regard to societal law, Hammurabi's was not the oldest Code, his was a revision of a pre-existing Code. And there were others, equally as ancient, now lost to us, but mentioned in writings that have survived.

The Code of Ur-Nammu dates back to 2100BCE and is the oldest known surviving law code. Others date to 1900BCE. It's notable that the Ur-Nammu Code establishes laws to protect the rights of the weaker party, such as widows and orphans. This is significant because it establishes an idea of a just society where the weak have the right to legal redress against the strong.

All Codes were regarded as having been delivered to the sovereign by their respective gods.

+++

These Law Codes are far more detailed and sophisticated than the 10 Commandments, and detail a number of legislative matters that are not covered in the Decalogue – complex relationships between contending legal parties over various rights – of inheritance, property, wives, slaves and so forth. Not what we would endorse today, but it was a start.

To be fair, Moses was not established in a city-state, he was in a people-on-the-move situation, so the 10 Commandments were the very basic set of a basic Code. I'm sure they already had a fair deal of permissions and prohibitions in operation which did not require HaShem's validation.

+++

Scholars have noted the similarities between the Code of Hammurabi and the 10 Commandments, and also on further Jewish legislation. The law of 'reciprocal justice' – "an eye for an eye" – appears on the Hammurabi stele, and it's there in the other law codes – it was not something new to the people of the Exodus.

I note also that Hammurabi refers to himself as a shepherd to his people. As I saying that Jesus copied Hammurabi? Not at all. What I am saying is the idea of a a leader being described as a shepherd was a culturally-understood idea. Jesus identified Himself in terms the people would understand.


Well, that's a bold statement ... but is there evidence to support it?

As for Melchizedek, well this being the History and Mythology board, we should have a fun time exploring him!

(PS: As a Catholic, I'd go into the Eucharistic presentification, but over on the Christianity board.)

I truly enjoy the insights here.

My observation is based in simple chronology. The mention of Melchizedek as priest of the creator (biblical YHWH) implies the teaching of doctrines. The laws, precepts, statutes and more preaching by him might not be the same rules given to Adam's descendants up to the world's catastrophe known as the "flood" or "deluge". The changes in the world practically caused rules to be modified, this is a must.

Same as well, the laws learned by Abraham from Melchizedek are not exactly the same laws given to the Israelite after the catastrophes when the event of the exodus was in progress. And this is the part where I disagree with the rabbinical teachings, when they state for the Torah to be the same even "since before" the creation of the world.

The diet changed from one epoch to another and the new rule was encouraged (eating meat). The marriage in Adam's times allowed marriage between close family members, at the time of Exodus this allowing changed. And became a writing statement.

Lots of information is missing in the scriptures, and for this reason trying to get into the person of Melchizedek will be a boat of thoughts floating on the waters of conjecture.

I second a motion establishing there is nothing new under he sun, and I agree that the laws found as similar from different peoples in different epochs originally came from the same ancient source. That because some cultures wrote them first doesn't implicate they were the authors.