(10 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I began to summarize the lectures that are available in my course: “In the Beginning: Myth, Legend, and History in the Book of Genesis.” If you’re interested in the course, you can learn more about it on my personal website (which is not directly connected to the blog): www.bartehrman.com
Here I will give a synopsis of the final four lectures.
Lecture 3: The Ancient Tales of Genesis: Borrowings from the Wider Culture
Scholars and lay-readers alike were shocked in the mid 19th century to learn that versions of the most important stories of Genesis 1-11 were discovered in other (non-Israelite) parts of the Ancient Near East. In fact, in many cases these other non-biblical versions can be shown to be much older than those in Genesis.
There is, for example, a story of creation from ancient Canaan called the Enuma Elish, which is different in many ways from the story in Genesis 1, but with numerous similarities as well both in the overall concept and sometimes even with the use of cognate words. Did the Israelite authors simply put their own spin on much older stories?
Even more striking is the account of the flood in the ancient Babylonan Gilgamesh Epic, the oldest versions of which are over a millennium older than the book of Genesis. The similarities with the biblical account of Noah are stunning: the god(s) decide to destroy the world with a flood, they choose one man to save with his family; he is instructed to build an enormous boat and to bring every kind of animal on earth into it, the floods come and wipe out all other life on the planet, he sends out birds (including a raven and a dove, as in Genesis) to see if the land was dry yet; and … And the similarities just keep coming.
Was this a story based on
In the rest of this post I provide summaries of yet more interesting topics connected with Genesis. Members of the blog can read this and every post — five a week, with archives going back to 2012. Why not join? Click here for membership options
All deeply fascinating stuff, Dr Ehrman. I hope you won’t mind me pointing out a typo: in the second paragraph under Lecture Six, you have “internal consistencies within one book or another”, which should I think be “internal inconsistencies”.
It’s a scribal corruptoin of the text.
Ha! Of course 🙂
In the Bible as a whole, does the Jewish view of God develop in certain directions while other divine characteristics are emphasized less as time goes on–and, if so, toward what does that view develop? Or, on the other hand, does the Jewish view of God continue to be kind of a grab bag?
Also, is there a big change in the view of God between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament?
There are certainly different views of God throughout the Bible, both OT and NT. Most notably, for example, God is sometimes portrayed in very human terms — e.g. when he strolls through the garden in the cool of the evening in Genesis 3 or when he appears in human form in other places in the OT; in other passages he is completely transcendant and filled with non-human splendor, as in Genesis 1 or or the Book of Revelation.
How did God come to have the name “God”? Didn’t almost all gods in the ancient world have names? Is it because this god was believed to be the only god and thus the only one who deserved the title God? I’ve always thought it had something to with him being God as such, perhaps pure God, or an abstraction of the divine characteristics of other gods.
The word “God’ is not a name in the bible but a description. IN the Hebrew Bible his name is Yahweh, which came to be considered such a holy term that Jews would not pronounce it. In the NT he is called a variety of things (and int he OT as well) but does not have a personal name.
This is just a view from a specific angle:
There are three distinctive groups that confirm the existence of “Ishmael ben Abraham”:
The Jews says that Abraham was their father and Ishmael was their uncle. A group of Arabs says that our father “Ishmael ben Abraham” built the Cube (the Kaaba). Another group of Arabs says that this Cube was built by Ishmael the father of the other group. There had been struggles between these two groups (prior to 620 AD) to take control over this Cube.
These two claims were based on oral tradition, and it took many centuries until it were properly documented (about 820 AD). But still you have two distinctive groups (with oral traditions), and another group (the Jews) with written documents. This would increase the probability of the existence of an ancient man with the name of “Ishmael ben Abraham”.
Someone might present a possible scenario of how a mythical man could be shared within 3 distinctive groups. But this is a “possible” scenario not a definite one. The point is that if there are 3 distinctive groups pointing to an event, then this will provide extra points in favor to this event.
This is completely beside the point of your presentation but my understanding is that the term ‘Ancient Near East’ has begun to come under certain degree of opprobrium in the field. Apparently the concept of the ‘Near East’ first arose in the context of 19th century British imperialism and colonialism and subsequently fell into disfavor for that reason. Only in the field of ANE studies is it still used. I have no idea what the preferred term might be.
Are you privy to these sorts of discussions? Do you take them seriously? I have this mental image of somebody trying to rename 200 years worth of books and publications!
I’m not aware of discussions about the term Ancient Near East no. And still today people refer to Middle East nonprobleatically,no?
This would have fit better in your post on the difference between scholarly and popular writing, but I didn’t have the question yet then so I’ll ask it now.
I just started reading Richard Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible. In his preface to the 2nd Edition, he says that he had feared that the book would be dismissed as “popular,” but was gratified that scholars had engaged with it, cited it, and assigned it in classes. I see a lot of similarities between Who Wrote the Bible and the books of yours that I have read, in that both present what seems to be scholarly research in an accessible style. Have you had a similar experience with respect to engagement by your academic peers with your “popular” books, or is Friedman an outlier here?
His book does get used in classes, yes, and it’s a very good book for that. But it’s not the kind of book that scholars studied to learn lots of new information from, so far as I can see. Scholars saw that it was a useful book and popular and so they engaged with it to confirm or challenge its views. He’s right that doesn’t happen a whole lot. And yes, I’ve had a similar experience with some of my books as weell.
Where did the dispute over The Promise Land originate? The Jewish claim is clear. Did the Arab claim come through Hagar? If you will be dealing with this in future lectures, I can wait!?
The modern Palestinian claim is rooted not in the Bible but in modern experience: their property and houses (which had been in their familiers for a very long time) were taken over by invading forces. I doubt if anyone appeals to traditions of 2000 years ago and more to ground the grievances. It would be more like the current residents of NOrth Carolina would complain if a Native American tribe came into a state and drove everyone from their homes, occupied their houses, settled the current owners somewhere else. THe current residents would consider that a huge injustice, even if the invaders claimed ancient privilege.
I”m not taking a stand on the issue — but jsut explaining how I think Palestinians view it base on my limited discussions with both sides there.. If someone knows better, let us know!
I appreciate this helpful response and analogy.
Off topic question here: Have you ever ran across Nathan Woods’s book, The Secret of the Universe? In it, he gives an analogy of the trinity using time (past, present, and future). If you’re familiar with it, then what are your thoughts?
Nope, don’t know it.
Dr. Ehrman, sorry if you’ve answered this question elsewhere, but I wanted to know what your recommendation for a good Bible translation (available to the general public) would be. Thank you.
I prefer the New Revised Standard Version, which I espeically like in a study edition, such as the New Oxford Annotated Bible.
Great! Thank you so much for the recommendation.
You should know that the Hebrew says “In a beginning, not In the beginning. If you read Rashi you would know that in his writings too. You haven’t read Rashi because you’ve never read Midrash or any Jewish Biblical Commentaries.
Actually I don’t think it says that either. It’s a dependent clause: “When in the beginning, God began to create….” And I have indeed read Jewish Biblical Commentaries.