RE: [asa] Was Adam a real person?

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Fri Apr 11 2008 - 12:21:20 EDT

Hi David, you wrote:
 
>>An acquaintance of mine who is an ANE scholar recommended to me
Thorkild Jacobsen's "The Treasures of Darkness: A History of
Mesopotamian Religion." A really captivating book.<<
 
Ah, one foot on the path to discvovery. Very good. Now read Sayce,
Pinches, Langdon, Wooley, Mallowan, Jastrow, Barton, Kramer, Adams,
Budge, Chevalas, Pettinato, Chiera, Postgate, Poebel, Crawford, Dalley,
Gaster, Heidel, King, Landsberger, Layard, Rawlinson, Algaze, Lloyd,
Moorey, Oates, Gelb, Parrot, Postgate, Hallo, Sollberger, Pritchard,
Gordon, Clay, Hilprecht, Potts, Bailey, and Thompson. I did. The books
they wrote are on our web site.
 
Have you ever noticed in these discussions that some of us offer data
and evidence and get back opinion and conjecture? Makes you wonder
don't it?
 
Dick Fischer. author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
www.historicalgenesis.com
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 9:37 AM
To: Denis O. Lamoureux
Cc: Jack; Dehler, Bernie; asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Was Adam a real person?
 
Someone said: Now this is delicious. I'm accused of being
"anachronistic," and two sentences later David refers to "cosmogenic
myths." Does anyone think that J, P or R were constructing "cosmogenic
myths"? [I'm saying "someone said" b/c the string got long and I can't
figure out who's saying what!]

I respond: Yes, I do think the author[s] of Gen. 1-4 was[were]
constructing / assembling / editing / redacting cosmogenic myths, just
like I think the authors and editors of the Enuma Elish were
constructing / assembling / editing / redacting cosmogenic myths.
Obviously, they wouldn't have used this term, so yeah, that's a little
anachronistic too. But I don't think its anachronistic as a category in
the way "science of the day" is anachronistic as a category. "Science"
by definition means natural explanations for natural phenomena, doesn't
it? If one thing is certain, it's that "methodological naturalism"
would have been utterly, incomprehensibly foreign to the ANE peoples.
 
An acquaintance of mine who is an ANE scholar recommended to me Thorkild
Jacobsen's "The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian
Religion." A really captivating book. Reading the actual texts and
poems of the culture, and understanding the rituals associated with
those texts, its clear that they had no notion of transcendence of the
gods. The numinous was ever present for them. The earth and sky really
were, in some sense, Tiamat's body, the gods were really present in the
people enacting their parts in fertility rituals -- it reminds me a bit
of the Roman notion of the real presence of Christ in the host. Their
marriage and love poems are poignant too.
 
If you want to call the numinous presence of Tiamat in the earth and
firmament "the science of the day," it seems to me you have to qualify
the word "science" so much that what it really means is "cosmogenic
myths."
 
 
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 11 12:23:42 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 11 2008 - 12:23:43 EDT