[ View Thread ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

Non-Abel was I ere I saw Leba-non

Posted By: Charles Pope
Date: Friday, 28 May 2004, at 7:19 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Your Criticism is More than I can Bear (Mikel Sepovich)

1) First you criticize the association of Eve and Ninti. Now you accept that Kramer made the argument, but say there is no basis to compare Ninti and Hathor/Tefnut. Are you also denying the basis for associating Re with Marduk, Thoth with Nabu, etc.? If gods equate between regions, why not goddesses? Or is it only Ninti that you have a problem with? What about Nin-hursag? You didn’t mention my sullying of her holy name.

2) Strong’s is quite suitable for use as a dictionary of Hebrew words as used in the Bible, at least for my purposes. (It literally does say "Dictionaries of the Hebrew and Greek Words" on the title page. But perhaps you have your own private definition for Hebrew dictionary?) I realize that Strong’s is now quite dated, but it is copyright-free, and that covers a multitude of sins. I use the definitions as provided, e.g., for Adam, "a man, ruddy." I still don’t understand your objection to this definition. Ruddy does imply red, does it not?

3) I use the word "brother" loosely. Perhaps I err in presuming we have a common forefather, who knows, maybe even Atum, ... um, sorry, I mean Adam.

4) By "capturing the Hebrew soul", I mean the unique nature of the ancient Hebrew language and that of the Biblical authors for expressing logic, action, and emotion. I am not necessarily a proponent of David Noel Freedman, but he did lend his name/reputation to a rather unqualified endorsement of the Schocken Bible.

I am not deviating from the Biblical Genesis text. I am only exposing the bias of the author. And in fact, the text itself reveals that bias for those who have eyes to see it. (This is covered in more detail in Chapter 4.) The so-called experts have just been too "smart" to pick up on it.

I do not align myself with minimalist or maximalist camps and especially not their leaders. (When I attended Biblical and archaeology conferences, I found absolutely no interest in collaborating on a new synthesis of the two fields. People in one group generally shun the other, as you also choose to do.) However, my book does show that the Bible is exceptionally informed on historical events and the real people involved, even if it is not fully objective. Ironically, it was not until I was willing to write the Bible off as fiction that I began to recognize this.

Despite the almost total lack of confirmation from archaeology, millions of people steadfastly continue to believe the Bible is real history. For most, the reasons are selfish. Their eternal welfare is thought to depend on the Bible’s veracity. For others, the Bible is simply believable. It has a "soul", so to speak. In comparison, reconstructions of history from archaeology are not particularly engaging. But those "dry stones" are begging to be brought back to life, and I’m determined to help do it. Myths tend to exaggerate the powers of the so-called gods and goddesses. The Bible, on the other hand, downplays them. The balance is somewhere in the middle.

5) The Bible is full of themes and figures from mythology. If you still disagree after reading Chapters 1 & 2, keep going. There is much more material to work with beginning with Chapter 3.

I agree that rewriting ancient history is a ridiculous thing for one person to do. Are you volunteering to join the team? Everybody wants to eat the pie, but few want to help make it. My time and resources are certainly limited, but that does not necessarily make me lazy! Exactly what have you published? Bring it out onto your Internet doorstep so that all the depraved townspeople of Greater Sodom may know it.

6) What have I altered in this verse? The Hebrew wording is what it is! But perhaps the traditional translation is better for the prudish reader.

7) I refrained from making any firm conclusion regarding the "mark of Cain." The author of Genesis makes special mention of the oddity. It deserves at least some contemplation.

If my book title is still a stumbling block for you, please read a recent forum post of mine on this subject entitled:

"What is Living-In-Truth?"

If we don’t ask questions, we won’t get answers. Speculation, brainstorming, model building, whatever one wishes to call it, is a necessary process if one wants to find new "truth." Otherwise we are ever learning and never getting at anything remotely resembling it. Academics and religious people are rather paralyzed in this regard, because they are slavishly staying in their own little groups and looking to their "leaders" for approval.

8) Do you think that ancient people, and especially ancient royalty, spoke only one language? "Abel" does not equal "Alal", but Abel was Alal. Get used to it!

9) The interplay between Theban Egyptians and the Hyksos is a highly misunderstood topic. I spend a considerable amount of effort on this time period in Chapters 9-13. Ancient kings of the highest order owned flocks, dug wells, and had wives. And even pharaohs slept on stone headrests. They also practiced a great deal of deceit. This aspect of royal culture is thoroughly reflected in the Biblical narratives. But we don’t have to be duped by it any longer.

10-12) Granted, the early chapters of Genesis do not give us a lot to work with. The author obviously knew much more, but was extremely selective in what was included. Yet, there is still more than enough detail to make a positive correlation between the first seven Patriarchs (preceding Noah and the Flood) and gods known from mythology. The evidence presented in my book is certainly not all the evidence there is. Let's not be too silly here. In the initial chapters, the emphasis is on those first seven Patriarchs, and to show that the Biblical text of Genesis is actually consistent with the major myths. That in itself, if done correctly, is enough to set off an Atum-ic bomb of change in historical studies! Perhaps I don't have the time, talent, or training necessary to do it well, but I now know that it can and will be done. In the mean time, I haven’t quit my day job.

Messages In This Thread

[ View Thread ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.