RE: Sumerian myths

>>Dick, I'm curious what your reaction is to the above
paper on Sumerian creation stories and Genesis in
light of your own attempts to find a reconciliatory
(and real) history shared by both?<<
 
http://www.bibleorigins.net/EdenDatePalmGardenIraqHrouda.html
 
I agree with much of what he says and I applaud his scholarship. I hope
those on this list will take time to read and digest his material. I
have said much of the same things. The author and I exchanged emails
some months ago and compared notes. I do find his conclusions contrast
with mine. For example, he says:
 
It is _my understanding_ that the Sumerian myths about the who, what,
why, where, and how of man coming to be created, is in reality,
recalling a REAL EVENT of great importance, these myths recall that
moment in time when man ceased to be a naked wild animal roaming with
other animals, and settled down, became an agriculturalist (creating
gardens for food) and Civilization began.
 
Again, I believe Adam was a real live human being. I don't think the
Sumerians even had recollection of life before civilization. I would
also disagree with this:
 
(I understand Ziusudra is also one of several prototypes for Adam).
 
Curious. Noah, yes, but I've not read any writer that has linked
Ziusudra with Adam.
 
>>The above paper begins by pointing out overlapping
points between ancient Sumerian myths and Genesis,
chapters 2-3, so I thought it might be of interest to
you. Also, there's some added information toward the
end of the paper.<<
 
I've said much of this in my book and on this list. He considers Eridu
as a "prototype" of Eden. I say it straight out. I believe Eridu was
the Garden of Eden or located very close to it. Eridu was excavated and
dated to 4800 BC. There were two pottery styles found side by side at
the lowest level. The one pottery style was identified as Ubaid similar
to that found all over the region. The other was so distinct the lead
archaeologist, Fuad Safer, called it simply "Eridu ware." This pottery
I believe was fashioned by early Adamites.
 
>>"The Sumerian myths regarding the creation of man
AGREE with Genesis, Man was 1) created by a god
(Enki); 2) Man was made naked and _left in that state_
for an undetermined period of time; 3) Man was placed
in a location called edin which in Sumerian means
"plain"; 4) A god (Enki) created naked man to till and
tend HIS "fruit-tree garden"in Sumer in
edin-the-plain; 5) Man eventually learns it is wrong
to be naked and clothes himself, an echo of the
Sumerian notion that the gods wore clothes, and knew
it was wrong to be naked, yet they DENIED man this
knowledge, allowing him to wander edin the plain
without clothes with only wild animals for companions
(Note: e.din or edin is variously rendered plain,
flood-plain, steppe, and desert-plain by different
scholars).<<
 
If you substitute "Adam" for "man" in the above text then we pretty much
agree here on the first four points. The fifth point is only conjecture
on Mattfield's part.
 
>>"The Mesopotamian art forms of the 4th-3rd millennia
BCE at times show man in a NAKED state "serving the
gods." These scenes may explain why God
(Yahweh-Elohim) in Genesis "keeps" Adam and Eve as his
servants in a state of nakedness. I thus understand
that the Hebrews are preserving Mesopotamian notions
from the 4th/3rd millennia of CLOTHED Sumerian gods
"keeping" man as their "servant" IN A STATE OF
NAKEDNESS for a time _DENYING_ him the knowledge it is
wrong to be naked; only later did he come to clothe
himself as portrayed in Mesopotamian art forms of the
2d milllennium BCE and later periods, Man being
portrayed _still serving_ the gods but now in a
"clothed" state. Please click here for Sumerian
pictures of the NAKED ADAM, "agricultural servant" of
the gods."<<
 
I understand the naked men to be priests carrying sacrifices to God (or
the gods). They stood naked before the gods they served just as Adam
was naked before God. The clothed Sumerians were observers to the
precession of priests. You may remember Adapa was a priest. And I
presume Adapa to be Adam.
 
Here is another point on which Mattfield and I diverge:
 
The Sumerians were WRONG, the gods did NOT teach their ancestors all
this ("the arts of civilization"), man achieved all this ON HIS OWN
ACCORD. So, in a sense the Sumerian myths about man's creation and his
cites are recalling man's _EVOLUTION_ from a naked ANIMAL TO A
CLOTHES-WEARING CIVILIZED HUMAN BEING dwelling in cities.
 
Here is another of his statements with which I disagree.
 
I understand like many other scholars, that the Hebrews have fused
various "contradictory" motifs and concepts appearing in various
Mesopotamian myths about the creation of mankind and transformed and
reinterpreted them in Genesis 1-9 (The Creation to the Flood).
 
In essence, I feel Mattfield amassed the data and evidence upon which he
drew erroneous conclusions. He would have us believe that Mesopotamian
myths were the source of Genesis. Others have said that. However, the
Genesis narrative, the history of the Jewish race, could well have been
preserved through the line of promise from generation to generation,
while the earlier versions are simply facts of history, embellished a
bit, told by ancient authors. The Mesopotamian stories don't detract
from Genesis in my mind, they corroborate Genesis.
 
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
 
Received on Fri Mar 3 09:53:01 2006