Sargon Redux
The delightful tribe of Triablogue has continued the dialogue on the Sargon legend with a recent post attempting to crow victory on the issues which we have debated at length.
To fully appreciate the lengths the tribe will go to, it's necessary to revisit the sentence I wrote that started the whole fracas in the first place. I made a simple, declarative sentence:
I think the story of Sargon being floated in a basket of reeds down the river as an infant is a myth (that predates the Moses myth).
This created multiple posts over on Triablogue that were apoplectic about how awful I was for suggesting such a thing. So now we have their "post-mortem" on the issue and I would like to see if they have succeeded at disproving my original claim. There are eight authors who they have selected as experts and we'll evaluate their statements in turn to see if anyone disagrees with my basic, initial assertion.
Their first author is a no-show that's really just a tease for some future "dismantling" that we can all just hold our breaths and wait for.
Their second author is Dr. James Hoffmeier. The crux of his statement in support of the tribe is this:
Indeed the Sargon legend may well be the earliest example of the expose child motif, but that does not mean that Exodus 2 could not be completely independent. To ignore the clear Egyptian linguistic elements of Exodus 2 (one that does not fit a Mesopotamian setting) is shear obscurantism!
Wow! First, he thinks that obscurantism can be taken off like wool ... an odd thought that. Secondly, he admits exactly what I stated in my first statement on the issue and the tribe is kind enough to quote him on it. Post-mortem indeed. Their argument is buried by their own expert!
Third up is Richard Hess:
I am not quite sure what the point here is. The Sargon story is generally as Avalos says. Lewis' book has been around and well known. He cites dozens of Sargon story types in the ancient Near East and later, ending with the story of Superman's birth in DC comics. The form of the Sargon legend involves a first person intro and an an epilogue that concludes with 1 of the 4: blessings/curses, didactic lesson, temple donation, or prophecy. None of this applies to the Moses story; so if there was a borrowing it was more general than Avalos would like to admit. The general motif of the rescue of a leader as a baby and his/her being brought up by strangers is certainly well known in the ancient world and around the rest of the world. So what? No doubt the author and early readers of the exodus account saw the motif in the Moses story. That says nothing about its historicity.
Yes, that's right. Once again there is not a speck of support for the idea that the Sargon legend didn't pre-date the Moses legend. Their expert supports Avalos by agreeing with him. He brings up no evidence to suggest the story of Moses has any greater historical validity than the legend of Sargon.
Next they go to John Currid:
Indeed, within ANE literature there is a common motif of a birth story in which a child is under threat but survives to become king or leader of his people. The Legend of Sargon is such a story, and many scholars identify it as the very basis of Exodus 2. To go from Exodus to Mesopotamian literature has been the bias of ANE scholarship for a long time (creation and Enuma Elish; flood and Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.). But the reality is, and many do not want to admit it, is that Exodus is set in Egypt (seems obvious, but apparently not!) -- the book is imbued with Egyptianisms (see my Ancient Egypt and OT, for example). Consequently, I think that we ought to be looking in Egyptian literature for any such paradigm: The Myth of Horus contains similar motifs as Exodus 2.
Looking closely, I see only the suggestion that both the legend of Sargon and the legend of Horus pre-date the legend of Moses. With experts like this, the tribe doesn't even need Dr. Avalos to debunk them. They can just read their own sources to prove that the story of Moses is a legend. I'm perfectly happy to admit that the culture of the Hebrews could easily have borrowed from both and of course there's nothing in the text of the Pentateuch to suggest this is not the case.
This concludes all the expert testimony that the tribe was able to get from actual experts who had reviewed whatever they sent in. It's nice to see that not a single one of them support the position that the legend of Moses pre-dates the legend of Sargon. The general rule when debating apologists is just to read the source of the apologist thoroughly and you usually have more than enough debunking ammunition within their own source, but rarely has the case been shown more conclusively than here.
The rest of the reports are all from sources that were dug up from the library or the internet or wire services and yes, not a single one suggests that the legend of Moses pre-dates the legend of Sargon. To pad the list, they even post something about medieval foundlings, a topic that is not particularly germane to the question of whether one foundling legend predates another.
So once again the tribe swings repeatedly and hits air. It's nice they at least properly titled this corpse of a post.
To fully appreciate the lengths the tribe will go to, it's necessary to revisit the sentence I wrote that started the whole fracas in the first place. I made a simple, declarative sentence:
I think the story of Sargon being floated in a basket of reeds down the river as an infant is a myth (that predates the Moses myth).
This created multiple posts over on Triablogue that were apoplectic about how awful I was for suggesting such a thing. So now we have their "post-mortem" on the issue and I would like to see if they have succeeded at disproving my original claim. There are eight authors who they have selected as experts and we'll evaluate their statements in turn to see if anyone disagrees with my basic, initial assertion.
Their first author is a no-show that's really just a tease for some future "dismantling" that we can all just hold our breaths and wait for.
Their second author is Dr. James Hoffmeier. The crux of his statement in support of the tribe is this:
Indeed the Sargon legend may well be the earliest example of the expose child motif, but that does not mean that Exodus 2 could not be completely independent. To ignore the clear Egyptian linguistic elements of Exodus 2 (one that does not fit a Mesopotamian setting) is shear obscurantism!
Wow! First, he thinks that obscurantism can be taken off like wool ... an odd thought that. Secondly, he admits exactly what I stated in my first statement on the issue and the tribe is kind enough to quote him on it. Post-mortem indeed. Their argument is buried by their own expert!
Third up is Richard Hess:
I am not quite sure what the point here is. The Sargon story is generally as Avalos says. Lewis' book has been around and well known. He cites dozens of Sargon story types in the ancient Near East and later, ending with the story of Superman's birth in DC comics. The form of the Sargon legend involves a first person intro and an an epilogue that concludes with 1 of the 4: blessings/curses, didactic lesson, temple donation, or prophecy. None of this applies to the Moses story; so if there was a borrowing it was more general than Avalos would like to admit. The general motif of the rescue of a leader as a baby and his/her being brought up by strangers is certainly well known in the ancient world and around the rest of the world. So what? No doubt the author and early readers of the exodus account saw the motif in the Moses story. That says nothing about its historicity.
Yes, that's right. Once again there is not a speck of support for the idea that the Sargon legend didn't pre-date the Moses legend. Their expert supports Avalos by agreeing with him. He brings up no evidence to suggest the story of Moses has any greater historical validity than the legend of Sargon.
Next they go to John Currid:
Indeed, within ANE literature there is a common motif of a birth story in which a child is under threat but survives to become king or leader of his people. The Legend of Sargon is such a story, and many scholars identify it as the very basis of Exodus 2. To go from Exodus to Mesopotamian literature has been the bias of ANE scholarship for a long time (creation and Enuma Elish; flood and Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.). But the reality is, and many do not want to admit it, is that Exodus is set in Egypt (seems obvious, but apparently not!) -- the book is imbued with Egyptianisms (see my Ancient Egypt and OT, for example). Consequently, I think that we ought to be looking in Egyptian literature for any such paradigm: The Myth of Horus contains similar motifs as Exodus 2.
Looking closely, I see only the suggestion that both the legend of Sargon and the legend of Horus pre-date the legend of Moses. With experts like this, the tribe doesn't even need Dr. Avalos to debunk them. They can just read their own sources to prove that the story of Moses is a legend. I'm perfectly happy to admit that the culture of the Hebrews could easily have borrowed from both and of course there's nothing in the text of the Pentateuch to suggest this is not the case.
This concludes all the expert testimony that the tribe was able to get from actual experts who had reviewed whatever they sent in. It's nice to see that not a single one of them support the position that the legend of Moses pre-dates the legend of Sargon. The general rule when debating apologists is just to read the source of the apologist thoroughly and you usually have more than enough debunking ammunition within their own source, but rarely has the case been shown more conclusively than here.
The rest of the reports are all from sources that were dug up from the library or the internet or wire services and yes, not a single one suggests that the legend of Moses pre-dates the legend of Sargon. To pad the list, they even post something about medieval foundlings, a topic that is not particularly germane to the question of whether one foundling legend predates another.
So once again the tribe swings repeatedly and hits air. It's nice they at least properly titled this corpse of a post.
22 comments:
I must open with a disclaimer: I am not a historian or a Bible scholar. And as someone trained in the scientific method, what I've seen so far presented as evidence for Bible stories having been derived from other myths is plausible, but inconclusive: inferences can be drawn, but there is simply not enough data to warrant the definitive assertion that, say, the story of Moses was derived from the story of Sargon. I would guess that there is a connection, but I doubt it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
That said, what struck me at the Triablogue post were two emails they posted as support for their view that the Biblical account was "correct". John Currid said:
What was mere myth in Egypt was true history in Israel -- God truly called a deliverer, saved him from danger, and caused him to lead and deliver his people. Myth in Egypt thus became fact in Israel.
And Allen Ross said:
In the Sargon story the infant's mother put him into the basket in the river; he was loved by the gods and destined for greatness. Saying Israel used this would indicate that the account in Exodus was fiction, and that would be an unacceptable determination.
Now, these guys might be respected scholars, but this is obviously not the way to reach an objective conclusion about the evidence: to say from the start that only one conclusion is acceptable.
Evan,
Excellent blog. I noticed that John Currid went on to say the following:
What then was the Mosaic author doing? He was using motifs and themes that were common ones in relating the birth of Moses -- certainly he was recording history, but perhaps more than that. Perhaps this story is a polemic against Egyptian...literature and legend. It may be, in particular, an ironic, belligerent critique of a well-known Egyptian story....I believe polemical theology may in fact be an important answer to such issues (vs. Enns and others).
I do think Currid is on to something and is probably correct in his assessment that this is an example of "polemic theology." The problem though is that polemic theology does not make it any more or less historical than the legends it is based upon. In fact a number of scholars believe that the events of the days of creation were "polemic theology" against the surrounding polytheism. It doesn't make the days of creation any truer than the other creation myths. So, polemic theology doesn't help their case, I would say that it counts more against it.
Zilch wrote,
I would guess that there is a connection, but I doubt it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I think you are right on this point, especially for Christians. Individuals that do not hold the bible to be inerrant have an easier time looking at the data and placing probability estimates on the the various hypotheses that can be derived from the data that has been presented. Take the hypotheses below:
1. The character Moses is a myth.
2. The character Moses is a myth and his story borrowed themes directly from the Sargon story.
Here, if you place a high probability estimate on hypothesis one to be established (based on such data as there is no extra-biblical extant record that discusses Moses that is dated to his time from the Hebrews nor surrounding cultures and that most scholars believe the Moses stories were passed down verbally for many hundreds of years before being written down), then it is much easier to place a higher probability estimate on hypothesis two.
However, believing that the bible is without error creates a rigidity in one's bias that makes it extremely difficult to look at any evidence against the historicity and truthfulness of the Moses story and lower one's probability estimate down from 100%.
This is a wonderful example of why conversing with fundamentalists about such things makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
Despite evidence of suspiciously similar myths predating and likely influencing the Moses story, the Moses story MUST be true because it's in the bible, and everything in the bible is true. There can be no viewing the matter subjectively because free thought must end when an argument suggests a fallible bible.
Steve has already responded. You probably cannot write more on any topic than he can. But just because he writes more than us doesn't mean he wins via verbosity!
Dealing with him and his ilk is like drinking motor oil. Yuk! If only he was a reasonable polite discussion partner!? He's not and he never will be. He views us as pawns of the devil. He thinks we are purposely misleading others. We are not honest with the facts. We distort them because we love sin. Such arrognace and hubris is as unbelieveable to me, as is the Calvinist gospel he preaches.
Both Egypt, as well as Mesopotamia are part of the much larger Ancient Afro-Asiatic dominion. Abraham's ancestry is Mesopotamian. His descendants finally end up in Egypt. Hope this adds further clarity and detail to Your discussion.
John,
I used to proclaim a Calvinist gospel. I have now rejected Christianity. Just prior to reading your post I was looking at some of the things I had written and defended. Boy have I come a long way. To get a sample of where I used to be, check out my old website:
The Gospel Way
As you can see I am still listed as the webmaster. The church is going to have someone else completely redo the site. I wrote two articles that are on the site, one of them is called The Lie of Arminianism. You will probably get a kick out of it.
Anthony, I wonder now that we have left the fold what we each think about Calvinism. I was an Arminian Christian.
How have your changed your thinking regarding Calvinism now that you no longer believe?
Former minister turned atheist Joe Holman in his book, Project Bible Truth now argues that Calvinism is Biblically correct even though as a Christian he was an Arminian
I now think the Bible is inconsistent because it was written by different people with different perspectives on this particular issue.
But I have not changed what I think of Calvinism. As a Christian I thought it was a despicable theology, one that creates atheists. Now it motivates me like no other theology to debunk the Christian faith.
Anthony,
Very interesting link. Do you have a deconversion story typed up?
John,
I agree with you that the Bible is inconsistent due to it's diversity of authors and messages. I would tend to think that there are some elements of predestinarianism in the NT. But then again I was an avowed amillennialist but now I think there may be elements of millennialism there as well.
Not that it matters if the Bible generally or the NT specifically can be nailed down to an Arminian or Calvinist position. I'm sure you agree on this as well. Both views have philosophical underpinnings and both have their pet scriptures that they use which again points back to the inconsistent message of the Bible itself.
Toby,
I do not have a full deconversion story typed up yet, I plan on doing that. I do however tell a little bit about it in my myspace blog entry called
What if evolution is true
Hope that helps.
I wouldn't be surprised if Hays is sexually deprived. The vast quantity of time he spends writing on his blog is probably fueled by a lot of pent up semen and testosterone. His obfuscation-riddled rants are his substitute for natural ejaculation.
I will be posting a more thorough reply
to Triablogue's "Postmortem" in the next day or so.
In other news:
Dr. Helmut Koester, a professor emeritus of Harvard Divinity School, has launched a religionist tirade on The End of Biblical Studies in the latest issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (September/October 2008). It seems like the book has hit a nerve with the senior elite. I criticize Harvard Divinity School in one of my chapters.
If BAR decides not publish my response, then
I will publish it right here.
Dr. Avalos, I was just reading that very article on Tuesday and was wondering if you were going to reply. Thanks for letting us know.
Hey Anthony,
Good, well-written blog post. A little TOO well-written, if you ask me (and you didn't :). Anyway, wanted to say hi and point you to another good blog:
http://www.stephenlaw.org
He's less into the Bible-bashing type of thing, more into the showing there's no philosophical reason for why we should believe in "god". (I always put that in quotes because I don't think anyone ever really knows what they're talking about when they say the word.)
Kyle P,
Hey, I really appreciate the link to Stephen Law's blog. I just spent a few minutes over there, but great stuff!
However, you post has me puzzled. What did you mean by "a little too good" in you comment to Anthony? And also, what did you mean by Stephen Law is less into the Bible-bashing? Because one of the first posts I read was him questioning whether Jesus even existed, providing a fairly good line of logic that Jesus did not exist. Bible-bashing doesn't get much bigger than that, does it? I think I may have just misunderstood your point.
Aye, you did my good Toby. Or, rather, what I meant to say was that he does not go into the Bible and find contradictions and such. He more often relies on philosophy, rather than theology. Hm, maybe my point is more difficult to explain than I thought.
My comment about being a "little too good" was a bit of a joke. Normally, blog posts are not that well-written - in fact, I'd say the average level of insightfulness is quite well below goodman Anthony's post. Wouldn't you agree?
Kyle P,
I partially agree. Yes, I suppose the average post is just average. However, I find great stuff here all the time. Also, there are a few posters that write exceptional posts more frequently than others (me not being one of those). Take sconnor as an example. He has posted some absolutely brilliant analysis on the Bible that has been very eye opening. Evan has the ability to make the very complex understandable. Lee thinks stuff that is so unique and insightful, but presents it so logically that you feel like it should have been obvious all along. Harry M has brilliant scholarship and knowledge. John has a vast and deep knowledge about way too many subjects.
Maybe I'm spending too much time here!
Toby,
I know. I don't really call this a blog. The level of the posts is much too high for this to be called a blog anymore.
What I meant by blog post earlier was Anthony's myspace blog posting, which was very well-written. It is not surprising that John et als' posts are fantastic, but it is that a random person (no offense, Anthony) posts their blog here and it's incredibly good.
Kyle,
Ahhhh, I'm finally tracking you!
Steve makes some good points in reference to this topic. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal.
Richard, Steve doesn't rebut a thing. He writes huge long posts with a bunch of name calling. But there's nothing for him to rebut. The fact is that all scholars agree that the texts of the Sargon legend predate the texts of the Moses legend. Steve can wave his hands and type for hours if he wants. The idea that he has anything to add is past post mortem and into putrefaction.
Post a Comment