Ancient History Sourcebook:
The Legend of Sargon of Akkadê, c. 2300 BCE
1. Sargon, the mighty king, king of Akkadê am I,
2. My mother was lowly; my father I did not know;
3. The brother of my father dwelt in the mountain.
4. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the bank of the Purattu [Euphrates],
5. My lowly mother conceived me, in secret she brought me forth.
6. She placed me in a basket of reeds, she closed my entrance with bitumen,
7. She cast me upon the rivers which did not overflow me.
8. The river carried me, it brought me to Akki, the irrigator.
9. Akki, the irrigator, in the goodness of his heart lifted me out,
10. Akki, the irrigator, as his own son brought me up;
11. Akki, the irrigator, as his gardener appointed me.
12. When I was a gardener the goddess Ishtar loved me,
13. And for four years I ruled the kingdom.
14. The black-headed peoples I ruled, I governed;
15. Mighty mountains with axes of bronze I destroyed (?).
16. I ascended the upper mountains;
17. I burst through the lower mountains.
18. The country of the sea I besieged three times;
19. Dilmun I captured (?).
20. Unto the great Dur-ilu I went up, I . . . . . . . . .
21 . . . . . . . . . .I altered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22. Whatsoever king shall be exalted after me,
23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24. Let him rule, let him govern the black-headed peoples;
25. Mighty mountains with axes of bronze let him destroy;
26. Let him ascend the upper mountains,
27. Let him break through the lower mountains;
28. The country of the sea let him besiege three times;
29. Dilmun let him capture;
30. To great Dur-ilu let him go up.
----
Source:
From: George A. Barton, Archaeology and The Bible, 3rd Ed., (Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, 1920), p. 310.
Scanned by: J. S. Arkenberg, Dept. of History, Cal. State Fullerton. Prof. Arkenberg has modernized the text.
-----------
Comment
Genesis records Moses starting life in a similar way. Genesis is much much newer, written somewhere around 1445 B.C. So which came first? Moses in the basket of reeds or Sargon? Is this where Moses's mother got the idea from? Why did it happen twice? What are the odds of two children put in a basket and sent down a river only to be saved and raised to be a ruler?
Or could it be that over time, oral traditions and legends and myths become confused by the children remembering and apply them to themselves? The legend of Sargon would of been known to the children of the patriarchs during their captivity. It would of HAD to of been part of their folklore. (my speculation)
Originally posted by BluesChordYou were doing well, right up to the last sentence, then you lost me.
Ancient History Sourcebook:
The Legend of Sargon of Akkadê, c. 2300 BCE
1. Sargon, the mighty king, king of Akkadê am I,
2. My mother was lowly; my father I did not know;
3. The brother of my father dwelt in the mountain.
4. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the bank of the Purattu [Euphrates],
5. My lowly mother conceived me, ...[text shortened]... s during their captivity. It would of HAD to of been part of their folklore. (my speculation)
It would have HAD to have been part of their folklore.
Have, not of. I'm going to have to mark you down to a C- for that.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm not seeing any real conclusion in that article. Sort of wishy-washy, actually. Kind of hard to deny the link between the two myths, of course. You know, like the Noah - Utnapishtim parallels.
Dig a little deeper. History is rich.
http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/how_reliable_is_exodus.htm
Originally posted by David CThough the article gets more into the reliability of the Exodous text, it speaks of the ways stories of that time were compiled. Referring to syntax, timing and common motifs, the article leans more toward offering a more balanced perspective which leads to reconciliation of the accounts.
I'm not seeing any real conclusion in that article. Sort of wishy-washy, actually. Kind of hard to deny the link between the two myths, of course. You know, like the Noah - Utnapishtim parallels.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf it's anything like the 'reconciliation' of the two Genesis creation
Though the article gets more into the reliability of the Exodous text, it speaks of the ways stories of that time were compiled. Referring to syntax, timing and common motifs, the article leans more toward offering a more balanced perspective which leads to reconciliation of the accounts.
myths you devised, then why would any rational person even entertain
reading it?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioActually not 'devised' by me, but rather, laid out within the text. Or are you suggesting that Genesis 5 is still another account of creation, itself at odds with the accounts in Genesis 1?
If it's anything like the 'reconciliation' of the two Genesis creation
myths you devised, then why would any rational person even entertain
reading it?
Nemesio
The mind reels.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSure! God initially created humankind both before and after animals.
Actually not 'devised' by me, but rather, laid out within the text.
You are right. It was not devised by you.
The painful rationalization, on the other hand, that allows you to ignore
this contradiction does, indeed, make the mind reel.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioKeep trying: you're almost there. As soon as you start questioning yourself, you will be on the path toward truth. Until then, you're simply shadow-boxing.
Sure! God initially created humankind both before and after animals.
You are right. It was not devised by you.
The painful rationalization, on the other hand, that allows you to ignore
this contradiction does, indeed, make the mind reel.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioHere is a citation from the following article.
Sure! God initially created humankind both before and after animals.
You are right. It was not devised by you.
The painful rationalization, on the other hand, that allows you to ignore
this contradiction does, indeed, make the mind reel.
Nemesio
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513
Does Genesis two present a different creation order than Genesis one? Is there a reasonable explanation for the differences between the two chapters? Or is this to be recognized as a genuine contradiction?
Some Bible students resolve this alleged contradiction simply by explaining that the Hebrew verb translated “formed” could easily have been translated “had formed.” In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated:
Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added).
Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed” (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV , all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.
Regards