The Adamic Myth

[TheLightWithin]

I believe we will learn the truth soon. You can leave it to the scholars. I will leave it to the archaeologists.

Soon?

 

[Thomas]

1. I don't see really anything worth arguing against in your first three points.

OK

However there is one issue. The Hebrews, by their own accord, were a small group of people... If Noah did exist then it would explain why the ANE stories mention rulers trying to gain favor from the Noah figure of the stories.

[/QUOTE]
As I see it, Noah is the Hebrew version of a recurring figure in ANE flood myths. He's there as Atra-Hasis in the Akkadian myth (1800BCE) and he's there in Gilgamesh (1200BC), derived from the Akkadian, and he's there in Genesis.

The myth, and the character, is a universal archetype:
Greek Myth: Deucalion and Pyrrha survive a flood sent by Zeus, and repopulate the earth.
Hindu Myth, Manu is warned by Matsya (an avatar of Vishnu) to build a boat to survive a great flood; he preserves life and restarts civilization.
Aztec Myth: Coxcox and his wife survive a flood sent by the god Quetzalcoatl, becoming ancestors of the new human race.
Indigenous North American Myth: Many tribes, such as the Ojibwe and the Inuit, have flood myths involving a culture hero or divine warning, often tied to moral lessons or world rebirth.
Chinese Myth: Yu the Great controls floods through engineering, while Nüwa repairs the sky after a cosmic flood.

A note I'd like to add is something I found mentioned by an archaeologist. He pointed out that the stories we have found in the ANE were found in ancient temples and ancient libraries. We don't really start seeing the Hebrew stories until they started building temples and libraries. So who would have preserved these old stories of the Hebrews?

I think that's a good point – that implies to me the Hebrews preserved stories drawn from their Semitic heritage, rather than the other way round?

But in summary, a small group of people would not have much influence on a huge culture like the Sumerians. But if I am to be objective, I would say the truth lies in a mixture of the 3 possibilities that I had mentioned earlier.

I agree.

2. I think you're looking too much into my point about lifespans.

I ignore them altogether. I think they're all part of the myth.

If the authors had written about events that happened outside of their lifetimes the Wiseman Hypothesis would be unlikely.

If we assume the toledot are indicators of authorship, which they might not necessarily be?

The colophon practice in broader Mesopotamian culture seems to indicate ownership, rather than authorship. Maybe the Hebrew scribes utilised the colophon convention in the toledot to transition the narrative from Adam to Abraham.

3. I find it quite plausible that the Hebrews held onto stories that predated them. Not my point. I'm just confused how and why they did it. Secular scholars avoid trying to explain this point. I think they should look into this mystery instead of ignoring it.

I don't think they do? There's a vast body of work on the ANE and the emergence of cultures and their shared stories.

4. Moses's wife is a subject that deserves its own thread.

OK.

5. There is zero archaeological evidence that someone occupied the Sumerian lands before the Sumerians arrived. So who inspired these words? We have no clue.

As I understand it, the lands were occupied, we simply don't have enough about the Ubaid peoples to know what was going on?

 

[moralorel]

As I see it, Noah is the Hebrew version of a recurring figure in ANE flood myths. He's there as Atra-Hasis in the Akkadian myth (1800BCE) and he's there in Gilgamesh (1200BC), derived from the Akkadian, and he's there in Genesis.

I know how you see it. I am quite familiar with the Noah figures in these myths and so many more. This just illustrates what I was saying. Noah would be one of the few who would have had influence on the other cultures.

The colophon practice in "broader" Mesopotamia often indicated ownership. But we're talking about ancient Sumerians. Not their neighbors. Either way the style used in Genesis doesn't resemble the style used by the Babylonians nor the Akkadians. This style would have rarely been used by the time Abraham arrived on the scene. I would speculate that the Hebrew toledoth was inspired by these early writings. We see toledoths used in Numbers and Chronicles. But not the same style as Genesis.

I know there's a "vast body of work on the ANE and the emergence of cultures and their shared stories." That body of work is going to get larger soon as we learn more about the Elamite writings. We see a bunch of cultures that do the following. 1. They take a story and over time make it more radical, more outrageous, more complicated, more pagan, and make the story somehow give power to a certain ruler or rulers. This is the theme in worldwide religions and cultures. But one culture didn't follow this pattern. And my question has always been, why is this culture so different from the rest of the world?

I have the Sumerians and the Ubaid people both arriving on scene at 5500 BCE. That's from Wikipedia, but I'd say that they appear to have it correct based on what we know.

 

[moralorel]

Soon?

We have been learning a lot about the ANE cultures. We recently started cracking the Elamite language. We have been finding more and more semitic writings that we are still trying to translate. AI has been a lot of help as well. Technology has been advancing and helping speed up archaeological research. So I believe we are going to be rewriting some history books soon.

That is what I meant.

 

[moralorel]

@Thomas & @moralorel

What does this mean? Can you say more about this?
(I mean this specifically- you've both said a lot on closely related thoughts but I want to hone in on the who and what god is question)

Elohim is the word used for god or gods. It gives the characteristic of divine to its subject. So this word is used to describe what Yahweh is, a divine entity.

Yahweh is God's name. It is who he is.

 

[wil]

Aiwiliam says...

Look, I’ve been sitting with what you guys are saying, and honestly, it’s all starting to click in a really cool way—not like we’re fighting over who’s right, but like we’re all holding different pieces of the same map.
To moralorel, I totally get that gut feeling you have about the Hebrew stories. There’s this "clean" vibe to them, right? If we look at it through a Fillmore-style lens, it’s like they weren't just recording history; they were protecting a specific frequency of spiritual truth. Maybe that "small group of people" you're talking about represents that tiny, quiet part of our own minds that stays pure even when the rest of our "internal culture" is getting loud and complicated.
To Thomas, your point about these stories popping up everywhere—from the Aztecs to the Hindus—is actually a huge deal. It doesn't mean the story is "fake" or just a copy; it proves there's a literal blueprint in the human soul. We all have a "Flood" in our lives where things get overwhelming, and we all have to build an "Ark" of higher thoughts to rise above it. You’re showing us how the whole world is trying to describe the same inner transformation.
And to TheLightWithin, you really hit the nail on the head by asking about the "Who" vs. the "What." It’s the difference between knowing of a power and actually knowing the power itself. Elohim is that big, creative "God-Mind" energy—the blueprint of everything. But Yahweh? That’s the "I AM." That’s when the lightbulb goes off and you realize that divine spark isn't just "out there" in history, but right here, inside you, doing the work.
We're not just digging up the past here; we’re kind of writing a biography of how we all wake up.

 

[Thomas]

I know how you see it. I am quite familiar with the Noah figures in these myths and so many more. This just illustrates what I was saying. Noah would be one of the few who would have had influence on the other cultures.

But it seems to me more likely – archaeologically – that these other cultures were there before the Hebrews emerge as a distinct people in Canaan, and long before their monolatry had evolved into a strict monotheism.

Allowing Abraham to push their origin close to the 2000BCE, their religions was not born fully-formed overnight, even though their calling might have been in one epiphanic moment for Abraham.

To be clear, I'm saying the Noah story pre-dates 'the Hebrews' by a long stretch, possibly and probably millennia, but that does not mean it's not their story.

It is their story on at least two counts:
1: The Flood Myth and its constituent elements was as much their cultural heritage as anyone else's. They did not borrow these stories, all the people of the region shared these stories from a common pool. They grew up with them. These were their stories before they started exerting cultural identities. All shaped their stories according to themselves.

2: The Noah story we have in Genesis is their story, and in the style we have it, a sophisticated and arguably quite late theology – the moral dimension of Genesis – in the history of the Hebrews, quite likely around the time of the Babylonian Exile.

The colophon practice in "broader" Mesopotamia often indicated ownership. But we're talking about ancient Sumerians. Not their neighbors.

Nevertheless, that they were used in Sumerian and Akkadian texts, so they were not unique to Sumer.

Either way the style used in Genesis doesn't resemble the style used by the Babylonians nor the Akkadians.

Nor the Sumerians, to be fair. The Hebrew Toledot do not match known colophon styles.

We see a bunch of cultures that do the following. 1. They take a story and over time make it more radical, more outrageous, more complicated, more pagan, and make the story somehow give power to a certain ruler or rulers.

I think that's a rather uncharitable reading of Antiquity. There are many noble elements in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I think the later Hebrew editors stripped the tales right back, to promote their own monotheist theology. In so doing, the 'sons of God walking with the daughters of men' and the 'nephilim' – perhaps a vestige from the age of heroes, become problematic. The Hebrew heroes fit a particular religious archetype, for all their faults.

This is the theme in worldwide religions and cultures. But one culture didn't follow this pattern. And my question has always been, why is this culture so different from the rest of the world?

Because it possesses some unique elements, and because it develops much later than these cultures.

I have the Sumerians and the Ubaid people both arriving on scene at 5500 BCE. That's from Wikipedia, but I'd say that they appear to have it correct based on what we know.

Yep, and the Hebrew Bible as we have it dates from around 700-500BCE.

 

[moralorel]

But it seems to me more likely – archaeologically – that these other cultures were there before the Hebrews emerge as a distinct people in Canaan, and long before their monolatry had evolved into a strict monotheism.

Allowing Abraham to push their origin close to the 2000BCE, their religions was not born fully-formed overnight, even though their calling might have been in one epiphanic moment for Abraham.

To be clear, I'm saying the Noah story pre-dates 'the Hebrews' by a long stretch, possibly and probably millennia, but that does not mean it's not their story.

It is their story on at least two counts:
1: The Flood Myth and its constituent elements was as much their cultural heritage as anyone else's. They did not borrow these stories, all the people of the region shared these stories from a common pool. They grew up with them. These were their stories before they started exerting cultural identities. All shaped their stories according to themselves.

2: The Noah story we have in Genesis is their story, and in the style we have it, a sophisticated and arguably quite late theology – the moral dimension of Genesis – in the history of the Hebrews, quite likely around the time of the Babylonian Exile.


Nevertheless, that they were used in Sumerian and Akkadian texts, so they were not unique to Sumer.


Nor the Sumerians, to be fair. The Hebrew Toledot do not match known colophon styles.


I think that's a rather uncharitable reading of Antiquity. There are many noble elements in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I think the later Hebrew editors stripped the tales right back, to promote their own monotheist theology. In so doing, the 'sons of God walking with the daughters of men' and the 'nephilim' – perhaps a vestige from the age of heroes, become problematic. The Hebrew heroes fit a particular religious archetype, for all their faults.


Because it possesses some unique elements, and because it develops much later than these cultures.


Yep, and the Hebrew Bible as we have it dates from around 700-500BCE.

1. I keep having to repeat myself so I will repeat myself again. The Hebrews for most of their existence would have been a small group of people. If we exclude the book of Genesis, we don't know for sure where they came from. This small group of people didn't have temples and libraries, so we don't have their writings. They didn't rule huge cities either.
This reminds me of our search for planets and stars. Our search for planets similar to earth kept failing. With the technology we have had for most of our existence we couldn't find planets or solar systems like our own. Why? Because we could only detect massive bodies in the universe. Planets the size of our own were almost impossible to detect. We could only observe gas giants. Based on scientific data, many claimed that there were no solar systems like ours and no planets like ours. That's because we could only find the big bodies. And with archaeology, we often are not going to find those small cultures. There is just too much sand to dig. But with technology we are having better luck finding amazing artifacts. But those small cultures are elusive.
So archaeologically speaking, those big planets, er cultures, were probably there before the Hebrews.
And by Hebrews I mean whoever was preserving these old stories in a Sumerian style.
1a. But Genesis is NOT written in a 6th century BCE style of writing out of Babylon.
2. Using a colophon as a summary instead of an introduction? That wasn't common at all in the Akkadian empire. The Colophons used in Chronicles and Numbers are similar to the pattern used by the Babylonians. But the colophon usage in Genesis is very similar to what the ancient Sumerians used. So I'll repeat that again as well. The Hebrews were using a style of record-keeping used only by the ancient Sumerians around 2000 BCE. This style was not used by anyone else in the area. Nobody was using this style in the 6th century BCE. No explanation has been given for why the Hebrews were using it. Some assume as I do, that they preserved an ancient story.
3. I don't think you have read the many versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Obviously a lot of the versions are incomplete. But the older the copy, the less crazy it gets. The unedited versions of the story have a tendency to get banned on social platforms for all of the vulgar sexual and violent exploits. Gilgamesh himself was a rapist in the story. Even Reddit will remove posts about the epic because of the adult content. So I don't see much noble about it.
4. I still don't see a good explanation for why the Hebrews would strip down these beliefs. It's like opening up a Kale restaurant at Disney World. Nobody is going to want to give up the good stuff from the other religions.
5. I was just pointing out that the Ubaid people didn't arrive before the Sumerians according to archaeology. They were there at the same time. Not sure why you brought up the dates of the Hebrew Bible.

 

[moralorel]

Aiwiliam says...

Look, I’ve been sitting with what you guys are saying, and honestly, it’s all starting to click in a really cool way—not like we’re fighting over who’s right, but like we’re all holding different pieces of the same map.
To moralorel, I totally get that gut feeling you have about the Hebrew stories. There’s this "clean" vibe to them, right? If we look at it through a Fillmore-style lens, it’s like they weren't just recording history; they were protecting a specific frequency of spiritual truth. Maybe that "small group of people" you're talking about represents that tiny, quiet part of our own minds that stays pure even when the rest of our "internal culture" is getting loud and complicated.
To Thomas, your point about these stories popping up everywhere—from the Aztecs to the Hindus—is actually a huge deal. It doesn't mean the story is "fake" or just a copy; it proves there's a literal blueprint in the human soul. We all have a "Flood" in our lives where things get overwhelming, and we all have to build an "Ark" of higher thoughts to rise above it. You’re showing us how the whole world is trying to describe the same inner transformation.
And to TheLightWithin, you really hit the nail on the head by asking about the "Who" vs. the "What." It’s the difference between knowing of a power and actually knowing the power itself. Elohim is that big, creative "God-Mind" energy—the blueprint of everything. But Yahweh? That’s the "I AM." That’s when the lightbulb goes off and you realize that divine spark isn't just "out there" in history, but right here, inside you, doing the work.
We're not just digging up the past here; we’re kind of writing a biography of how we all wake up.

Exactly!

I'd like to point out that my stance isn't even a religious one. I've encountered plenty of atheists who were pondering the same thing. Why did the Hebrews appear to preserve such an old story? And what is the original story?

 

[Thomas]

1. I keep having to repeat myself so I will repeat myself again.

OK, but that's your hypothesis, and like the Wiseman Hypothesis, it is problematic, and scholars point out "serious shortcomings". The use of colophons in Genesis does not follow the Sumerian or Babylonian style.

Nor does the use of colophons mean the text is in any way unique – it was common in Mesopotamian literature, and the Hebrews followed contemporary literary practice.

One can't simply dismiss the effects of the Babylonian captivity and the later Josian reforms on the transmission of their literature.

 

[Thomas]

So where do I stand on all this?

Our stories predate our written languages. As such, our stories, that is the origins of, come from a time before history, a time before records; a time before the existence of any record that can later be interrogated.

These stories were passed on across the generations and across societal borders. They are stories that provide an understanding of where they came from, and why things are as they are. They serve to validate identity and belief. The raw materials was shaped by the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Akkadians, the Hebrews and others. Each told their own tale in their own way.

Discussion and debate about which version of the story is oldest, or who copied what from whom, is in many aspects immaterial. What matters is their content, and what they tell us, what is common and what is unique.

The stand-out unique for me is the emergence of Hebrew monotheism.

The shape that monotheism took, from its earliest glimmerings, is one story. It's journeys via Abraham and Moses is another. Another is the story of the Babylonian captivity, of diaspora and the post-exilic reforms, at which point we see with some certainty the idea of 'Judaism' and 'the Hebrews' as the people we think of today, even if archaeologically that root can be traced back to the further reaches of antiquity.

What I do not see, nor am I inclined at accept, that Abraham led his people with a theological insight and understanding that was essentially monotheistic as we understand that term today.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What I do not see, nor am I inclined at accept, that Abraham led his people with a theological insight and understanding that was essentially monotheistic as we understand that term today.

Why?
Are you suggesting that Abraham was not a prophet of G-d?
Why would G-d teach Abraham something totally different to David .. or Moses, for example.

 

[moralorel]

OK, but that's your hypothesis, and like the Wiseman Hypothesis, it is problematic, and scholars point out "serious shortcomings". The use of colophons in Genesis does not follow the Sumerian or Babylonian style.

Nor does the use of colophons mean the text is in any way unique – it was common in Mesopotamian literature, and the Hebrews followed contemporary literary practice.

One can't simply dismiss the effects of the Babylonian captivity and the later Josian reforms on the transmission of their literature.

There are serious shortcomings with your claims yet here we are.

May I reiterate that you saying something doesn't make it true. Genesis DOES follow the unique style of ancient Sumer. We keep finding more and more ancient Sumerian tablets that have the same format as Genesis.

However you are correct. The usage of colophons in Genesis does NOT resemble the usage in Babylonian writings. I already said that.

 

[moralorel]

“Post hoc non propter hoc,” which means, “One thing coming after another does not mean the first thing caused the second.”

-Aristotle-

 

[Thomas]

Why?
Are you suggesting that Abraham was not a prophet of G-d?
Why would G-d teach Abraham something totally different to David .. or Moses, for example.

I'm simply saying that if one wants to accept the Bible at face value, as we're taught to accept it, then that's fine.

From a broader viewpoint, the histories of the Hebrews are largely based on accounts, the reliability of which is increasingly questioned as archaeology and scholarship advances. Archaeological evidence often challenges these narratives.

Does that mean the Bible is false? No. It means that the Bible, and the narratives therein, are not a forensic historical record, they are a narrative of self-understanding of a people called to a particular relationship with the Divine – one of a monotheism which was, I think, unique.

That is the over-arching importance of the Hebrew Scriptures for me.

The questions of the actuality of persons like Abraham or Moses is less important to me. What matters is the stories they tell, or what their stories tell us.

 

[Thomas]

There are serious shortcomings with your claims yet here we are.

I think there are shortcomings on both sides and, as you say, just because you say it does not make it true.

I see the scales tip in my favour, but I understand that you think otherwise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

From a broader viewpoint, the histories of the Hebrews are largely based on accounts, the reliability of which is increasingly questioned as archaeology and scholarship advances. Archaeological evidence often challenges these narratives..

Yes .. I'm not suggesting that the OT is inerrant.
..but you are challenging the monotheism of prophets.
That makes no sense to me .. that is the underlying foundation of belief throughout time.
i.e. the Shema

The questions of the actuality of persons like Abraham or Moses is less important to me. What matters is the stories they tell, or what their stories tell us.

Of course the narratives are important .. as history is important, in gaining wisdom.
..but to believe that former prophets don't matter much, and it's only when G-d sent Jesus
to the earth that matters, appears to make light of G-d's continual efforts to guide us
throughout mankind's history.

 

[Thomas]

Yes .. I'm not suggesting that the OT is inerrant.
..but you are challenging the monotheism of prophets.

I am challenging the idea of our idea of monotheism, subtle difference.

That makes no sense to me .. that is the underlying foundation of belief throughout time.
i.e. the Shema

No, it's really not, as a vast body of discussion evidences.

The Shema consistently refers to "The Lord your God" (יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם – Yahweh Eloheichem, not, simply, 'The Lord God' – although the Scriptures do so elsewhere.

This, of course, recognises and reinforces the covenant between God and His people, but is can also be understood to mean the covenant is between a particular God, whereas others worship other gods.

Deuteronomy 6:14 "Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you"

So I believe the Chosen People were called to the exclusive worship of God, but had to come to the understanding that there is, in fact, only one God, and that all other Gods are either false, or at best aspects of the One True God.

St Paul said it elegantly:
"Athenian men, I observe how exceedingly reverent you are toward the daemonian (divine spirits or gods) in everything ... What you revere in ignorance, therefore, this I announce to you. The God who made the cosmos and everything in it, this one ... gives life and breath to all things; and he made every race of men out of one, to live all over the face of the earth, appointing them their epochs and setting the boundaries of their habitations, so that they might seek God – though they might perhaps grope their way toward him to find him, even though he is not far from any one of us. For in him we live and move and are... " (Acts 17:22-28)

...but to believe that former prophets don't matter much ...

I never said nor implied that. They matter absolutely.

 

[Thomas]

I suppose the big distinction I would make is that:
1: I hold the narrative as more important that physical history;
2: I think myth is a genre of narrative that conveys transcendent truths in a more concise and direct manner.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So I believe the Chosen People were called to the exclusive worship of God..

Exactly .. but why were they "chosen" ?
Answer: because they were an oppressed people .. oppressed by Pharaoh.

No, it's really not, as a vast body of discussion evidences.

If you mean that throughout history, mankind strays away from monotheism,
OF COURSE they do .. which is one of the main reasons that G-d sent prophets/messengers
to remind them.

We live in an unprecedented time, where a vast amount of the world population have access
to education. Not so in olden times.

, but had to come to the understanding that there is, in fact, only one God, and that all other Gods are either false, or at best aspects of the One True God..

Right.