Ancient tablet reveals new details about Noah

[laver]

Obviously the round shape of the boat is not a key element to the story because the article in the OP clarifies that the tablet in question is the only known source identifying it as round. And this tablet isn't the oldest with fragments of the Utnapishtim fable.

I think you're trying to make far too much out of the round shape, laver. There's nothing mystical about it—again, it was a common shape for a boat in Mesopotamia—and there's no evidence it symbolizes anything. The fable has much larger, and more important, messages to convey.

You may well be right and the now found early depiction of this legendary vessel as round may be of no significance at all.

From memory one early proposed origin of the story is that one deity was fed up with humans so decided to get rid of them with a big flood.

Another deity did not agree and slipped the word to one individual to look out because he would need a boat for himself and his family etc.

in order that mankind could survive and continue.

According to this ancient tablet the means of survival has to be round, a very symbolic shape because this flood was we hear a punishment on

humanity so the end of a cycle and the start of a new one.

Of course the bible writers have to adapt this story around just one deity not two or more in the earler myths so some details will have been changed

to suit and in the process the idea of a round ark seems to have been lost for thousands of years. This might not be important, but could be, particularly

as we hear from experts that this ancient tablet was from a learned source who would probably have been aware that small lightweight round boats are fine

for shallow water operations in rivers, being easy to carry, but not for load carrying over distances.

There are indications that these people did trade but this would not have been in wicker and skin round boats.

Hence the fable talking about a round ark may have been symbolic and worth remembering.

[Rafterman]

Ken Hamm is none too pleased - 'tis an "assault of God's Word":

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/01/27/4000-year-old-tablet-noahs-ark

And please don't forget to buy your advanced tickets to the Ark Encounter - opening 2016.

[Harte]

You may well be right and the now found early depiction of this legendary vessel as round may be of no significance at all.

From memory one early proposed origin of the story is that one deity was fed up with humans so decided to get rid of them with a big flood.

Another deity did not agree and slipped the word to one individual to look out because he would need a boat for himself and his family etc.

in order that mankind could survive and continue.

According to this ancient tablet the means of survival has to be round, a very symbolic shape because this flood was we hear a punishment on

humanity so the end of a cycle and the start of a new one.

The Atrahasis represents the oldest example of a flood story we have ever found. That doesn't make it older than Ziusudra, but our evidence of it is older.

Neither story spells out exactly how the ark was built or shaped. That is, until this tablet was translated. Mainly because only a few tablets have been found and parts cannot be read because of damage or missing tablets or whatever.

The Atrahasis mentions the dead "clogging the river," which leads some to think it was about a large river flood, even though it makes perfectly clear that all humanity was to be wiped out.

Consider that it may have been typical of ancient cultures to think "all of humanity" means all of that particular culture, which obviously would be the only people that really counted anyway. That is, history is filled with contempt of each culture for any others. The Egyptians were particularly good at this, from what I've read.

Regarding why Man was wiped out, you have it right - too much noise. For hundreds of years the gods tried various ways to get rid of us, disease, starvation, etc. Enki always saved us. But eventually it came down to a flood.

Harte

[aquatus1]

The bonobos and the gigantopitheci should never have shared the same cabin. Look at the trouble that's caused.

Oh yeah, just see how many Nibirus, alien invasions and zombie apocalypse we had in these years....

Oh, for Heaven's sake! The whole Niburo thing is just a typical mistranslation of an ancient language. Niburo wasn't a planet; it was a moon. And it wasn't literal; it was metaphorical. It was a reference the Bonobos made whenever their flatmates came out of the shower. Context, people!

[Harte]

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

Ken Hamm is none too pleased - 'tis an "assault of God's Word":

http://www.answersin...ablet-noahs-ark

And please don't forget to buy your advanced tickets to the Ark Encounter - opening 2016.

Thanks for the link to the article. It was entertaining…and a bit sad. I don't normally make fun of religion but this guy is actually trying to get the reader to think the story of Utnapisthim came from Noah, not the other way around. How much historical research and solidly corroborated evidence do these sorts of people ignore? In this case ignorance is not bliss.

Goodness.

[kmt_sesh]

Harte

Ewww! Just…ewww!

[Rafterman]

Thanks for the link to the article. It was entertaining…and a bit sad. I don't normally make fun of religion but this guy is actually trying to get the reader to think the story of Utnapisthim came from Noah, not the other way around. How much historical research and solidly corroborated evidence do these sorts of people ignore? In this case ignorance is not bliss.

Goodness.

Well given that they think the Earth is about 5,000 years old and man lived with dinosaurs, I'd say quite a bit.

[kmt_sesh]

Well given that they think the Earth is about 5,000 years old and man lived with dinosaurs, I'd say quite a bit.

And I meet them on occasion in my museum work in our Egyptian exhibit. One of the most taxing (and fruitless) of my experiences is trying to explain carbon dating to creationists or other fundamentalists. It's clear to me they don't understand the actual science behind dating techniques* and yet they feel equipped to dismiss them outright. "Carbon dating can't be trusted."

One of my favorites some time ago was an article by some creationist fellow in which he was seriously advocating that dinosaurs were domesticated and trained to help build the Great Pyramid. The guy might have been serious but I thought it was hilarious.

*By this I mean the dating of ancient artifacts, not finding proper Christian romance. That's what ChristianMingle.com is for.

[aquatus1]

Why is Sir Mix-a-Lot echoing through my head?

[aquatus1]

Harte

That ain't no heart...

[badeskov]

Harte

Thank you, was eating - emphasis on was

Cheers,

Badeskov

[coolguy]

Don't they claim the ark is in some mountain .forgot the name of it lol

[laver]

The Atrahasis represents the oldest example of a flood story we have ever found. That doesn't make it older than Ziusudra, but our evidence of it is older.

Neither story spells out exactly how the ark was built or shaped. That is, until this tablet was translated. Mainly because only a few tablets have been found and parts cannot be read because of damage or missing tablets or whatever.

The Atrahasis mentions the dead "clogging the river," which leads some to think it was about a large river flood, even though it makes perfectly clear that all humanity was to be wiped out.

Consider that it may have been typical of ancient cultures to think "all of humanity" means all of that particular culture, which obviously would be the only people that really counted anyway. That is, history is filled with contempt of each culture for any others. The Egyptians were particularly good at this, from what I've read.

Regarding why Man was wiped out, you have it right - too much noise. For hundreds of years the gods tried various ways to get rid of us, disease, starvation, etc. Enki always saved us. But eventually it came down to a flood.

Harte

It was Enki and the Goddesses, was it not, that in Sumerian myth first created humans ?

If I recall Enki did not get it quite right but the Goddess then did. As you say it is Enki who saves mankind from total annihiliation in the early 'ark' stories

by giving instructions on the building a boat which we now hear may have had to be round.

The much later bible creation myths of course leave out any reference to the Goddess and that the vessel of survival for mankind should be circular.

Is there a link between the circle and the Goddess which the bible writers wanted to remove in their story of Noah and his ark ?

The symbol of the Goddess, Inanna, seems to have been a staff with a circular / curved or coiled top which in later beliefs might be the origin of the crozier ?

Just a few ideas now that we have more information from an early source about this mythical event with its impractical craft.

[lightly]

It was George Smith that first translated the story from cuneiform:

This is Atra-Hasis.

Harte

Quote

The most remarkable feature provided by the Ark Tablet is that the lifeboat built by Atra-hasıs – the Noah-like hero who receives his instructions from the god Enki – was definitely, unambiguously round. “Draw out the boat that you will make,” he is instructed, “on a circular plan.”

Hi Harte, i was just wondering if ^ George Smith's translation is believed to be very accurate ? Precise ? I'm just wondering if there is a chance that what was translated into "circular" might have had a different meaning.. like .. from start to finish, or .. complete .? .. or very detailed, or some such ??

Probably a dumb question... not sure why i think "circular" may have been a mistranslation. Would like to hear your take (i think lol) on my idea .

*

Edited January 29, 2014 by lightly

[questionmark]

Don't they claim the ark is in some mountain .forgot the name of it lol

Arat, which also could have been the Ararat, or the Aro or about 100 other mountains that are called something like that near a tow called something like Noah (i.e Noya, Noe, etc).

But then again... as the most likely scenario is that there were hundreds of floods there could have been hundreds of Noahs.

[Harte]

Hi Harte, i was just wondering if ^ George Smith's translation is believed to be very accurate ? Precise ? I'm just wondering if there is a chance that what was translated into "circular" might have had a different meaning.. like .. from start to finish, or .. complete .? .. or very detailed, or some such ??

Probably a dumb question... not sure why i think "circular" may have been a mistranslation. Would like to hear your take (i think lol) on my idea .

The tablet with the description of the circular ark was just recently translated.

Of course, I can't be certain, but it is my belief that George Smith is too dead to have been involved in this translation.

Harte

[Harte]

It was Enki and the Goddesses, was it not, that in Sumerian myth first created humans ?

If I recall Enki did not get it quite right but the Goddess then did. As you say it is Enki who saves mankind from total annihiliation in the early 'ark' stories

by giving instructions on the building a boat which we now hear may have had to be round.

Enki also saved us from starvation and from disease. He spoke to Atrahasis through a wall.

Regarding how humans were created, it depends on whether you go by the Enuma Elish or the Atrahasis story itself.

The Enuma Elish is a later work and involves humans being created by Marduk, who was somewhat of a lesser god until his rise to godhead in Babylon. The Atrahasis is the earlier source, with humans being created in the very first section, prior to them being wiped out later.

I believe that by the time the Hebrews came around, the story had already evolved - probably through the Canaanite religion - into a more "modern" and sea-worthy ship. Likely to match the wider scope of the story. Canaan is in the region where the Pheonicians originated.

But we may never really know; either what the original was or exactly how it morphed into the story we know today.

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

The tablet with the description of the circular ark was just recently translated.

Of course, I can't be certain, but it is my belief that George Smith is too dead to have been involved in this translation.

Harte

LOL But he's feeling much better now!

I'm wondering if lightly is talking about the original translations of the fragments first found, in the nineteenth century? I'll leave him to answer that, but it's not as though the old translations are performed once, immediately published, and the source material ignored for the rest of time. Our understanding of the ancient languages is much better today, and one can only wonder how many Assyriologists and other specialists have examined the same corpus of tablets over the past 100-plus years.

[lightly]

ah.. thanks kmt_ , I got confused and had Smith translating the newly found tablet... but I think you've answered my question (whatever it was) So, it sounds like various cuneiform is well understood now.. Including their symbols for Circular.

From Harte's post:

Quote

The tablet was written during the Old Babylonian period, broadly 1900–1700BC. The document was not dated by the scribe, but from the shape and appearance of the tablet itself, the character and composition of the cuneiform and the grammatical forms and usages, we can be sure that this is the period in which it was written. It was composed in Semitic Babylonian (Akkadian) in a literary style. The hand is neat and that of a fully trained cuneiform scribe. The text has been written out very ably without error and for a specific purpose; it is certainly not a school practice tablet from a beginner, or anything of that kind. It measures 11.5cm by 6cm and contains exactly 60 lines.

[cormac mac airt]

Evidently the story inscribed on the tablet was just as slow in travelling as the Ark since it was translated 4 years ago.

cormac

[docyabut2]

There is that tablet of Gilgamesh as being three thirds of a God when he died, had his people stand in the river, the dams were broken and his people drowned to conceal his tomb.Perhaps the flood tale was of a earlier God king that ordered all of the animals along the river to be saved and put in a large round boat when he died.

Edited January 31, 2014 by docyabut2

[kmt_sesh]

ah.. thanks kmt_ , I got confused and had Smith translating the newly found tablet... but I think you've answered my question (whatever it was) So, it sounds like various cuneiform is well understood now.. Including their symbols for Circular.

Cuneiform is fairly well understood but no extinct ancient language can ever be completely understood. Assyriologists and other cuneiform specialists still fuss over certain words that rarely appear in the extant corpus and of course over certain grammatical structures. Much the same is true for Egyptian hieroglyphs, which arguably are better understood. What complicates cuneiform is that it was used to write more than half a dozen ancient languages, everywhere from southern Iraq to north-central Turkey, so it takes an enormous amount of research to puzzle it all out. Akkadian is the best-understood form of cuneiform, and this is the language in which the OP's tablet was written.

I am not an expert on cuneiform but the symbol for "circular" was a square.

That's not true. I made it up.

[lightly]

Thanks kmt_ , questionmark is actually learning to read cuneiform!

[Emma_Acid]

Man, I wish I could go to the British Museum.

You mean you haven't been????