The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Clearing Assyria's Good Name

Clearing Assyria's Good Name

Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Thursday, August 21 2008, 19:33:21 (CEST)
from *** - ***

Non-Profit Organizations -

Windows XP -

Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Clearing Assyria’s Good Name

I consider that the only worthwhile reason to identify oneself as a descendant of the ancients; to place their achievements in a true light.

Some years back I had a ball traipsing through Gordon and Rendsburg’s book, “The Bible and the Near East”. It’s certainly no fault of some Jewish scholars to abuse history in an effort to bolster their heritage...after all, the modern world has bent every rule and law to harass and slander and murder Jews...why shouldn’t they fight back with everything at their disposal...and since there are no real Assyrians to fight back and defend our own ancients....can’t blame them for getting a little sloppy as they brag about their woeful ancestors....about as close to the Keystone Kops of the ancient world as you can get.

These two authors, among many other howlers, maintain that there was no proof of any connection between the Flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the biblical account. They claim that the Hebrews came up with their story of the Flood independently of the Epic...obviously the Jews are very sensitive to the claim that their bible is nothing more than a bad copy of what existed before....way before. This idea, that the Hebrews thought up all their own stuff is unconsciously promoted even by non-Jews...it’s become a sort of mantra...because the bible has to be upheld as the word of their god and not the creation of other people who never heard of their god, and when they did, weren’t impressed.

Just finished an excellent book titled “Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond. He explains how a fortunate accident of climate led to civilization getting its serious push in the Fertile Crescent and how it came to pass that Europeans, who were our students, conquered the Native Americans and not the other way around.

The book has nothing to do with the bible and yet in a passing comment he says that the flood story in the Epic is an ancient version of Noah. Say what? Can a saber-toothed tiger be an “ancient version” of a Bengal tiger of modern India? How can what came after be the version of what went before? It may be the descendant, the offshoot, but hardly the “version” of something much older than itself. That stands causality, or descent, on its head. Diamond may or may not be Jewish...it doesn’t matter because by now everyone is used to explaining away the similarities between the bible and what was much older...and original...giving precedence, somehow, to the bible.

It would have been more correct, certainly more scientific, to have said that Noah is a modern version of Utnapishtim....and not that Utnapishtim was an ancient version of Noah. When describing lineage the oldest should precede the newer. But to do so would make the Epic of Gilgamesh the original source of the later biblical story and the people who wrote the Epic the teachers...much as Galileo put the sun in its correct place...and almost got killed for it. In the beginning there was not the bible and Noah....there was the Epic and Gilgamesh. Noah is a VERSION of Utnapishtim...not the other way around.

It may appear to be a small thing but this effort to minimize the contributions of the ancient people of BetNahrain in favor of the biblical Hebrews is carried on down to today with the result that it’s become second nature to denigrate those magnificent people in numerous ways.

If one wants to be Assyrian...or “remember” that he hails from such distinguished people...let him set the bible straight and give credit where credit is due...except, interestingly enough, the Christian Assyrians BELIEVE the bible and when forced to choose, would prefer the Bible to be correct than the record of their own so-called ancestors.

Of course the Flood story originated in BetNahrain. The Jordan River is a pissant stream that never saw a flood and never could. There was agriculture in ancient Israel but nothing like what occurred in Egypt....or Mesopotamia, where real rivers existed. Had there been evidence that an Egyptian story, much older than the bible, recounted the Flood, people would probably be more willing to concede that the Hebrews copied it and claimed it for their own. But we have such a record of a great flood in Mesopotamia...and yet “scholars” say there is no connection between the Hebrew version and the Sumerian....hell, we had rivers that were RIVERS...and they flooded repeatedly. That alone should settle the case....but even with the discovery of the Epic the Jews and Christians maintain that the Flood and Noah occurred independently of the much older version...even down to details such as the dove and the branch. Some coincidence.

Can’t blame them. I’d be inclined to do the same if I was a modern Jew having been slandered and abused for centuries by Christians. But, as a modern “Assyrian”, they’ll have to excuse me. It’s plain as plain can be that Noah came after and therefore the bible, and the Hebrews, is not at the “center”, in this regard, but the Epic, and the Sumerians, is. Noah is a newer version and more; a copy of Utnapishtim....Utnapishtim is not an “older version” of Noah....and therefore the subtle hint that he is the “copy” of Noah is ridiculous.

We know who did the copying last.

---------------------

- BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic:
No replies.

***