I understand archeology quite well and in general archeologists don't
believe legends or their detail. Archeologists don't really deal in legend
they deal in artifacts.
My comment:
Legends are social artifacts. That makes them different from material
artifacts. They are more like a method of tool construction that is passed
down generations or from one culture to another. Archaeologists do
not 'believe' legends as much as they want to explain them. That explanation
compares the legend itself to the archaeology of the time and locale that
gave rise to the legend.
Thus the details in a legend are regarded by archaeologists as neither
true nor false, but rather as "corresponding to" or "not corresponding to"
what is known about a period studied by archaeology.
Archaeologists judge the correspondence because they know that narratives change
with passage. This change in narrative is seen in the Bible itself...
...As George noted (10/29/99):
>This is also the case when a later writer adds "details" which are
non-historical in order to make a theological point. E.g., the exaggerated
sizes of
armies (e.g., 2 Chron.13:3, 14:9) & amounts of wealth (I Chron.22:14,) in
Chronicles
are part of the Chronicler's way of turning the history of the Davidic monarchy
in Samuel-Kings into a vision of the Kingdom of God. The _omission_ of all the
seamy
details about David & Solomon serves the same function.
Thus we come to Glenn's comments about history and legend:
>As I have repeatedly argued, if you don't have a scenario, you don't have
history. In the case of Arthur, we don't really have a history and thus the
truth of the story is really at issue. Some people don't believe that there
was an Arthur, some believe in an Arthur but not a round table. Since there
is no observational evidence of Arthur's existence, he is by definition in
pre-history,
My comment:
The early chapters of Genesis - like the legends of Arthur - come
out of prehistory. We know that because the Sumerians also have a tale
that is almost identical to the story of Noah's flood. So the term
"historicity" must be a metaphor when applied to a comparison of the early
chapters of Genesis and the archaeological or evolutionary record.
Even the "historicity" of Glenn's 'match' between the details
of Noah's story and the details of the Mediterranean infill must be
regarded as metaphorical. The Mediterranean infill was an event
in prehistory.
To me, the big question is: What event in prehistory should a
particular Genesis story associated with? Each 'match' reveals a
different scenario.
For example, Mallowan's claim that the story of Noah's ark pertains to a local
catastrophic flood early in Sumerian civilization is a scenario.
In his scenario, one is inspired to imagine that Noah and Zuisudra are
the same person. If that were the case, then Noah would be both a
descendant of Adam and an elite in the pre-Dynasitic Sumerian cilivization.
Wow! Now that's something.
Mallowan's scenario 'matches' the story of Noah's flood with sediments
from a local flood that happened at the start of the Dynastic, the social
change to the Dynastic, a break in the list of kings, and the existence
of a Sumerian flood myth (also an ark story). (Actually, Dick Fischer has
gone through this and ther is probably more.)
At the same time, Mallowan would regard many of the details of the
flood (for example, naming the mountain, the 40 days, the multitude of
animals on the ark, the depth of the waters etc) as 'not corresponding'
to the actual event but as details that were changed (due to various
dynamics) by the passage of the narrative.
Does that mean that the details are "false" and that God is lying
by letting the story to be written as such? I don't think so. On
the practical level, it means that we cannot reconstruct the event
(of the flood) solely from the Genesis text. To me, this inability
has a lesson:
Like the story of King Arthur, this legend reveals something
real - but at the same time - lets us know that whatever did happen
exactly, the story is for us to imaginatively re-experience with all
the wonder that comes with legends. It tells of both triumph and horror.
On the level of theology and morals the question this scenario
raises is: What does God want us to know by giving us a legend
of this event?
Perhaps Seely has it right in claiming that the theology of Noah's flood
needs to be appreciated in the light of the Sumerian / Babylonian myth.
The comparison is stunning. Maybe God, by allowing the story
to be a legend, is telling us to follow the direction Paul is pointing
towards.
Thus, looking at the story of Noah's flood from the 'logic of legends'
1. involves a scenario, 2. allows one to 'match' the story with an
event in prehistory that 3. deepens our appreciation of the story
of Noah's flood. Such a perspective does not claim that "God is telling
lies" simply because the story of the flood has legendary details.
Rather, God is telling us to use our brains.
For me, this is what concordism - as art - can give: Here is a 'match' that
deepens our appreciation of both the Genesis text (by inspiring us to
compare it to Sumerian myth) and our appreciation of a local flood that
just happened to devastate the world's first civilization. The flood
was as surprising as the sinking of the Titanic and, unfortunately, just
about the whole civilized world was on board.
Ray