To my comment
<< Ararat is a country (Urartu in the Assyrian texts). Gen 8:4 is saying
that
> the ark came to rest in the mountains in the country of Ararat. Adana is
> maybe 200 miles SW of the country of Ararat. If the text said the ark
landed
> in the "the Rockies of Montana," you could scarcely suppose it meant that
> the ark landed in the Rockies of Colorado or Alaska because geologically
they are on the same mountain chain>>
Glenn replied,
<< I will gladly discuss factual data so I will respond to this. It is a fact
that no one knows exactly what region Ararat referred to. Davis Young
provides a wonderful list of Ark landing sites. He says:
"Moreover, despite substantial discrepancies among various reports of the
location of the landing site (see map, p. 33), no writer seems to have
doubted the existence of the ark remains or to have puzzled at the thought
of a great boat on a mountain." Davis Young, The Biblical Flood, Grand
Rapids: Erdmanns, 1995), p. 20
He then states:
"Julius Africanus acknowledged multiple landing site traditions, he affirmed
that the 'ark settled on the mountains of Ararat, which we know to be in
Parthia, but some say that they are at Celaenae of Phrygia, and I have seen
both places." Davis Young, The Biblical Flood, Grand Rapids: Erdmanns,
1995), p. 20
Celaenae is in Western Turkey. The map on page 33 shows the Western Turkey
site mentioned by Africanus, Mount Baris in what is now Georgia, Adiabene in
Iran,Mount Qardu, and Agri Dagh (the present Mt. Ararat). While I agree that
most of the Kingom of Ararat is within Eastern
Turkey, I haven't seen anyone produce a shred of evidence that the
Mountains of Ararat are equated with Ararat. I cite the case of
Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains as a modern example.
Appalachia is a region of the US (mosty south of Pennsylvania and north
of Georgia. The Appalachain mountains go on up into Quebec and Nova Scotia.
So your attempt to define my solution out of the realm of possibility by
limiting Ararat to a small region flies in the face of the known spread of
ancient claims for where the Ark landed. All of these were believed to be
within the mountains of Ararat. That is a fact.>>
Julius Africanus as well as the other sources cited by Young are all very
late Christian and Islamic traditions. They are, accordingly, virtually
irrelevant. It is the mention of Urartu in the ancient Assyrian texts and
the archaeology of Urartu which tell us where that country was in the mind of
the writer of Gen 8:4. This still does not tell us which mountain in Urartu
the ark landed on; but, the location is somewhere in the country of Urartu.
At one point the kingdom of Urartu expanded and may have come reasonably
close to Adana, though never really reaching to it. But, the Babylonian
kingdom also expanded to take in Israel-Judah in 586 BC; but, that does not
mean that a phrase like "the mountains of Babylonia" could then refer to
Jerusalem.
The "mountains of Ararat (Urartu)" refers to mountains within the boundaries
of the country of Urartu; and that country centers around Lake Van. (Maps 3,
4, 146 of The Macmillan Bible Atlas). I doubt you can find any ancient Near
Eastern scholar who would say the phrase encompasses Adana.
I have to go now. A friend is taking me to hear Don Chittick explain "The
Dinosaur Mystery." I bet you wish you could get in on this. :-)
Best wishes,
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 11 2000 - 20:12:31 EDT