It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sodom and Gamorah a retelling of Baucis and Philemon

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
From Greek to Hebrew here is a tale of Gods and Angels witnessing the unfavorable behavior of Man, finding but one good couple, destroying a city, and saving their favorable hosts. One tale is a Greek tragedy, the other an integral part of Judeo/Christian beliefs.

For the sake of discussion, here are the links I am using to draw the details. I chose a childrens story of the telling of Sodom and Gomorrah as it is easier on the eyes than the olde english of KJV of the Bible.

Sodom and Gommorah

Baucis and Philemon

Now here are some comparisons between the two tales.

The Main Players

S&G



So God sent two angels to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, to see if there were just ten good people there.


B&C



Once on a time, Jupiter, in human shape, visited this country, and with him his son Mercury (he of the caduceus), without his wings.


The Good Couple

S&G



Lot bowed to the ground. “Please come to my house and have dinner with us and stay the night.”


B&P



At last a humble mansion received them, a small thatched cottage, where Baucis, a pious old dame, and her husband Philemon, united when young, had grown old together.


The Bad People

S&G



“Lot! We want to meet your guests,” they shouted from outside the door. “Send them out so we can say hello.” But they were lying. They really wanted to have fun doing terrible things to Lot’s guests.


B&P




They presented themselves at many a door as weary travellers, seeking rest and shelter, but found all closed, for it was late, and the inhospitable inhabitants would not rouse themselves to open for their reception.


The Judgement of the God/s

S&G



Early the next morning, in the pale light before the sun had risen, the angels said to Lot, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters and leave this place, or you will die with everyone else!”


B&P



This inhospitable village shall pay the penalty of its impiety; you alone shall go free from the chastisement. Quit your house, and come with us to the top of yonder hill."


S&G



And then God rained fire onto the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thick, black smoke filled the air like smoke from a fiery furnace.


B&P



they beheld all the country sunk in a lake, only their own house left standing. While they gazed with wonder at the sight, and lamented the fate of their neighbors, that old house of theirs was changed into a TEMPLE.



I have highlighted the most striking similarities above. The purpose was to show that while one is taken as a moral tale used to teach how to properly host strangers in need, the other has been used to oppress a people and forward an agenda of hate. Taken as a moral play, both tales have value. Taken as the inerrant word of God, neither serves so great a purpose for both reflect a judgement which comes only from the story tellers perspective, culture, and upbringing.

Of interesting note, in the Greek version, the "saved" people looked back and lamented the destruction of their friends and neighbors. A point not missed by another savior of Man.



. 30Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. 31In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 32Remember Lot's wife. 33Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.


Thoughts?

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Off the top my thought is evident in the word AN gel from the sumerian...most of the stories in the bible have a predecessor story in an older culture.
Like the exodus apparently happening to the Hyksos and not those other fellers..


Something I just noticed the other day is that the snakes on the caduceus go back to the story of Gilgamesh's search for immortality...a snake brought him a plant that caused immortality

Gilgamesh was the son of a god and a human..and therefore fallen, or NOT immortal...so he was searching for immortality...

turns out resveritrol which comes from grapes which have tendrils that climb like snakes...
is the only substance found so far that turns on the anti aging gene

To me there is a whole ancient widom hidden in this stuff and making it religion makes it pretty much guarenteed that a religious person won't get the real important information.
It will be hidden behind the usurpation of leadership
edit on 28-3-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Brilliant post! Its always refreshing for someone to take a story that is used in one manner to opress people,dismantle it and show the intention initially made. Great job



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


It's common for authors, even today, to take old Bible stories and retell them in their own way, or try to reshape their religion to be more similar to the Bible. For example it was very common after Jesus for other religions to take on new stories that made them more like Christianity. You find many stories about older gods being crucified, but that were written after Christianity started to take off. Some religions went back and changed their religion in newer writings so they could say, my god was crucified too in other words!

Also, some Bible stories seem to be the retelling of even older myths so some people can get confused about which came first. Such as the Sumerian flood story is probably the original version of Noah's Ark for example. But it's hard to say. Could be two different stories. But 99 percent of the time an author is just rewriting an older story regardless of what book it is in.

When Ovid wrote and completed Baucis and Philemon in roughly 8 AD they probably took some inspiration from the Bible myth. So, your heading is most likely backwards, but no big deal I guess.

Sodom and Gomorrah may have never existed. As Sodom is a Hebrew word for scorched and Gomorrah is a Hebrew word for a ruined heap, it is most likely an allegory of some sort. If not, the cities would have most likely taken on their current names after they were destroyed and hence that's why we can't find evidence as to where they were or when they existed. Before the event they most likely had different unknown names. Because who would name their cities the cities of scorched and ruined heap? You would only name them that after they had been destroyed.

While we haven't found evidence that the cities really existed, based on writings that scholars have looked at, it is guessed that if the city did really exist, they were most likely destroyed between 2,000 and 4,000 BC. However, the story itself is most likely an allegory.

Originally intended to show that people should show hospitality to others in my view, and the view of many other scholars, modern day religious fanatics have stretched the story through propaganda to serve their own anti-homosexual agenda. But in my opinion that wasn't really the main focus originally.
edit on 29-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
It's common for authors, even today, to take old Bible stories and retell them in their own way, or try to reshape their religion to be more similar to the Bible. For example it was very common after Jesus for other religions to take on new stories that made them more like Christianity. You find many stories about older gods being crucified, but that were written after Christianity started to take off. Some religions went back and changed their religion in newer writings so they could say, my god was crucified too in other words!

Also, some Bible stories seem to be the retelling of even older myths so some people can get confused about which came first. Such as the Sumerian flood story is probably the original version of Noah's Ark for example. But it's hard to say. Could be two different stories. But 99 percent of the time an author is just rewriting an older story regardless of what book it is in.

When Ovid wrote and completed Baucis and Philemon in roughly 8 AD they probably took some inspiration from the Bible myth. So, your heading is most likely backwards, but no big deal I guess.


You are absolutely correct my friend. I probably have it backwards as to which came first and I didn't bother to research it last night when I made the post. I suppose it was laziness, but I blame the late hour all the same!


Though the Hebrew is most likely the first to be written, even to the Hebrews it is a moral tale about hospitality in the same vein as Baucis and Philemon, a point that was captured in the retelling. It seems funny to me that it has been twisted so much over the years to fit a certain agenda, and in that twisting a very good maxim has been lost.

It makes one wonder if a couple centuries down the road, will "Little Red Riding Hood" be similarly twisted to eradicate wolves? Perhaps "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" will be used to beat those upon the head who do not eat their porridge "just right"!

Ah, being human is great. We are the funniest of all species.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


It's cool. You were on the right track. For example Noah's Ark and the Sumerian Flood myth. There's an example where the Bible most likely borrows from another religion.

Right idea, just the wrong story. But it's SO HARD to tell which order they go in sometimes cause the religions borrow so much from each other.

And the S+G Bible story may not be original either. The Bible was written much later than when the event is believed to take place. So neither story is probably original. There's probably a third story behind all that if we kept looking.

EDIT: This may explain why the cities are named the way they are in the Bible. They knew the story, but didn't remember the actual city names. So they made up two names to put in the Bible to illustrate their metaphoric place in the story. The scorched city and the ruined heap! That's purely speculation though.
edit on 29-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
The ashen ruins of the 5 cities can be visited today on the Western edge of the Dead Sea.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by IAMIAM
 

When Ovid wrote and completed Baucis and Philemon in roughly 8 AD they probably took some inspiration from the Bible myth. So, your heading is most likely backwards, but no big deal I guess.


I would agree with your observation and your previous statements. The theme of hospitality was a pretty common one in that area, similar to the cultural sentiments about "neighborliness" in the American west. People from up north have often commented how unusual it is that we Texans will stop to help a stranger who has car trouble... but it's part of the culture here.

They can both be seen as teaching tales. However, the Biblical one gets turned into a polemic against homosexuality because of the detail about men going to the house of Lot to demand the cute angels for sex. No one seems to have any issues with Lot offering his virgin daughters to the mob.

Which would lead to an interesting question of "why leave that out?" That would be fairly classic Greek Tragedy material (the rape of the daughters, etc.)


Sodom and Gomorrah may have never existed. As Sodom is a Hebrew word for scorched and Gomorrah is a Hebrew word for a ruined heap, it is most likely an allegory of some sort. If not, the cities would have most likely taken on their current names after they were destroyed and hence that's why we can't find evidence as to where they were or when they existed. Before the event they most likely had different unknown names. Because who would name their cities the cities of scorched and ruined heap? You would only name them that after they had been destroyed.


An interesting point. I'd assumed they might have named and given a dramatic tale to ruins that they found as they traveled during the period when they had a nomadic lifestyle.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Still, I think the claims about the two cities been found is worth some digging(No pun intended).

Yes, I know that the following link is a link for Biblethumpers, and yes, I know that one of the involved, Ron Wyatt, is considered a fraud, but I would yet like to get some nonbiased feedback on the material; www.bibleplus.org...



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Well I think he'd of rather not offer his daughters at all. It's not like nobody had a problem with it. In fact I'd think most people would have a problem with it. But perhaps that's why they wrote the story that way. To make people say, WHAT? HE offered his daughters! It just adds more drama to the story. So that's why that's in the story I think. Because people do have a problem with that kind of thing. And perhaps the author did want to make a stab against homosexuality, but since it's not the main moral of the story, it's hard to say how important that aspect was to the author.

I think it was trying to stress that a guest in your home is even important than the people that live in it where most people would disagree. Most people would say I wouldn't offer my daughters! But the author is trying to show that hospitality to guests is even more important than they think.

It's hard to say how important the homosexuality aspect is to the story. For example, if Lot had sons instead of daughters would the story have turned out different? It's hard to say. Maybe he would have offered his sons as well to protect the guests. Maybe not.

Why leave it out of the Greek version? I have no idea. Maybe the story isn't a copy per se, or maybe the author just didn't like that part of the story for that very reason. Maybe the author didn't agree with lots decision and took it out of the story. Or maybe both stories are copies of an older third story and both just added their own details and the parts about Lot's daughters wasn't in the original. Sometimes it's hard to get the mind of the author, especially with short stories.

I guess we're just guessing at that point.
edit on 31-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4

log in

join