Protestant anti-celibacy arguments and the Church Fathers

Since my old site has become defunct this month, this will be a largely a re-post of a poorly written article I made around 2004.

In the Old Testament the priesthood was hereditary and priests were expected to be married and have children, so their male child may become a priest. The New Testament has a different order; the ministerial priesthood is never passed on hereditarily, every man in order to be a priest must receive Holy Orders. Nowhere is it found in the New Testament that priests are REQUIRED to be married, but rather there is evidence from the Early Church Fathers proving otherwise that the Apostles were celibates or unmarried, though St Peter was married at once, and St Paul was likely married at once. Before going on further I will address common so-called verses that seem to require or expect priests in the New Testament to be married.

1 Timothy 3:2

First is the verse where people claim St Paul required Bishops to be married.

"Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,"--1 Timothy 3:2

δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν,--1 Timothy 3:2 (Greek found in Alexandrian and Byzantine texts)

Here is St Jerome concerning this issue showing that whether or not the man is married not the issue but whether or not he is a bigamist

What the true effect of baptism is, and what is the real grace conveyed by water hallowed in Christ, I will presently tell you; meantime I will deal with this argument as it deserves. 'An ill knot,' says the common proverb, 'requires but an ill wedge to split it.' The text quoted by the objector,"a bishop must be the husband of one wife,"[1 Timothy 3:2] admits of quite another explanation. The apostle came of the Jews and the primitive Christian church was gathered out of the remnants of Israel. Paul knew that the Law allowed men to have children by several wives, [Exodus 21:10] and was aware that the example of the patriarchs had made polygamy familiar to the people. Even the very priests might at their own discretion enjoy the same license. [Leviticus 21:7, 13] He gave commandment therefore that the priests of the church should not claim this liberty, that they should not take two wives or three together, but that they should each have but one wife at one time. Perhaps you may say that this explanation which I have given is disputed; in that case listen to another. You must not have a monopoly of bending the Law to suit your will instead of bending your will to suit the Law. Some by a strained interpretation say that wives are in this passage to be taken for churches and husbands for their bishops.--St Jerome Chapter 33*notice the issue is not required having a wife, but not having 2. 

St Paul according to some translations of this verse declares that the Apostles have a right to marry.

1 Corinthians 9:5 

numquid non habemus potestatem sororem mulierem circumducendi sicut et ceteri apostoli et fratres Domini et Cephas--Vulgate

"Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"- Douai Rheims Version

"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" -New American Bible

“Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”--New American Bible 1970

"And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?" -New Jerusalem Bible

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" - King James Version

"Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"- New King James

"Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" - New Internation Version

"Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" - New American Standard Bible

"Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" - Revised Standard Version

Have we no right to take about with us a Christian wife, like the rest of the Apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? --Bible in Basic English

Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?-- American Revised Standard

have we not a right to take round a sister as wife, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? --Darby's English translation

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? --Noah Webster's

Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?--World English Bible

Have we not a right to take with us on our journeys a Christian sister as our wife, as the rest of the Apostles do--and the Lord's brothers and Peter?- Weymouth

have we not authority a sister -- a wife -- to lead about, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?--Young's Literal

"For have we not the power of leading about women, like the other apostles and Cephas?" - Tertullian's Rendering in "De Monogamy"

mh ouk ecomen exousian adelfhn gunaika periagein wV kai oi loipoi apostoloi kai oi adelfoi tou kuriou kai khfaV--Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus**

μη ουκ εχομεν εξουσιαν αδελφην γυναικα περιαγειν ως και οι λοιποι αποστολοι και οι αδελφοι του κυριου και κηφας -- The actual Greek text

**Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus, Byzantine Majority, Alexandrian, Hort and Westcott are all exactly the same, so the issue is not in the texts themselves

The word usually translated as wife is the Greek word gunaika, which CAN mean wife, but it can also mean ANY woman who is betrothed, married or single. It is root word is gune, which is the word Christ even uses to address His Mother as woman. Sadly this issue was resolved nearly 1800 years ago by Tertullian prior to his heresy of Montanism, in his writing on Monogamy, in which he states he finds no evidence of the Apostles having been married, save St Peter, and even goes as far as to say they were all celibates, and even quotes 1 Corinthians 9:5, and defends that gunaika means woman in this instance and not wife, they were like the woman who helped Jesus. Furthermore the text of 9:5 shows it DID NOT MEAN WIVES, since it used the word "sister" rather than leaving it alone, yet MOST translation don't really consider this, they assume St Paul was relaying useless information by saying it was "a sister" or "believing sister," of course a believer would follow them, so why is "sister" necessary unless St Paul was trying to clarify the meaning of the word "gunaika."

"Peter alone do I find--through (the mention of) his "mother-in-law",--to have been married. Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him, was destined to appoint every grade of her Order from monogamists. The rest, while I do not find them married, I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent. Nor indeed, if, among the Greeks, in accordance with the carelessness of custom, women and wives are classed under a common name--however, there is a name proper to wives--shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the apostles to have had wives? For if he were disputing about marriages, as he does in the sequel, where the apostle could better have named some particular example, it would appear right for him to say, "For have we not the power of leading about wives, like the other apostles and Cephas?" But when he subjoins those (expressions)which show his abstinence from (insisting on) the supply of maintenance, saying, "For have we not the power of eating and drinking?" he does not demonstrate that "wives" were led about by the apostles, whom even such as have not still have the power of eating and drinking; but simply "women," who used to minister to them in the stone way (as they did) when accompanying the Lord." - "On Monogamy" Chapter 8 

The women that Tertullian refers to are:

And there were there many women [γυναικες -- geenaikes] beholding from afar, who did follow Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, among whom was Mary the Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and of Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.--Matthew 27:55-56

ησαν δε εκει γυναικες πολλαι απο μακροθεν θεωρουσαι αιτινες  ηκολουθησαν τω ιησου απο  της γαλιλαιας διακονουσαι αυτω --Greek Matthew 27:55-56

 and,

Afterward he journeyed from one town and village to another, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. Accompanying him were the Twelve and some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their resources.--Luke 8:1-3

St Jerome has his own commentary on the marital status of the Apostles, he says the same as Tertullian stated, but says it was possible the Apostles did in fact have wives, but had to separate from them once they were made Apostles of Christ. Then he further states that even if it were to be translated wives it must be understood that the wives were "related in spirit, not by wedlock." Nonetheless, St Jerome believes this verse not to infer the Apostles were married. 

In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of marriage. For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord:[1] "Lo we have left all and followed thee," the Lord answered him,[2] "Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life." But if, in order to show that all the Apostles had wives, he meets us with the words[3] "Have we no right to lead about women or wives" (for gunh in Greek has both meanings) "even as the rest of the apostles, and Cephas, and the brethren of the Lord ?" let him add what is found in the Greek copies, "Have we no right to lead about women that are sisters, or wives ?" This makes it clear that the writer referred to other holy women, who, in accordance with Jewish custom, ministered to their teachers of their substance, as we read was the practice with even our Lord himself. Where there is a previous reference to eating and drinking, and the outlay of money, and mention is afterwards made of women that are sisters, it is quite clear, as we have said, that we must understand, not wives, but those women who ministered of their substance. And we read the same account in the Old Testament of the Shunammite who was wont to welcome Elisha, and to put for him a table, and bread, and a candlestick, and the rest. At all events if we take gunaikas to mean wives, not women, the addition of the word sisters destroys the effect of the word wives, and shews that they were related in spirit, not by wedlock. Nevertheless, with the exception of the Apostle Peter, it is not openly stated that the Apostles had wives; and since the statement is made of one while nothing is said about the rest, we must understand that those of whom Scripture gives no such description had no wives. - Book I Against Jovianius

St Augustine, likewise, interprets 1 Corinthians 9:5 use of the word gunaika as women:

"...for to this end did also faithful women which had earthly substance go with them, and minister unto them of their substance, that they might lack none of those things which pertain to the necessities of this life. Which thing blessed Paul demonstrates to be lawful indeed unto himself, as also the other Apostles did it, but that he had not chosen to use this power he afterwards mentions. This thing some not understanding, have interpreted not “a woman which is a sister,” when he said, “Have we not power to lead about a sister a woman;” but, “a sister a wife.” They were misled by the ambiguity of the Greek word, because both “wife” and “woman” is expressed in Greek by the same word. Though indeed the Apostle has so put this that they ought not to have made this mistake; for that he neither says “a woman” merely, but “a sister woman;” nor “to take” (as in marriage), but “to take about” (as on a journey). Howbeit other interpreters have not been misled by this ambiguity, and they have interpreted “woman” not “wife.”.."--Treatise 137:5 

 1 Timothy 4:3

Some invoke 1 Timothy 4:3 “They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”

This refers to groups the condemn marriage as evil and dishonorable, the Catholic Church does not do this, but incidentally there are groups of heretics throughout the ages that considered marriage wicked and did not do it, some of these Protestants hold to as being orthodox, such as the Catharis, which the false prophetess Ellen G White considered to be “true” (Ellen White, Great Controversy, Chapter 6, paragraph 1, p97).  When commenting on groups that DO condemn marriage Church Fathers have said:

“Such also as "forbid to marry" he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy. [1 Timothy 4:3]  Now, this is the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles.”—Tertullian Prescription Again Heretics Chapter 33  c. AD 200

“For this leads me to remark of Marcion's god, that in reproaching marriage as an evil and unchaste thing, he is really prejudicing the cause of that very sanctity which he seems to serve.”—Tertullian Book I Against Marcion Chapter 29 c. AD 200

Likewise St Jerome (400):

"We are no disciples of Marcion or of Manichæus, to detract from marriage. Nor are we deceived by the error of Tatian, the chief of the Encratites, into supposing all cohabitation unclean. For he condemns and reprobates not marriage only, but foods also which God has created for us to enjoy”--St Jerome Letter 48

St Augustine similarly identifies a group as being the fulfilment of St Paul's prophecy:

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps"--Against Faustus the Manichaean 15:7  c.A.D. 400.

St Jerome further expounds:

A mother before she was wedded, she remained a virgin after bearing her son. Therefore, as I was going to say, the virgin Christ and the virgin Mary have dedicated in themselves the first fruits of virginity for both sexes. The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.--St Jerome Letter 48

Another writing which did not deal so much with having celibate priests but whether or not married priests should be celibate:

“For we do not reject marriage, but simply refrain from it. Nor do we prescribe sanctity as the rule, but only recommend it, observing it as a good, yea, even the better state, if each man uses it carefully according to his ability; but at the same time earnestly vindicating marriage, whenever hostile attacks are made against it is a polluted thing, to the disparagement of the Creator.”—Tertullian Book I Against Marcion Chapter 29 c. AD 200

“he reminded them, that according to the ancient tradition of the church, those who were unmarried when they took part in the communion of sacred orders, were required to remain so, but that those who were married, were not to put away their wives.”--- Ecclesiastical History Sozomen Book II, chapter 23

It demonstrates that that it is tradition for those who are ordained while being married are not to be required to not cohabit with their wives, but at the same time it calls it a tradition for celibates to be ordained and REMAIN celibates. Tertullian states celibacy is greater, and that we do not reject it, but we promote celibacy since it is regarded in scripture as greater. In Catholicism this high standard is expected of most priests, if a person cannot be celibate as a priest, he cannot become a priest, no one is forced to be a priest or forced to be celibate.  Celibacy is a vow to God and vows to God must be kept as scripture many times states.

Other scriptures in favor of celibacy:

“But the priest replied to David, "I have no ordinary bread on hand, only holy bread; if the men have abstained from women, you may eat some of that."”—1 Samuel 21:5

"Disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word,  but only those to whom that is granted. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”—Matthew 19:12 

Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do--1 Corinthians 7:8 NAB 

Then Peter said to him in reply, "We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?"--Matthew 19:27

Further reading: here, here, SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS 

Byzantine Polemics against Islam

 In the below from the The Annals of Niketas Choniates, notice an interesting, but somewhat familiar charge:

The listeners were so far from being intimidated by such threats that the archbishop of Thessaloniki, the most learned and eloquent Eustathios, who was filled with indignation by what was read and could not suffer the true God to be called a solid, the fabrication of a demoniacal mind, said, "My brains would be in my feet and I would be wholly unworthy of this garb," pointing to the mantle [mandyas]covering his shoulders, "were I to regard as true God the pederast who was as brutish as a camel and master and teacher of every abominable act." The bishops were nearly struck dumb by what they had heard, for he had shouted out these words, visibly shaken by pious zeal. Dumbfounded, the reader of the document returned to the emperor....He urgently appealed that a judgment be made between him and the archbishop of Thessaloniki, for he said that if he should be absolved of believing in a god who is a pederast and of distorting the faith, then a just punishment should be imposed upon him who belched out blasphemies against the anointed of the Lord.--The Annals of Niketas Choniates, Book 7. Page 122-123

Niketas Choniates lived from 1140-1213. This was said in context of disputes of theology in part caused by Emperor Manuel (8 April 1143 – 24 September 1180), who seemed to want to make transition from Islam easier for converts.

The claim is, however, that the Islamic deity is a deviant as opposed to the religious founder, perhaps because the deity accepted Muhammed and Aisha's relationship (and more).

Contrary to the modern charge that the objections to Islam's views on age of consent are a modern objection, this clearly shows that is not the case. Furthermore, this passage and more show the Byzantines at this point did not consider Muslims to worship the same deity because of what appears to be the charge that Muslims believed in a corporeal deity. This seems to correspond to the Islamic theology of "Mujassima" (corporealist) and "Mushabbiha" (anthropomorphist) like that of Ibn Karram (806-868). This would not become prevalent until after Ibn Taymiyya in the late 13th/early 14th century. There are a number of hadith that seem to show Allah has an actual body with two right hands, however, the fact Ibn Taymiyya was imprisoned for this shows it was not perhaps that prevalent, but then again, his funeral supposedly had around 200,000 attendees, which might show he had a big following.

Refuting One for Israel on Rabbinic Necromancy

 On Facebook on somewhere on YouTube the Protestant outreach to Jews called "One for Israel" produced as video called "Exposing Rabbinic Necromancy" among their claims was lighting fires for the dead is a pagan therefore sinful practice.

Unfortunately for One for Israel, the practice is Biblical:

They buried him in the tomb that he had cut out for himself in the City of David. They laid him on a bier covered with spices and various blended perfumes, and they made a huge fire in his honor.--2 Chronicles 16:14 

In the course of time, at the end of the second year, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great pain. His people made no funeral fire in his honor, as they had for his predecessors.—2 Chronicles 21:19 

And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honour at his death. And Manasseh his son reigned in his stead.-- 2 Chronicles 32:33 

You shall die in peace. And as spices were burned for your fathers, the former kings who were before you, so people shall burn spices for you and lament for you, saying, “Alas, lord!”’ For I have spoken the word, declares the LORD.--Jeremiah 34:5

Egyptians embalmed and buried their dead, so did Jews in the Bible. So what? See my articles on commonalities between Biblical Judaism and the surrounding pagans for why this reasoning is absurd. 

What is puzzling to me is how One for Israel doesn't know the Biblical prooftexts? Even Protestant commentators acknowledge it. 

St Theophanes the Confessor and Petrine Primacy

St Theophanes the Confessor was a Byzantine monk/abbot, historian who lived 758/760 – 12 March 817/81 and served the Imperial court. In his Chronicles he does not shy away from his high view of the papacy in passing.

When he learned this, the pope convened the full numbers of the church and went to the grave of the chief of the apostles--St Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6121 (section 332) found in the translation by Harry Turtledove, 1982. The Chronicle of Theophanes (A.D. 602-813), page 33

The Emperor was furious at the pope and at the defection of Italy. He armed a great expedition and, appointing as its commander Manes the general of the Kibyrhaiot theme, sent him against the pope and the Italians. But the irreverent fellow was put to shame when the expedition reached the Adriatic Sea. Thereupon Leo the enemy of God raged all the more, for he was under the control of his Arabic heart. He levied a third more tribute on the people of Sicily and Calabria. He also ordered the patrimony of the saints and princes of the apostles (who are honored in the elder Rome), which from ancient times had paid three and a half talents of gold to the churches, to pay them to the public account.--St Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6221 (section 408) found in the translation by Harry Turtledove, 1982. The Chronicle of Theophanes (A.D. 602-813), page 100

In the elder Rome Gregory, a holy and apostolic man who held the same throne as had the prince Peter, caused Rome, Italy, and all the west to secede from both political and ecclesiastical obedience to Leo and his Empire.--St Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6224 (section 410) found in the translation by Harry Turtledove, 1982. The Chronicle of Theophanes (A.D. 602-813), page 101

In this matter they opposed the holy scriptures in every respect. For if Peter the prince of the apostles killed Ananias and Sappheira solely for lying, and the great Paul said with a shout, “Those who do such things deserve death” (which he said about bodily sin alone), how would not those who release from the sword men who are absolutely impure in spirit and body and who worship demons be enemies of theirs? But the pious Emperor Michael cut down not a few of these heretics.--St Theophanes, Chronicle AM 6304 (section 495) found in the translation by Harry Turtledove, 1982. The Chronicle of Theophanes (A.D. 602-813), page 174-175

In one episode he records the heretical Emperor attempting to force Patriarch of Constantinople Makedonios to renounce the council of Chalcedon:

The emperor put pressure on Makedonios, bishop of Constantinople, to anathematize the Synod of Chalcedon as Helias of Jerusalem had done. But Makedonios said that without an ecumenical synod under the presidency of the bishop of Rome it was impossible to do this. As a result, the emperor, out of hostility to him, ordered that those who sought refuge in the Church be dragged away by force, while providing rights of asylum to the churches of heretics.--St Theophanes the Confessor. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and the Near Eastern History, A.D. 284-813. 151, book pages 233.   United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 1997. Found in Migne PG 108:360a

Hardly Byzantine flattery. 

Catholic legate articles on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Catholic Legate is a defunct site that had the occasional great article by apologists, this one has some dead links like Robert Sungenis (who rebranded himself when he wanted to become a geocentrist-movie maker):

https://web.archive.org/web/20090710030348/http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html

They list a few writings contemporary to the NT where heos hou is used to mean "until" but where the action does not cease after the condition arrives.

"For like a most skillful pilot, the reason of our father Eleazar steered the ship of religion over the sea of the emotions, and though buffeted by the storms of the tyrant and overwhelmed by the mighty waves of tortures, in no way did he turn the rudder of religion [heõs hou] until he sailed into the haven of immortal victory." (4 Maccabees 7:1-3)

And Aseneth was left alone with the virgins, and she was listless and wept until sunset: she ate no bread and drank no water; and while all slept she alone was awake..... And she beat her breast repeatedly with her two hands and wept bitterly and groaned all night until the morning. 18. And in the morning Aseneth got up and looked and lo, the ashes underneath her were like mud because of her tears. 19. And again, Aseneth fell down on her face upon the ashes until sunset. 20. And so Aseneth did for seven days; and she tasted neither food nor drink--Joseph and Aseneth 10:1 

Other references

Luke 24:49

Acts 25:21

Apocalypse of Moses 31:3 

Commentary on John 19:33-37

 A continuation of my prior posts on John's 19's allusions to the Old Testament, especially Genesis.

See commentaries for: John 19:1, John 19:2, John 19:3, John 19:4, John 19:23

After Jesus died on the cross, John 19 says:

But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead (τεθνηκότα), they did not break (κατέαξαν) his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced (ἔνυξεν) Jesus’ side (πλευρὰν) with a spear (λόγχῃ), bringing a sudden flow (ἐξῆλθεν) of blood and water--John 19:33-34

ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐλθόντες, ὡς εἶδον ἤδη αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα, οὐ κατέαξαν αὐτοῦ τὰ σκέλη, ἀλλ' εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ. --John 19:33-34 (all major texts)

John then proceeds to indirectly tell us in v.35 that he personally saw these things happen. Some have taken it to mean most didn't see this (Theodore of Mopsuestia).

St John then provides explicit commentary for the piercing and the fact Jesus's legs were not broken in verses shortly after:

These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”--John 19:36-37

Ἐγένετο γὰρ ταῦτα ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ, Ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται [ἀπ'] αὐτοῦ. καὶ πάλιν ἑτέρα γραφὴ λέγει· Ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν. --John 19:36-37 (ἀπ' is only found in the Byzantine Majority)

The quote of "Not one of his bones will be broken" "Ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται [ἀπ'] αὐτοῦ" quotes:

“It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones [לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ-בוֹ].--Exodus 12:46

 בְּבַיִת אֶחָד יֵאָכֵל, לֹא-תוֹצִיא מִן-הַבַּיִת מִן-הַבָּשָׂר חוּצָה; וְעֶצֶם, לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ-בוֹ.--Exodus 12:46

 ἐν οἰκίᾳ μιᾷ βρωθήσεται καὶ οὐκ ἐξοίσετε ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας τῶν κρεῶν ἔξω καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ--Exodus 12:46 (LXX)

John 19:36 in the Byzantine majority includes the ἀπ' agreeing with it word-for-word. Note despite most translations of Exodus 12:46 not saying "of/in him" the words are there. "בוֹ" means "in him."

The quote “They will look on the one they have pierced” Ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν" roughly quotes:

וְשָׁפַכְתִּי עַל-בֵּית דָּוִיד וְעַל יוֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלִַם, רוּחַ חֵן וְתַחֲנוּנִים, וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דָּקָרוּ; וְסָפְדוּ עָלָיו, כְּמִסְפֵּד עַל-הַיָּחִיד, וְהָמֵר עָלָיו, כְּהָמֵר עַל-הַבְּכוֹר--Zechariah 12:10

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through [וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דָּקָרוּ;]; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.  --Zechariah 12:10

καὶ ἐκχεῶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Δαυιδ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ιερουσαλημ πνεῦμα χάριτος καὶ οἰκτιρμοῦ καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο καὶ κόψονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν κοπετὸν ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἀγαπητὸν καὶ ὀδυνηθήσονται ὀδύνην ὡς ἐπὶ πρωτοτόκῳ--Zechariah 12:10 (LXX)

 Clearly, the present Greek text does not match. This issue will be shelved for now.

ἀλλ' εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ-- Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side (πλευρὰν) with a spear (λόγχῃ), bringing a sudden flow (ἐξῆλθεν) of blood and water

The piercing in the side of the dead Christ, the new Adam, from which poured blood and water is understood to symbolize the formation of the Church, the bride of Christ just as Eve was formed from the side of the sleeping Adam who the LORD caused to fall asleep:

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs [מִצַּלְעֹתָיו], and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof. And the rib [הַצֵּלָע], which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man--Genesis 2:21-22

וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל-הָאָדָם, וַיִּישָׁן; וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה. וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם.  --Genesis 2:21-22 Masoretic Text

And God cast a trance upon Adam, and he slept (ὕπνωσεν), and he took one of his ribs (πλευρῶν) and filled up flesh in its place. And the rib (πλευράν) that he had taken from Adam the Lord God fashioned into a woman and brought her to Adam.--Genesis 2:21-22 NETS of LXX

καὶ ἐπέβαλεν ὁ θεὸς ἔκστασιν ἐπὶ τὸν Αδαμ καὶ ὕπνωσεν καὶ ἔλαβεν μίαν τῶν πλευρῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνεπλήρωσεν σάρκα ἀντ᾽ αὐτῆς καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὴν πλευράν ἣν ἔλαβεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Αδαμ εἰς γυναῖκα καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸν Αδαμ --Genesis 2:21-22 LXX

Christ's pierced side is called "πλευρὰν" by St John, and the same word is used in Genesis 2:22 in the LXX. The corresponding Hebrew is הַצֵּלָע. 

Many of the Church Fathers, especially the Latin, saw the symbolism of the formation of the church. This was encapsulated in the extraordinary magisterium of the Church at the General Council of Vienne taught: 

And that in this assumed nature the Word of God willed for the salvation of all not only to be nailed to the cross and to die on it, but also, having already breathed forth his spirit, permitted his side to be pierced by a lance, so that from the outflowing water and blood there might be formed the one, immaculate and holy virginal mother church, the bride of Christ, as from the side of the first man in his sleep Eve was fashioned as his wife, in this way, to the determinate figure of the first and old Adam, who according to the Apostle is a type of the one who was to come, the truth might correspond in our last Adam, that is to say in Christ.--Council of Vienne (1311-1313), Decree 1

One of the earliest Latin writing Christians (albeit one who left the church), Tertullian, in the early 3rd Century wrote:

If you receive your instruction from God, (you will find) that the fountain of the human race, Adam, had a taste of drowsiness before having a draught of repose; slept before he laboured, or even before he ate, nay, even before he spoke; in order that men may see that sleep is a natural feature and function, and one which has actually precedence over all the natural faculties. From this primary instance also we are led to trace even then the image of death in sleep. For as Adam was a figure of Christ, Adam's sleep shadowed out the death of Christ, who was to sleep a mortal slumber, that from the wound inflicted on His side might, in like manner (as Eve was formed), be typified the church, the true mother of the living.--Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul: Chapter 43

St Cyril of Jerusalem linked it to Eve, as well as baptism and martyrdom. 

the water, perhaps, for him who judged Him; but for them that shouted against Him the blood. And again it is to be understood in another way; the blood for the Jews, and the water for the Christians: for upon them as plotters came the condemnation from the blood; but to you who now believe, the salvation which is by water. For nothing has been done without a meaning. Our fathers who have written comments have given another reason of this matter. For since in the Gospels the power of salutary Baptism is twofold, one which is granted by means of water to the illuminated, and a second to holy martyrs, in persecutions, through their own blood, there came out of that saving Side blood and water , to confirm the grace of the confession made for Christ, whether in baptism, or on occasions of martyrdom. There is another reason also for mentioning the Side. The woman, who was formed from the side, led the way to sin; but Jesus who came to bestow the grace of pardon on men and women alike, was pierced in the side for women, that He might undo the sin.--St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 13 

St Augustine sees a link with Noah and Adam with mention of the "side": 

A suggestive word was made use of by the evangelist, in not saying pierced, or wounded His side, or anything else, but "opened;" that thereby, in a sense, the gate of life might be thrown open, from whence have flowed forth the sacraments of the Church, without which there is no entrance to the life which is the true life. That blood was shed for the remission of sins; that water it is that makes up the health-giving cup, and supplies at once the laver of baptism and water for drinking. This was announced beforehand, when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, (Genesis 6:16) whereby the animals might enter which were not destined to perish in the flood, and by which the Church was prefigured. Because of this, the first woman was formed from the side of the man when asleep, (Genesis 2:22) and was called Life, and the mother of all living. (Genesis 3:20) Truly it pointed to a great good, prior to the great evil of the transgression (in the guise of one thus lying asleep). --St Augustine, Tractate 120 (John 19:31-20:9)

The Noah link also has the contrasted stupor of Noah by wine and "sleep of death" of Christ. 

St Augustine said Eve was formed from Adam sleeping and the Church from the New Adam dying:

And as if you should say, When shall we rise? We are ordered now to sit: when will be our rising? When the Lord's was. Look unto Him, who went before you: for if you heed not Him, "it is lost labour for you to rise before dawn." When was He raised? When He had died. Hope therefore for your uplifting after your death: have hope in the resurrection of the dead, because He rose again and ascended. But where did He sleep? On the Cross. When He slept on the Cross, He bore a sign, yea, He fulfilled what had been signified in Adam: for when Adam was asleep, a rib was drawn from him and Eve was created; (Genesis 2:21-22) so also while the Lord slept on the Cross, His side was transfixed with a spear, and the Sacraments flowed forth, (John 19:34) whence the Church was born. For the Church the Lord's Bride was created from His side, as Eve was created from the side of Adam. But as she was made from his side no otherwise than while sleeping, so the Church was created from His side no otherwise than while dying.--St Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 127

St Ephraim the Syrian says the sword opened the door to paradise: 

Blessed be the Merciful One, who saw the weapon by Paradise, that closed the way to the Tree of Life; and came and took a Body which could suffer, that with the Door, that was in His side, He might open the way into Paradise.--St Ephraim the Syrian, Hymn 6 

For more on the sword's significance see my other article on John 19:1. 

 St Cyril of Alexandria see the Eucharist and baptism in the blood and water:

...as they still had a faint suspicion that He might not be actually dead, they with a spear pierced His Side, which sent forth Blood, mingled with Water; God presenting us thereby with a type, as it were, and foreshadowing of the mystery of the Eucharist, and Holy Baptism. For Holy Baptism is of Christ, and Christ's institution; and the power of the mystery of the Eucharist grew up for us out of His Holy Flesh.--St Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 12

 St John Chrysostom likewise links it to the two sacraments:

Yet, beloved, be not thou confounded, be not thou desponding; for the things which these men did from a wicked will, fought on the side of the truth. Since there was a prophecy, saying, from this circumstance, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced." (Ver. 37; Zechariah 12:10) And not this only, but the deed then dared was a demonstration of the faith, to those who should afterwards disbelieve; as to Thomas, and those like him. With this too an ineffable mystery was accomplished. For "there came forth water and blood." Not without a purpose, or by chance, did those founts come forth, but because by means of these two together the Church consists. And the initiated know it, being by water indeed regenerate, and nourished by the Blood and the Flesh. Hence the Mysteries take their beginning; that when you approach to that awful cup, you may so approach, as drinking from the very side. --St John Chrysostom, Homily 85 on the Gospel of John

Living Water Flows

It is also noteworthy that John 19:34's flow of water evokes imagery of Christ's own words: 

But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.--John 4:14

He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. He said this in reference to the Spirit that those who came to believe in him were to receive. There was, of course, no Spirit yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified--John 7:38

Water was a common motif in John's gospel, mentioned frequently: John 1 (baptism), 2 (water into wine), 3 (new birth and baptism), 4 (baptism, well) etc. This point was not missed in the early church:

It is written that when the side of Jesus was pierced "He shed thereout blood and water." This has a mystical meaning. For Himself had said, "Out of His belly shall flow rivers of living water." But He shed forth blood also, of which the Jews sought that it might be upon themselves and upon their children. He shed forth water, therefore, which might wash believers; He shed forth blood also which might condemn unbelievers.--Tyrannius Rufinus of Aquileia, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed

In John 7:38 He seems to speak of the Holy Spirit as living water, the shedding of water after His death then might also indicate that now Christ being glorified/crucified and dead, He can now send out the Spirit, as He did in John 20:22 giving the Spirit to the Apostles to forgive sins, then in Acts 1 where the baptism of the Spirit came (called the sacrament of Confirmation or Chrismation).

 John later said:

Then the angel showed me the river of life-giving water, sparkling like crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of its street. On either side of the river grew the tree of life that produces fruit twelve times a year, once each month; the leaves of the trees serve as medicine for the nations...The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” Let the hearer say, “Come.” Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water--Revelation 22:1-2, 17

Revelation 22 is making allusions to Ezekiel 47.

Going back to the allusion in John 7:38, it's not a quote of any extant verse of the Old Testament, however, its generally taken as a reference to verses like Isaiah 12 and Ezekiel 47. If Ezekiel 47 is in mind, then it's another allusion by Christ to the temple being Himself, and/or a believer also becoming a temple.

Then he brought me back to the entrance of the temple, and there! I saw water flowing out from under the threshold of the temple toward the east, for the front of the temple faced east. The water flowed out toward the right side of the temple to the south of the altar--Ezekiel 47:1

Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for GOD the LORD is my strength and song; and He is become my salvation.' Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.--Isaiah 12:2-3

In fact, in the Roman Rite during the Eastertide, there is the famous hymn saying as much:

I saw water flowing out of the Temple, from its right side, Alleluia:  And all to whom this water came were saved, And they shall say: Alleluia, Alleluia. Give thanks to the Lord for he is good for the world [is] in his mercy. Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. I saw water flowing out of the Temple, from its right side, Alleluia: And all to whom this water came were saved, And they shall say: Alleluia, Alleluia.--Vidi aquam

Three that testify

At the Cross Christ gave up the spirit, and shed water and blood, St John mentions all three in his first epistle: 

Who [indeed] is the victor over the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.--1 John 5:5-8 

Lapide's many comments

Cornelius Lapide's commentary reads:

Ver. 33.—But when they came to Jesus (evidently to break His legs. Euthymius says, “They came to Him last, as wishing to please the Jews by treating Him with greater insult) and saw that He was dead already, they brake not His legs. He did not wish His legs to be broken, for He wished to rise again with an unmutilated body.” As Lactantius says (iv. 26), “His body is taken down from the cross entire, and carefully laid in the tomb, lest by the loss of any limb it might be rendered less seemly for resurrection.” 

Instead, then, of His legs being broken, His side was pierced with the spear. This was after He was dead, not while He was alive as some have thought. This error was condemned in the Council of Vienne. For as Christ, while alive, gave up His whole Body for us, so did He in His death wish to give us His heart. For this it was that was pierced by the spear, and blood and water flowed forth from it, so that He gave Himself entirely to us. 

You will say that Christ was already dead, and that therefore He merited nothing by this piercing of His heart. But I reply that when alive He knew this wound would be inflicted, and that He offered it to the Father for us, and thus merited and effected our salvation. Thou wilt say next, We see that blood flows from the body of a slain person, if the murderer is present. This then is a natural effect. I say that it is not natural, but very nearly miraculous; to point out and confound the murderer. And much more was it miraculous in the case of Christ, as I will presently show. 

Ver. 34.—But one of the soldiers opened His side. As somewhat doubting, says S. Cyril, whether He were really dead; and if He were not, to hasten His death. For it was the duty of these soldiers to carry out the sentence, and to see that criminals were not taken away before it was certain that they were dead. S. Chrysostom adds, “To please the Jews, they lay open His side and insult Him when dead. 0 most evil and most atrocious wish.” Some suppose that this soldier was the centurion, who cried out “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matthew xxvii. 54.) But it is not likely that he who so cried out would dare to commit such an act. Nazianzen in his “Christus Patiens” suggests that he was blind, and that he then regained his sight. Many stories on this matter were collected by Barradius, which Baronius rejects as apocryphal. Here note—1. That the soldier was one of the guuard who brake the legs of the two malefactors, and would have broken Christ’s also had he been alive. But they pierced His side, to show that He was dead, and this was why they brake not His legs. 2. Some say it was a spear, others a sword which was used. 3. The Vulgate seems to have read, ήνοιξε, but the Greek is ένυξε. 4. This wound was so large that a hand could have been thrust into it. See John xx. 27. 5. It was on the right side, as represented by painters. Some think it was so foretold by Ezekiel xvii. 2.  S. Francis also received his wound on the right side. See S. Bonaventura, Ribadeaeira, &c. 6. Christ therefore received six wounds. 7. This wound seems to have pierced through both sides, as Prudentius says in several passages. As, e.g., 

As struck the cruel spear through either side, Water and Blood poured forth in mingled tide: For victory this, and that to cleanse applied.  

De Pass. Christi [apud Diptych, num. xlii.]; Peristeph. Hymn viii. [151; and Cathomer, Hymn ix. [85]; [Pseudo]-Cyprian also (de Pass.) says the same. Theophylact speaks of this wound in the plural number, Prudentius seems to imply that the larger wound emitted blood, and the smaller wound on the left side water. But this wound on the left slide was so small as not to be taken into account. Hence there were only five wounds.  S. Bridget’s Revel. iv. 40, vii. 15, and ii. 21, are also referred to. 

And forthwith came thereout blood and water. Both together (not separately, as Nonnus paraphrases), but yet not mixed, but so that they could be distinguished from each other. But this could not be the case naturally, because the blood of a dead body congeals, and pure blood cannot flow from it. And this was pure blood, not serum, as Innoc. III. lays it down (Lib. iii. Decret. tit. 41, de Celebr. Miss. cap. viii.) Calvin is therefore wrong in saying that water is contained in the pericardium. Therefore this flowing forth of blood and water was miraculous, as S. Ambrose on Luke xxiii., Euthymius, and Theophylact say. The latter remarks, “The contumely is changed into a miracle, and wonderful it was that blood flowed forth from a dead body. But a caviller might say that some vital force might probably remain in the body. But the water which flowed forth puts the matter beyond all dispute.” He says afterwards, “Confounded be the Armenians, who in the Mysteries mix not water with the wine. For, as it seems, they do not believe that water flowed forth from the side (which would be more wonderful), but blood only. And in this passage they do away with a mighty miracle. The blood then is the symbol of a crucified man, but the water of one who is above man, that is, of God.” See Adam Coutzen and Francis Lucas on this passage. 

But this took place by way of mystery. But what mystery? (1.) To show the reality of Christ’s human nature. See 1 John v. 7. (2.) To signify that the Church was formed as the Spouse of Christ out of the side of the second Adam dying on the Cross. Symbolically, i.e. and figuratively, as meaning that the Church was purchased, founded, and sanctified by the Blood of Christ. As S. Ambrose (on Luke xxiii.) says, “Life flowed forth from that dead body. For water and blood flowed forth, the one to cleanse, the other to redeem;” and as S. Cyril and Chrysostom say, that the water signifies baptism, which is the first beginning, of the Church and the other sacraments, and the blood represents the Eucharist, which is the end and completion of the sacraments, to which they all refer as to their beginning and their end. Whence S. Augustine says (in loc.), that all sacraments flowed forth from the side of Christ, in mystery, as I said. His words are, “It is not said that he ‘struck’ or ‘wounded,’ but that he ‘opened’ the side of Christ, that the door of life might thus, as it were, be opened, from whence the sacraments of the Church flowed forth, without which there is no entrance to true life.” And S. Chrysostom. “Because the sacred mysteries take their rise from thence, when thou approachest the awful Chalice, thou shouldest approach it as if thou wert about to drink from the very side of Christ;” and the reason is, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact say, “The Church exists and consists by means of the sacraments.” For it is born by Baptism, strengthened by Confirmation, fed and perfected by the Eucharist, healed by Penance, fortified by Extreme Unction, governed by Holy Orders, and continued and extended by Matrimony. 

As a symbol of this, Cyprian and others say that water must be mixed with the wine in the consecration of the Chalice. 

Tropologically. Tertullian says (de Baptismo), that Christ by this effusion of Blood and Water indicated the two kinds of Baptism, by water and by martyrdom. 

Anagogically. This opening of Christ’s side shadowed forth that heaven, which had been closed for 4000 years, was opened by His death. Ruffinus adds, In Expos. Symb., “He poured forth water to cleanse believers, and blood to condemn unbelievers.” See Suarez, Par. iii. Quæst. li Disput. xli. § 1, where, however, he thinks that only the left side of Christ was pierced, and that the blood first ran forth, and afterwards the water, both which are equally probable. 

Ver. 35.—And he that saw it bare record. Probably John himself, who speaks of himself unassumingly in the third person. 

Ver. 36.—For these things where done that the scripture should be fulfilled (allegorically, not literally), A bone of Him shall not be broken. A bone, i.e., of the Paschal Lamb (Ex. xii. 46). The literal reason was, that they had to eat it in haste, and had not time to break the bones and extract the marrow. The allegorical reason was, because that lamb was a type of Christ, and God willed that a bone of Him should not be broken, in order that His sacred Body, which was to rise again, should remain complete in every limb. Symbolically, it signified—(1.) That the Godhead of Christ, which was (as it were) the bone which supported His Body, remained entire and uninjured in His Passion (see Rupertus on Ex. xii.) 

(2.) That the strength and vigour of Christ as man (of which the bones were a symbol) were not diminished, but rather increased, by His Passion. For His mind was steadfastly fixed on God, and His will remained firmly and constantly united to the Divine Will. So the Martyr Hippolytus says. See Theodoret, Dialog. iii. 

Allegorically, This signifies that the Holy Apostles, who were the bones of the Church, were not to be broken. (See, S. Augustine on Ps. xxxiv.; S. Jerome on Ps. xxi.; and S. Gregory, Mor. xxiv. 30.) 

And S. Hilary, on Ps. xl., says, the bones of Christ were not broken, because the Church, which was formed of His bones, ought not to be weakened by their being broken. 

Tropologically. See S. Bernard (Serm. de cute, &c. animæ). He says that the skin is good thoughts, the flesh pious affections, the bones holy intentions, which, even when godly thoughts and affections fail, must still be kept unbroken and strong: or else a man bursts asunder, and falls to pieces. 

Ver. 37.—And again another scripture saith, They shall look on Him whom they pierced. See Zech. xii. 10. 

Heresy of Christ being alive when pierced with the sword

The Council of Vienne also condemned anyone who said Christ was not dead when the soldier pierced his side:

...when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, but one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness - his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth -- that you also may believe. 

We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that the said apostle and evangelist, John, observed the right order of events in saying that when Christ was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear. --Council of Vienne (1311-1313), Decree 1

Demythologizing pagan titles, stories and ideas in the Bible

Demythologizing paganism: Part II

In my previous article I wrote about the demythologized names of God.

A popular charge against Catholics by some more radical and low church Protestants and Jehovah Witnesses is that we incorporate elements of paganism. What they fail to learn is that the Bible itself incorporates some aspects of paganism then demythologizes and baptizes them. Some or much of these can be explained by the verse:

 For it is precept for a precept, precept for a precept, line for a line... --Isaiah 28:10

Generally, translated "line upon line" but the words for "upon" is not there but rather L' is used which means either to, for, about, or concerning. The explanation provided by those such as the interpreter Rashi is God provides a law to counter the law of a pagan deity. Perhaps, part of God's plan was to rob the idols of their glory by taking away their names for Himself.

In addition, some motifs are widespread and can be found in unrelated cultures and lands.

 Biblical characters names and titles:

Eve:

וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ, חַוָּה:  כִּי הִוא הָיְתָה, אֵם כָּל-חָי

And the man called his wife's name Eve (חַוָּה havvah); because she was the mother of all living.--Genesis 3:20 

On the matter of Eve the Dictionary of Deities says: 

"It is evident, that despite Eve's present creaturely status, various fragments of mythological tradition are present in the story, and various scholars have concluded from these that a goddess lies behind Eve. Thus, the Sumerian divine name nin.ti, 'Lady of Life' (AGE 419), which is structurally similar to the aetiology for Eve offered above, and is itself ambiguous in meaning, having also the sense 'Lady of the Rib', is cited by GASTER (1969:21). KIKAWADA (1972:33) draws attention to the Akkadian formula belet kala ili, 'Mistress of all the gods', applied to the goddess Mami in Atr. I 246-248, and suggests that Mami underlies Eve, who is however supposedly demythologized (24-35)...A goddess named Hwt appears in KAI 89. 1, in a votive stela from the Carthaginian necropolis, beginning with the invocation rbt hwt 'lt mlkt...: 'Great Lady. Havvat, Goddess, Queen(?)!' HROZNY (1932:121-122) proposed that hwt is related to the Hurrian divine name Hebat. She was the consort of Teshub, the Hurrian storm-god.--Eve, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. page 317

Note that though Ninti was called "Lady of the Rib" she was not made from a rib as Eve is described. Also, she was created to heal another god mortally wounded due to his sexual exploits and eating from a tree. Also, note another mention of the Hurrian "storm god" named Teshub who is the equivalent to the Canaanite god Baal. Ninti seems to only very superficially have commonality with Eve.

 The Dictionary takes Genesis 4 as good evidence Eve is a de-mythologized goddess:

"The second OT reference to Eve (MT Hawwa, LXX eva) is in Gen 4:1. where on giving birth to Cain, Eve cries in triumph "I have given birth to a man by Yahweh!" or "I have acquired a husband, Yahweh!"....Whether Yahweh is the father of the man she has begotten or the husband she has acquired, the implication is that Eve plays the role of, indeed is, a goddess.--Eve, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. page 317

 It's also noteworthy that in some other semitic languages Eve's name can mean "snake." For instance, the Targum of Genesis, written in Aramaic says:

וַאֲמַר חִוְיָא, לְאִתְּתָא:  לָא מְמָת, תְּמוּתוּן. --Targum Genesis 3:4

vaammar hivya (חִוְיָא), l'it'tan: la m'mat t'mutuk--Targum Genesis 3:4

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַנָּחָ֖שׁ אֶל־הָֽאִשָּׁ֑ה לֹֽא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן-- Genesis 3:4 (Hebrew Masoretic)

And the serpent (Aramaic: Hivya חִוְיָא , Hebrew: hanaHash, הַנָּחָ֖שׁ) said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die--Genesis 3:4

חִוְיָא means "the serpent" with the definite article א as a suffix.

The Peshitta text reads:

ܘܐܡܼܪ ܚܘܝܐ ܠܐܢܬܬܐ܂ ܠܐ ܡܡܬ ܬܡܘܬܘܢ܂--Genesis 3:4 Peshitta

This seems to match the targum above, but using another script for that says ܚܘܝܐ whereas the targum uses the Hebrew square script with חִוְיָא.

Later, the woman is named Eve--חַוָּה Havvah:

וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ, חַוָּה:  כִּי הִוא הָיְתָה, אֵם כָּל-חָי--Genesis 3:20

And the man called his wife's name Eve[חַוָּה havvah]; because she was the mother of all living.--Genesis 3:20 

Hebrew/Aramaic Eve: חַוָּה  Havvah

Aramaic Snake:  חִוְיָא ܚܘܝܐ  hivyah

The explanation DDD gives is that Adam considered her a snake in the sense the snake was Eve's snake in seducing him to sin.

Concerning the title "mother of all living":

1. e-nu-ma e-lisz la na-bu-u2 sza2-ma-mu
 en: When on high the heaven had not been named,
2. szap-lisz am-ma-tum szu-ma la zak-rat
 en: Firm ground below had not been called by name,
3. _abzu_-u-ma resz-tu-u2 za-ru-szu-un
 en: When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
4. mu-um-mu ti-amat mu-al-li-da-at gim-ri-szu2-un
 en: And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
5. _me-mesz_-szu2-nu isz-te-nisz i-hi-qu-u2-ma
 en: Their waters mingled as a single body, --Enumas Elish, Composite No.: Q002718

 Yet, another translation instead of "she who bore them all" is found:

 Creation of man from the Earth:

Genesis has man made from the dust of the ground:

וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה

Then the LORD God formed man (הָאָדָם ha-adam) of the dust of the ground (הָאֲדָמָה haadamah), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.--Genesis 2:7

 This belief man was created from clay in very common throughout the globe in many indigenous lore.

 The ancient near east scholar Samuel Noah Kramer sums the ancient near eastern beliefs as:

Among the oldest known conceptions of the creation of man are those of the Hebrews and the Babylonians; the former is narrated in the book of Genesis, the latter forms part of the Babylonian "Epic of Creation." According to the Biblical story, or at least according to one of its versions, man was fashioned from clay for the purpose of ruling over all the animals. In the Babylonian myth, man was made of the blood of one of the more troublesome of the gods who was killed for that purpose; he was created primarily in order to serve the gods and free them from the need of working for their bread. According to our Sumerian poem, which antedates both the Hebrew and the Babylonian versions by more than a millennium, man was fashioned of clay as in the Biblical version. The purpose for which he was created, however, was to free the gods from laboring for their sustenance, as in the Babylonian version.--Sumerian Mythology, Samuel Noah Kramer

Here the pagan Akkadian account of man's creation has minor gods being put to hard labor by their higher ups, tired of the manual labor they rebel, so to end the rebellion the higher gods decide to assign the task of making humans to the goddess Mami/Nintu. Humanity according to this Epic is a composite of clay, flesh and blood, the latter two being from a selected lesser god (they picked Aw-ilu, god of intelligence):

Enki made ready to speak, and said to the great gods: "On the first, seventh, and fifteenth days of the month, let me establish a purification, a bath. Let one god be slaughtered, then let the gods be cleansed by immersion. Let Nintu mix clay with his flesh and blood. Let that same god and man be thoroughly mixed in the clay. Let us hear the drum for the rest of the time. From the flesh of the god let a spirit remain, let it make the living know its sign, lest he be allowed to be forgotten, let the spirit remain." The great Anunna-gods, who administer destinies, answered "yes!" in the assembly.

On the first, seventh, and fifteenth days of the month, he established a purification, a bath. They slaughtered Aw-ilu, who had the inspiration, in their assembly. Nintu mixed clay with his flesh and blood. That same god and man were thoroughly mixed in the clay.-- The Epic of Atraḥasis

Note the mention of immersion/baptism shows the practice pre-dates the Bible itself. The pagan accounts of creation overall have only a few elements in common with the Biblical account, in this case its clay and humans being made to work. Contrary to the pagan account, the Biblical account has God making man a king, where he has dominion of the land and made in the image of God himself. The closest mention to blood in the Biblical account is the name Adam/human itself, dam means blood in Hebrew, in Akkadian it's damu. Obviously, in the Biblical account there is no god slaughtered and ground up to make man. 

Another account reads:

"O my mother, the creature whose name you uttered, it exists 

Bind upon it the image (?) of the gods; 

Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss, 

The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay, 

You, do you bring the limbs into existence;

Ninmah (the earth-mother goddess) will work above you, 

The goddesses (of birth) .... will stand by you at your fashioning; 

O my mother, decree its (the newborn’s) fate, 

Ninmah will bind upon it the image (?) of the gods, It is man.”--History Began at Sumer, p. 158, 163, Samuel Noah Kramer

 The same author provided the same account here, noting parts are missing (he also completely omits the word image). Assuming his guess that image is the word intended, it would be another parallel with Genesis.

A summary of a related item states:

ETEMMU - The immaterial spirit released from the human being at death, not to be confused with the soul. The etemmu was the animating spirit breathed into the first humans created from the remains of the god Quingu after his death. The flesh of Quingu was mixed with clay and blood but animated through etemmu, a spirit of transience, so that, though created from an immortal god, human beings would still die.--World History Encyclopedia, The Mesopotamian Pantheon

There is conceivable Christological 'fulfillment' even of this pagan account where Christ's flesh and blood is sacrificed and mingles without earthly nature. Similar can be said of the barbaric practice of the Phoenicians of sacrificing their children to appease the gods (they only selected children of noble birth, ironically sparing the "useless" lives of the sons of commoners). Despite the evils they commit a trace of Christ can be seen within their error. 

Image of God 

Genesis 1:26 states the first human was made in God's image. 

And God said: 'Let us make man in our image [בְּצַלְמֵנוּ], after our likeness[כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ]; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' And God created man in His own image [בְּצַלְמוֹ], in the image [בְּצֶלֶם] of God created He him; male and female created He them. --Genesis 1:26-27

 וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ.וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ:  זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם.-- Masoretic Text Genesis 1:26-27

As many note, in the original meaning was kingship/authority. This was not lost on St Ephraim the Syrian who interpreted the verse by what immediately followed, "and let them have dominion over...". 

Though God made Adam a viceroy, the term in the Bible is applied to humans in general, especially for men, and especially Christ. Regardless, the "democratization" of the term is noted rather than exclusively being title of a pagan king. 

The Egyptians seemed to acknowledge man was the image of God in the 2nd-3rd century BC:

Serve God, that he may do the like for you, with offerings for replenishing the altars and with carving; it is that which will show forth your name, and God is aware of whoever serves Him. Provide for men, the cattle of God, for He made heaven and earth at their desire. He suppressed the greed of the waters, He gave the breath of life to their noses, for they are likenesses of Him which issued from His flesh. He shines in the sky for the benefit of their hearts; He has made herbs, cattle, and fish to nourish them.--The Instruction of Merikare

another translation reads:

Well tended is humankind--god's cattle, he made sky and earth for their sake, he subdued the water monster, he made breath for their noses to live. They are his images, who came from his body, he shines in the sky for their sake; he made for them plants and cattle, fowl and fish to feed them.--Ancient Egyptian Literature by Miriam Lichtheim, The Instruction of Merikare

The writing seems to have predated Moses slightly or possibly was contemporary with him. Interesting is the word Instructions is used. Torah also means "instruction" the Egyptian word was sebayt. Sebayt certainly overlaps with Biblical wisdom literature, of the same genre. As the next example shows.

Also see Othmar Keel and Silvia Schroer, Creation: Biblical Theologies in the Context of the Ancient Near East [trans. Peter D. Daniels; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2015], 142-43

Proverbs 22-23 and the Instructions of Amenemope (clear link)

For at least a century, scholars have debated whether Proverbs 22-23 borrows from the Egyptian work Instructions of Amenemope. Generally, it is accepted Instructions of Amenemope came first since it is debated to before King Solomon's lifetime. It wouldn't be too surprising for King Solomon to know about Egyptian literature, Solomon had good relations with Egypt, in fact one of his many wives was the daughter of Pharoah (something otherwise unheard of in ancient Egypt for a royal woman to be married off abroad). Proverbs in addition to the Egyptian influence seems to have Aramaic influence in Proverbs 31 (using the Aramaic word for son, however some say a Hebrew word is meant).

This book has an article comparing and showing recent scholarship on the matter.

One of the more interesting pieces of evidence for an Egyptian original is the usage of the belly as man's seat of knowledge, whereas the OT uses the Semitic "heart" for that.

For it is a pleasant thing if you keep them in your belly (בְּבִטְנֶךָ ); let them be established altogether on your lips--Proverbs 22:18 (modernized Douai Rheims)

כִּי-נָעִים, כִּי-תִשְׁמְרֵם בְּבִטְנֶךָ;    יִכֹּנוּ יַחְדָּו, עַל-שְׂפָתֶיךָ--Proverbs 22:18 

The DRB is based originally on the Latin Vulgate, but in this case, it's closer to the Hebrew text than almost all other translations, since it does not obscure the mention of "belly".

Let the rest in the casket of your belly; may they be a lock in your heart; when there rises a storm of words, they will be a mooring post for your tongue--Amenemope, 1.3:11-16

Many more parallels can be seen in the article linked above.

Leviathan--Litani (clear link)

The sea serpent Leviathan is mentioned about 4 times explicitly in the OT 

Canst thou draw out leviathan (לִוְיָתָן) with an hook? or his tongue with a cord [which] thou lettest down?--Job 41:1 (40:25) 

תִּמְשֹׁךְ לִוְיָתָן בְּחַכָּה;    וּבְחֶבֶל, תַּשְׁקִיעַ לְשֹׁנוֹ--Job 40:25

Thou didst crush the heads of leviathan (לִוְיָתָן), Thou gavest him to be food to the folk inhabiting the wilderness.--Psalm 74:14

 אַתָּה רִצַּצְתָּ, רָאשֵׁי לִוְיָתָן;    תִּתְּנֶנּוּ מַאֲכָל, לְעָם לְצִיִּים --Psalm 74:14

There go the ships: [there is] that leviathan (לִוְיָתָן), [whom] thou hast made to play therein.--Psalm 104:26 

שָׁם, אֳנִיּוֹת יְהַלֵּכוּן;    לִוְיָתָן, זֶה-יָצַרְתָּ לְשַׂחֶק-בּוֹ--Psalm 104:26 

In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan (לִוְיָתָן) the piercing serpent, even leviathan (לִוְיָתָן) that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.--Isaiah 27:1

בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִפְקֹד יְהוָה בְּחַרְבּוֹ הַקָּשָׁה וְהַגְּדוֹלָה וְהַחֲזָקָה, עַל לִוְיָתָן נָחָשׁ בָּרִחַ, וְעַל לִוְיָתָן, נָחָשׁ עֲקַלָּתוֹן; וְהָרַג אֶת-הַתַּנִּין, אֲשֶׁר בַּיָּם. 

Note Psalm 74:14 speaks of the Leviathan as having "heads." In Ancient near east mythology the sea monster Lotan/Litani is sometimes depicted with seven heads (a description Revelation 12 and 13 uses) and was symbolic of chaos and represented at times the god of the sea Yam, the rival of Baal, the sky god (in the OT Baal is seen as the pagan rival to YHVH).

In Ugarit, Leviathan (ltn) is described as a malicious (brh), coiled ('qltn) serpent-dragon (btn) with seven heads (sb't r'sm) (cf. Isa 27:1).--The Symbolism of the Biblical World Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms by Othmar Keel, page 51

"In KTU 1.5 i:1 || 27, it designates a 'fugitive serpent' (btn brh), cf. Heb nahas bariah in Isa 27:1 and Job 26:3) smitten by the victorious weather-god Ba'alu (Baal). Two closely related epithets, 'wriggling serpent' (btn 'qltn, cf. Heb nahas 'aqallaton in Isa 27:1) and 'Mighty one(?) with seven heads' (slyt d.sb't rasm), are usually understood to refer to Leviathan, too, and the former is certainly used in this sense in Isa 27:1. Originally, however, they may well have referred to at least one other monster, mentioned again in KTU 1.3 iii:41-42 together with the god Yammu (Sea). a dragon (Tannin) and four other helper at his disposal--as did Mesopotamian representatives of chaos...A seven-headed serpent (mus-sag-imin) partly overcome by an anthropomorphic hero or god is attested as early as the third mill. BCE in Mesopotamian iconography"--Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leviathan, page 512 

Since the discovery of the Ugaritic from 1929 onwards, however, it becomes clear that the immediate background of the Old Testament allusions to the sea monster is not Babylonian but Canaanite. The Ugartic text contains not only an account of Baal's defeat of the rebellious sea-god Yam, as a result of which he was acclaimed king (CT A 2 = KTU 1.2), but also allusions to a defeat of Leviathan (ltn = Litan, lit. 'twisting one', from lwh 'to twist'), whom we learn had seven heads (CT A 3.IIID.37-9, 5.I.1-3 = KTU 1.3.40-2, 1.5.I.1-3; Ps. 74:14 refers to 'heads' but does not specify how many) and who is called not only 'the twisting serpent' (btn brh, CT A 5.I.1 = KTU 1.5.I.1, cf. nahas bariah in Job 26:13, Is. 27:1). We also find Leviathan called tnn 'dragon', a term identical with the tannin mentioned in various Old Testament passages (cf. Is 27:1, 51:9...). Ugaritic tnn was vocalized tu-un-na-nu, as we now know from Ugaritica V. 137.8. The name ltn has generally been vocalized Lotan since Albright proposed this in 1932.... --God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, Echoes of a Canaanite myth in the Old Testament, by John Day. page 4-5

The story of Leviathan (litani) reads in part:

[Have you then forgotten, Baal, that I can surely transfix you]...for all that you smote Leviathan (ltn) the slippery serpent (and) made an end of the wriggling serpent, the tyrant with seven heads?...--Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2nd edition, by JCL Gibson, Baal and Mot, page 68, Column 2 translated from CT A 4 (Corpus tablettes alphabetiques)

Again, Leviathan is alluded to in recounting the story of Baal,

She lifted up her voice and cried: How (is it that) Gupn and Ugar have arrived? What foe rises against Baal, (what) enemy against the rider on the clouds? Did I not destroy Yam the darling of El, did I not make an end of Nahar the great god? Was not the dragon captured (and) vanquished? I did destroy the wriggling serpent, the tyrant with seven heads--Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2nd edition, by JCL Gibson, The Palace of Baal. page 50, Column 2 translated from CT A 4 (Corpus tablettes alphabetiques)

The Egyptians also make mention of the water monster in their account of creation:

Well tended is humankind--god's cattle, he made sky and earth for their sake, he subdued the water monster, he made breath for their noses to live. They are his images, who came from his body, he shines in the sky for their sake; he made for them plants and cattle, fowl and fish to feed them.--Ancient Egyptian Literature by Miriam Lichtheim, The Instruction of Merikare

The Egyptian chaos god Apep/Apophis is depicted sometimes as a giant snake or a crocodile and fights with the sun/sky god Ra, humorously depicted as taking form of a cat to saw Apep in pieces. 

Like the Cannanite Litani, Revelation 12 and 13 make mentions of monsters with 7 heads. The first is made with no clear mention of the sea but like Leviathan is called a dragon with 7 heads:

And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems--Revelation 12:3

His henchman is another seven-headed monster, how arising from the sea:

And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. The beast I saw was like a leopard, but it had feet like a bear's, and its mouth was like the mouth of a lion--Revelation 13:1-2

The description of this evil "chaos" monster, in addition to having the 7 heads like Leviathan, was a hybrid or composite animal which also fits the ancient near east mythological description (click to link to see the imagery reproduced):

Ancient Near East pictures show a similar variety in representation of Chaos monster. In Figs. 42-44 the Chaos dragon is depicted as a composite creature, half lion and half eagle; in Figs. 46-50 it appears in the form of a serpent; and in Figs. 51 and 52 it is a seven-headed monster.--The Symbolism of the Biblical World Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms by Othmar Keel, p. 50

Revelation 13 proceeds to state the dragon gave his authority to the beast--which is either a Satanic counterpart to Christ receiving authority from the Father (Daniel 7) which itself may be intended to resemble Baal receiving authority from El (Baal Cycle), or perhaps like Yam and Leviathan where Leviathan sometimes seems to be Baal himself.

Also see https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chaos_and_the_Son_of_Man/Pclh3olxIAUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ktu+leviathan&pg=PA4&printsec=frontcover

Adam and Adapa (small link)

The similarity is somewhat basic.

ADAPA - In Sumerian and Babylonian mythology, the first created man, son of Ea (or Enki) who, in anger at the overturning of his boat, broke the wings of the South Wind and had to travel to the heavens to apologize to Anu. Ea, knowing that Anu would offer Adapa the food of immortality and wishing human beings to remain mortal, warned the man not to eat or drink of anything while in the land of the gods as doing so would surely kill him. Adapa heeds Ea's advice and refuses the food and drink offered to him and, so, is tricked out of the chance at immortality. He was the first among the Abgal, the seven ancient sages.--World History Encyclopedia, The Mesopotamian Pantheon

Though most does not apply to Adam, being denied immortality via eating a specific food is in common.

The Myth of Adapa (also known as Adapa and the Food of Life) is the Mesopotamian story of the Fall of Man in that it explains why human beings are mortal. The god of wisdom, Ea, creates the first man, Adapa, and endows him with great intelligence and wisdom but not with immortality, and when immortality is offered Adapa by the great god Anu, Ea tricks Adapa into refusing the gift.... 

Once Adapa is in the presence of Anu, Ea further tells him, he should refuse any food or drink offered because it will be the food of death and the drink of death which will be offered as punishment for Adapa breaking the wing of the south wind. However, Ea says, Adapa may accept oil to anoint himself and accept whatever clothing is offered.

Adapa does exactly as Ea suggests, respectfully honoring Tammuz and Gishida and refusing the food and drink offered by Anu (though anointing himself and accepting a robe). Anu, puzzled that the man should refuse the food and drink of life and the gift of immortality, sends Adapa back to earth where he must live out his life as a mortal.-- World History Encyclopedia, The Myth of Adapa

Cherubim and the Sphinx/Lamassu (definite link)

 Interesting, the cherub is linked to the sphinx of the ancient near east (it is not unique to Egypt):

"It denotes the Israelite counterpart of the sphinx known from the pictorial art of the ancient Near East. In the Bible the cherubim occur essentially in two functions: as guardians of a sacred tree or as a guardian and carrier of a throne....There is no consensus on the etymology of the term....the most probable is that the Heb term is connected with Akk karibu, kuribu both used with reference to genii in Mesopotamian mythology and art....sphinxes and biblical cherubim occur in precisely the same above-mentioned functions....

...the sphinx throne with the sphinxes as an integral element of the throne itself (thus not only flanking the throne) is a Syrian innovation from the time of the 19th Egyptian dynasty. While the Egyptian lion-paws throne never carried a god, the Syrian sphinx throne was used for both gods and kings."--Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible, Cherubim, p. 189-190

The most well known sphinx is the Great Sphinx in Egypt that dates to around 2500 BC, well before the Exodus. As noted above, they were found in Egypt, the near East, and Greece.

Another source when describing the cherubim says,

Common motifs in ancient Israelite art include plants flanked by animals, astral symbols (such as sun-disks and stars), adapted forms of Egyptian symbols (such as winged sphinxes, uraei, and falcons), various animals (such as lions, ostriches, and bulls), and monsters (such as Cherubs - creatures akin to the Lamassu). --World History, Ancient Israelite Art

These Lamassu with bodies of lions, faces of a big bearded man with wings, are described as:

This is a pair of guardian figures (winged human-headed lions) that flanked one of the entrances into the throne room of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BCE). Stone mythological guardians, sculpted in relief or in the round, were often placed at gateways to ancient Mesopotamian palaces, to protect them from demonic forces. They were known to the Assyrians as lamassu. This winged lion has five legs so that when viewed from the front it is standing firm, and when viewed from the side it appears to be striding forward against any evil. It wears ropes like other protective spirits.--World History Encyclopedia, Lamassu from Ashurnasirpal II Palace

They are also described as: 

LAMASSU - The famous Assyrian winged bull-man who adorned palaces and temples to frighten off the forces of chaos. The Lamassu were protective spirits who were sometimes depicted as the Bull-Man (human above the waist and bull below) but, more often as a human-headed bull or lion with wings.--World History Encyclopedia, The Mesopotamian Pantheon

Ezekiel describes some cherubs as, which were associated with the temple and "something that looked like a throne" (Ezekiel 10:1-3):

Each living creature had four faces: the first a cherub, the second a human being, the third a lion, the fourth an eagle. When the cherubim rose up, they were indeed the living creatures I had seen by the river Chebar. When the cherubim moved, the wheels went beside them; when the cherubim lifted up their wings to rise from the earth, even then the wheels did not leave their sides. --Ezekiel 10:14-16

Similar is used in Revelation 4 without explicitly calling them cherubs:

In the center and around the throne, there were four living creatures covered with eyes in front and in back. The first creature resembled a lion, the second was like a calf, the third had a face like that of a human being, and the fourth looked like an eagle in flight. The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming...--Revelation 4:6-8

The first time a cherub is mentioned is in the expulsion from the Garden of Eden:

He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life. --Genesis 3:24

The cherubim are once again "guards." The Solomonic temple used much Garden of Eden imagery (trees, animals), and as mentioned in my commentary on John 19, so does the crucifixion of cross mention a garden, soldiers, sword, angels, and the tree of Life (called so in Revelation).

Contrary to common interpretation of the cherubs in Christian and later Jewish interpretation, cherubs are meant to be terrifying guardians. Despite the mention in Genesis, it's not mentioned again until Exodus and Numbers and there only referring to a statue of cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant. The only description of a cherub in the Torah is that they have wings and are guardians.

And the cherubs have been spreading out wings on high, covering the mercy-seat over with their wings, and their faces are one towards another -- towards the mercy-seat are the faces of the cherubs.--Exodus 25:20

The God of Israel when speaking in reference to the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament is sometimes poetically referred to as "

Cherubim are hybrid animals (somewhat like the chaos monsters). 

Some pagan thrones of gods were decorated with cherubs.

Cherubim decorated the Ark of the Covenant in Exodus 25:20, the cherubs as described above were hybrid animals, often lions (like the sphinxes that decorated thrones). Solomon's own royal throne was decorated with lions (lions are associated with royalty in the Bible, "lion of the tribe of Judah"):

Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the finest gold. There were six steps to the throne, and the top of the throne was round behind; and there were arms on either side by the place of the seat, and two lions standing beside the arms. And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other upon the six steps; there was not the like made in any kingdom.--1 Kings 10:20-21

 Lions are a common theme in ancient Israelite art.

Ark of the covenant vs Egyptian Arks (slight similarities)

The cherubim were located on the Ark of the Covenant, Israel's portable temple, which was the interface between Heaven and Earth, where God's dwelt in a unique way.

“They shall make an ark of acacia wood. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and outside shall you overlay it, and you shall make on it a molding of gold around it. You shall cast four rings of gold for it and put them on its four feet, two rings on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it. You shall make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. And you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry the ark by them. The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it. And you shall put into the ark the testimony that I shall give you.  “You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel--Exodus 25:10-22

Concerning the word for ark here itself, it is in Hebrew אֲרוֹן aron:

And they shall make an ark of acacia-wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.--Exodus 25:10

וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן, עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים:  אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכּוֹ, וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבּוֹ, וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי, קֹמָתוֹ--Exodus 25:10

The word simply refers to a chest used for storage, even a coffin, as in the burial of the patriarch Joseph:

Joseph died, being a hundred and ten years old. And they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin (בָּאָרוֹן ba-aron) in Egypt.--Genesis 50:26

וַיָּמָת יוֹסֵף, בֶּן-מֵאָה וָעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים; וַיַּחַנְטוּ אֹתוֹ, וַיִּישֶׂם בָּאָרוֹן בְּמִצְרָיִם.--Genesis 50:26 

Also, a box or chest used to collect money in the temple:

And the priests consented that they should take no longer money from the people, neither repair the breaches of the house. And Jehoiada the priest took a chest (אֲרוֹן aron), and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one cometh into the house of the LORD; and the priests that kept the threshold put therein all the money that was brought into the house of the LORD. And it was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest (baaron בָּאָרוֹן), that the king's scribe and the high priest came up, and they put up in bags and counted the money that was found in the house of the LORD. --2 Kings 12:9-11 

  וַיִּקַּח יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן, אֲרוֹן אֶחָד, וַיִּקֹּב חֹר, בְּדַלְתּוֹ; וַיִּתֵּן אֹתוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בימין (מִיָּמִין), בְּבוֹא-אִישׁ בֵּית יְהוָה, וְנָתְנוּ-שָׁמָּה הַכֹּהֲנִים שֹׁמְרֵי הַסַּף, אֶת-כָּל-הַכֶּסֶף הַמּוּבָא בֵית-יְהוָה. וַיֵּאֹתוּ, הַכֹּהֲנִים, לְבִלְתִּי קְחַת-כֶּסֶף מֵאֵת הָעָם, וּלְבִלְתִּי חַזֵּק אֶת-בֶּדֶק הַבָּיִת.וַיְהִי, כִּרְאוֹתָם, כִּי-רַב הַכֶּסֶף, בָּאָרוֹן; וַיַּעַל סֹפֵר הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל, וַיָּצֻרוּ וַיִּמְנוּ, אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף הַנִּמְצָא בֵית-יְהוָה.

Note even the English word coffin originally simply meant "basket." 

Egyptian chests/coffins did bear some similarity.

The Chest of Anubis had a chest with pole attached with a statue on top, while the ark had two cherubs. See Anubis shrine.

The Chest of Anubis had some sacred objects, the Ark did too.

Inside there were amulets made from faience, two alabaster vases, and eight breast plates. Thieves had undoubtedly rummaged through the casket as the objects, originally packaged and placed in compartments, were found heaped in disorder.-- Anubis Shrine of Tutankhamun

The ark of the covenant filled with some important Israelite sacred memorabilia: 

In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;--Hebrews 9:4

Dilmun and Garden of Eden:

"Dimun, which was the equivalent of the Garden of Eden, or Paradise on earth."--The Search for Dilmun, HJ Finkel

Again:

DILMUN - In Sumerian mythology, the site of creation, paradise, where Utnapishtim is transported to with his wife after the great flood. --World History Encyclopedia, The Mesopotamian Pantheon

Sumerian literature on Dilmun is reminiscent of the Biblical prophets on paradise: 

In Dilmun the raven utters no cry. The ittidu-bird utters not the cry-of the ittidu-bird, 

The lion kills not, The wolf snatches not the lamb. 

Unknown is the kid-devouring wild dog, Unknown is the grain-devouring . . , 

Unknown is the widow...-Samuel Noah Kramer, Expedition Magazine - Penn Museum 

Compare with:

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them.  The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; --Isaiah 11:6-9a

Note, however, the two places are likely far apart. Dilmun is generally seen as being around Bahrain in the Persian Gulf while Eden is unknown but being at the top of a mountain where 4 rivers have their source.

The Biblical Garden of Eden is the home of humans until expulsion for disobedience that God allows the just to return to in the age to come.

Dilmun on the other hand is not a home in anyway foe humans but for the gods alone and the only humans spoken of as being allowed to enter Dilmun are the Mesopotamian Noah and his wife after the Flood.

Other strange mention, coincidence?

περιστερά = Ishtar-bird?  (uncertain/coincidence)

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (περιστερὰν), and lighting upon him--Matthew 3:16 

Καὶ βαπτισθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέβη εὐθὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος· καὶ ἰδού, ἀνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἴδεν τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπ’ αὐτόν.--Matthew 3:16 RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves (περιστεράς).--Matthew 21:12 

Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἐξέβαλεν πάντας τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, καὶ τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν κατέστρεψεν, καὶ τὰς καθέδρας τῶν πωλούντων τὰς περιστεράς.--Matthew 21:12 RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005

The word περιστερά GR4085 (peristera) is disputed, it might mean perah Ishtar "bird of Ishtar"

According to the Syriac dictionary the word parha (noting its related to Hebraic vars. אפרוח‏ ):

prḥh, prḥtˀ (pārḥā, pāraḥtā)   n.f.  bird

1 bird  CPA, Syr, JBAmb, LJLA.  P Ho9:11 : ܐܝܟ ܦܪܚܬܐ ܦܪܚ ܐܝܩܪܗܘܢ‏ . P StDan(1)2:38 .  TgProv1:17 : מטול דמגן פריסא מצדתא על פרחתא דגדפא‏ .  TgProv26:2 : היך ציפרא דטאיס והיך פרחאתא דפרחא‏  †.

2  birds as a category or collective, like Hebrew העוף‏  Syr.  P Mt13:32 : ܦܿܵܪܲܚܬܼܵܐ ܕܿܲܫܡܲܝܵܐ ܬܿܲܩܸܢ ܒܿܣܲܘܟܸܿܝܗ̈‏  the birds of the sky will nest in its branches.   

 The dove in Greek myth is associated with the goddess Aphrodite, which, though not the equivalent of Ishtar, does have an origin in Ishtar, both were love goddesses. 

This is more an oddity of language, if true, and a warning against relying too much on etymology to prove a point. Similar, to how an etymology of ekklesia is not that meaningful when it can refer to a church or to a mob of people as in Acts.

It is worth noting, Greek adopting Semitic words for animals is not unheard of, the Greek (and English) word for camel is Semitic: καμηλος. The Hebrew is גָּמָל -- gamal. See this site.

Noah/Utnesphtim/Ziusudra/Naahmuuliel and the Flood

Noah's birth and name is described:

And he called his name Noah [Noach נֹחַ], saying: 'This same shall comfort us [יְנַחֲמֵנוּ y'nachamanu] in our work and in the toil of our hands, which cometh from the ground which the LORD hath cursed.'--Genesis 5:29

 וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ נֹחַ, לֵאמֹר:  זֶה יְנַחֲמֵנוּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂנוּ, וּמֵעִצְּבוֹן יָדֵינוּ, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר אֵרְרָהּ יְהוָה.--Genesis 5:29 MT

The background for the Flood and Ark in the Bible are as follows:

And the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.  And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.  And God said unto Noah: 'The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.--Genesis 6:11-14

Man corrupted the earth and became violent, therefore man must be wiped out (except for the Noahs)  

To the Sumerians the flood-hero was known as Ziusudra (“a life of long days”), spelled Xisouthros by the third century B.C.E. Babylonian priest, Berossus, in his retelling of the tale. In the Babylonian and Assyrian traditions, the hero was also known as Utnapishtim (“he found life”) or as Atrahasis (“exceedingly wise”). Though Jewish tradition explains the name Noah as coming from the Hebrew root for “comfort,” it may instead be a shortened form of the name Naahmuuliel, the name given to the flood-hero by the Hurrians, an ethnic group active in Mesopotamia in the second millennium B.C.E.--Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, P 315

On the issue of the similarities of the Biblical Noah and the Mesopotamian counterpart:

In the Mesopotamian versions, a god warns an individual of...impending flood. The god then gives directions for the construction of a vessel designed to save a select group of human beings and animals. Once the deadly rains have ceased, the boat... rest on a mountaintop. ....the Mesopotamian Noah releases a series of birds in the hope they will fly back with evidence the flood is abating. Upon the receipt of this evidence, the passengers disembark and offer thanks to their god, who in turn promises never to send such a flood again.--Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, P 314

On the issue of the differences of the Biblical Noah and the Mesopotamian counterpart:

The Mesopotamian Noah, on the other hand, is not explicitly saved because he is more righteous than his contemporaries. Nor does Enlil, the leader of the Mesopotamian gods, use the flood to punish sin. Instead, he floods the earth because a populous and noisy human race has been making him lose sleep. Throughout, the Biblical narrative has moral direction; indeed, after the flood God promulgates new ethical guidelines by which humankind must live. Conversely, Enlil is self-centered and concerned only with his own gratification; it is a divine subordinate, Ea, who warns the Mesopotamian Noah of the impending disaster.--Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, P 315

The account in the Mesopotamian reads:

"Man of Shuruppak, son of Ubara-Tutu, Dismantle your house, build a boat. Leave possessions, search out living things. Reject chattels and save lives! Put aboard the seed of al living things, into the boat. The boat that you are to build Shall have her dimensions in proportion, Roof her like the Apsu." 

I realized and spoke to my master Ea, "I have paid attention to the words that you spoke in this way, My master, and I shall act upon them. But how can I explain myself to the city, the men and the elders?" 

Ea made his voice heard and spoke, He said to me, his servant, "You shall speak to them thus: "I think that Ellil has rejected me, And so I cannot stay in your city, And I cannot set foot on Ellil's land again. I must go down to the Apsu and stay with my master Ea. Then he will shower abundance upon you....--Myths of Mesopotamia, Gilgamesh XI

The Mesopotamian flood had the water rising 6 days and 7 nights:

"Six days and seven nights The wind continued, the deluge and windstorm leveled the land. When the seventh day arrived, The windstorm and deluge left off their battle, Which had struggled, like a woman in labor. The sea grew calm, the tempest stilled, the deluge ceased."--The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Analogues, Criticism. Tablet XI, p. 88

The Biblical flood was much longer:

And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.--Genesis 7:24

The Mesopotamian flood has the boat landing on Mt. Nimush:

"The boat had come to rest of Mount Nimush, Mount Nimush held the boat fast, not letting it move..."--The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Analogues, Criticism. Tablet XI, p. 88

 The Biblical ark lands on the mountains of Ararat (Kardu in the Aramaic Peshitta):

And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat--Genesis 8:4

 Furthermore, both accounts have the Noah figure sending out a bird for evidence of dry land:

"I brought out a dove and set it free. The dove went off and returned, No landing place came to its view, so it turned back. I brought out a swallow and set it free, The follow went off and returned, No landing place came to its view, so it turned back. I brought a raven and set it free. The raven went off and saw the ebbing of the waters. It ate, preened, left droppings, did not turn back"--The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Analogues, Criticism. Tablet XI, p. 88-89

And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made. And he sent forth a raven, and it went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.  And he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground.  But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him to the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth; and he put forth his hand, and took her, and brought her in unto him into the ark.  And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. And the dove came in to him at eventide; and lo in her mouth an olive-leaf freshly plucked; so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; and she returned not again unto him any more. --Genesis 8:6-12

The Mesopotamian Noah sent both a dove and raven just as the Biblical, albeit in a different orders. The Mesopotamian Noah also send out a swallow.

Both accounts end with a sacrifice offered for the survival:

"I brought out an offering and offered it to the four directions. I set up an incense offering on the summit of the mountain, I arranged seven and seven cult vessels....The gods smelled the savor, The gods smelled the sweet savor, The gods crowded round the sacrificer like flies--The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Analogues, Criticism. Tablet XI, p. 89

And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled the sweet savour; ....--Genesis 8:20-21  

The Genesis account has God saying He will never do this again: 

and the LORD said in His heart: 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. --Genesis 8:21

 The Babylonian account causes the gods to argue with one another. Enlil is furious at the other gods for allowing any humans to survive.

As soon as Enlil arrived, He saw the boat, Enlil flew into a rage, He was filled with fury at the gods: "Who came through alive? No man was to survive destruction!"--The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Analogues, Criticism. Tablet XI, p. 90

The mother goddess defends the action and asks for other methods of destroying humans be used instead of a massive flood.

"You...are the wisest of the gods, How could you, irrationally, have brought on the flood? Punish the wrongdoer for his wrongdoing, Punish the transgressor for his transgression, But be lenient, lest he be cut off....Instead of a bringing on a flood, Let the lion rise up to diminish the human race!...Let the wolf rise up...Let the famine rise up.. Let pestilence rise up...--The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Analogues, Criticism. Tablet XI, p. 90-91

The Biblical Noah and his wife die. The Babylonian one is granted eternal life and removed from humanity to their version of the Garden of Eden--Dilmun since they have "become like us gods." Reminiscent of Genesis where God said, "Man has become like one of us!"

He [Enlil] touched our brows, stood between us to bless us: "Hitherto Utanapishtim has been a human being, Now  Utanapishtim and his wife shall become like us gods. Utanapishtim shall dwell far distant at the source of the rivers."--The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Analogues, Criticism. Tablet XI, p. 91

Noah's Ark

 The instructions for the Biblical Noah's ark (tevah תֵּבָה):

Make thee an ark of gopher wood; with rooms shalt thou make the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is how thou shalt make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. --Genesis 6:11-14

The word ark is different from the ark of the Covenant, Noah's ark is called a tevah while the Ark of the Covenant is called an aron (coffin/box). Tevah is only used again in Exodus 2:3-5 to describe the box baby Moses floated on to be saved from male infanticide, possibly making him a new Noah. Tevah is likely a loan word from Egyptian where it simply means a box or chest. 

Jastow's dictionary for Tevah notes:

תֵּבָה, תֵּיבָה (b. h. תֵּבָה; Egyptian; v., however, תָּבָא)ship, ark, chest. Gen. R. s. 31 (play on קנים, Gen. VI, 14) מה הקן … אף תֵּיבָתְךָ וכ׳ as birds (v. קֵן) make the leper clean, so does thy ark cleanse thee. Ib. על שם תֵּיבָתוֹ של נח (it is called t’biḳin) from the measures of Noah’s ark. Y. Erub. V, 22ᶜ bot. כיצד היו ישראל … כת׳ how did the Israelites march in the desert?… like a chest (forming a square), opp. כקורה like a beam (in columns). Men. 94ᵇ כמין ת׳ פרוצה (the shape of the show-bread was) that of an open chest (without a lid and with a level bottom), opp. כמין ספינה רוקדת like a rocking ship (with a curved bottom). Sifra M’tsorʿa, Zab., Par. 1, ch. II תֵּיבַת הבלנים the bathers’ chest. Tosef. Kel. B. Mets. X, 1, sq.; a. fr.—Pl. תֵּבוֹת, תֵּי׳. Midr. Till. to Ps. I היה צריך לעשות ת׳ הרבה he would have been obliged to build many arks. Y. Sot. VIII, beg. 22ᵇ שהיו עשויין ת׳ ת׳ they (the Egyptians) were arrayed in squares.—Esp. the chest in the synagogue containing the scrolls of the Pentateuch. Sot. 38ᵇ, v. פְּסַק. Taan. II, 1 מוציאין את הת׳ וכ׳ (at prayer meetings) they bring the chest out to the open place of the town, and put ashes of wood on the chest &c. Meg. III, 1 בני העיר … בה"כ לוקחין ת׳ ת׳ וכ׳ if the citizens of a township sell … a synagogue, they may buy (for the money) a book chest; if they sell a chest, they may buy book wrappers; a. fr.—עבר לפני הת׳, ירד לפני הת׳ to go before the chest, to act as reader of prayers. Ber. 34ᵃ שירד לפני הת׳ וכ׳ who recited the prayers in the presence of &c. Ib. V, 3 העובר לפני הת׳ וטעה וכ׳ if a reader makes a mistake (reads heretical formulas), another person must pass before the chest in his place. Ib. 4. Ib. 34ᵃ העובר לפני הת׳ צריך לסרב he that is asked to read the prayers &c., v. סָרַב. Taan. II, 2 מורידין לפני הת׳ וכ׳ we depute as reader (on fast days) an old man &c.; a. v. fr. —2) word. Men. 30ᵇ ת׳ בת שתי וכ׳ a word of two letters. Sabb. 104ᵃ they did not know הי באמצע ת׳ וכ׳ in which (of the two forms of the letters מנצפ"ך) were to be employed in the middle of a word, and which at the end; a. fr.—Pl. תֵּיבוֹת, תֵּיבִיּוֹת. Ḥull. 64ᵇ דפסק … ת׳ (v. Rabb. D. S. a. l. note 40) where the scribe divides them into two words; ib. 65ᵃ. Y. Meg. I, 71ᶜ bot. תיביות; a. e. 

The proportions provided in Genesis are then 300:50:30, or 10:1.66:1, whereas the Mesopotamian ark mentioned above was described as:

"One full acre was her deck space, Ten dozen cubits, the height of each of her sides, Ten dozen cubits square, her outer dimensions"---- The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Analogues, Criticism. Tablet XI, p. 86, 57-59

In other words: 120:120:120 simplified to: 1:1:1. As often said, a floating cube since its dimensions are the same.

The volume of Noah's ark (ignoring ships tend narrow going down): 450,000 cubits^3

The volume of Utnesphtim's ark (ignoring ships tend narrow): 1,728,000 cubits^3

The Mesopotamian vessel was 3.84 times bigger in volume than the Biblical ark! Of course, this assumes the cubits in Israel and those of Mesopotamia were roughly the same. Noah's "chest" is more what you expect from a chest, while the Mesopotamians had a cube.

Both the Hebrew and Mesopotamian arks were populated with animals and family:

"What silver I had I loaded upon her, What gold I had I loaded upon her, What living creatures I had I loaded upon her, I sent up on board all my family and kin, Beasts of the steppe, wild animals of the steppe, all types of skilled craftsmen I sent up on board."--The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Analogues, Criticism. Tablet XI, p. 87, 82-87

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean two [and two], each with his mate--Genesis 7:2

And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.--Genesis 7:7

The Mesopotamian Noah, however, seemed to also bring along many skilled laborers with him! He also, loaded lots of money (why?)! The Hebrew's Noah has no hint to using contract labor.

The calking of the ark in the Bible was done by God Himself (Genesis 7:16), the Mesopotamian one is done by Puzur Amurri "the boatman", clearly an Amurru name! This was by command of the sun god, Shamash.

see also Dalley 1991: Mesopotamian myth

Other future topics: 

https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/canaanite-religion-literature

Temple

angels, demons, holy days