Primeval History (Genesis 1-11): Final Thoughts


    In this series of posts, we’ve gone through the entire primeval history of the Bible and shown that it is supported by the findings of modern science, contrary to what skeptics and science denialists claim. I’d like to end the series with just a few closing thoughts.

The Accuracy of Science and the Bible

Many people today believe there’s a dichotomy between religion, especially Genesis, and science. This belief is reinforced by both religious science deniers, like young-earth creationists, and atheistic hardliners, both of whom claim that one must deny the findings of mainstream science to be a faithful Christian. However, the broad strokes of the history recorded in Genesis 1-11 are supported by modern science. The existence of an oasis in the Persian Gulf at the dawn of human civilization which has since been lost (Gen. 2-3); a period of extreme violence in the ancient Near East (Gen. 4-6); a massive flood following this period of violence (Gen. 7-9); the spread of human civilization from the Near East to Europe and North Africa (Gen. 10); and the construction of a tower at “Babel” (Eridu) which suddenly stopped (Gen. 11).

    Because of this, the Bible actually corroborates modern science, as the accuracy of the primeval history depends on the accuracy of science. The biblical description of the Persian Gulf oasis (Gen. 2-3) is extremely accurate, but only if radiocarbon dating and the methods of paleoclimatology are dependable. Likewise, the date of the Near Eastern flood (~6,500 BC) which fits the biblical account so well was determined by radiocarbon dating. Our knowledge about the period of violence and spread of human civilization from the ancient Near East depends on a reliable Y-chromosome clock, which also places the most recent ancestor of all male humans at ~250,000 years ago. [1] The data demonstrating the Uruk expansion, which fits the biblical account of the king Nimrod, relies on the accuracy of relative dating methods of archeology.

    These findings of modern science also support the divine inspiration of the biblical account. A lot of the accurate information about the Persian Gulf oasis found in Genesis 2-3 isn’t found in any other ancient Near Eastern myth. Likewise, of the flood myths from the ancient Near East, the Noah myth is the only one to correctly describe the period of extreme violence in early human civilization (Gen. 6:11) discovered from genetic studies. An Israelite in the 1st millennium BC wouldn’t have known the history of construction of the E-Abzu temple in Eridu, but this is accurately reflected in the tower of Babel narrative, which also bears similarities to an obscure Sumerian epic (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta) that would have been unknown to such an Israelite.

    This implies that the biblical author(s) of the primeval history had another source, one which knew many details of early human civilization in the ancient Near East that were unknown to other peoples at the time. In my opinion, these facts are best explained if the primeval history was indeed inspired by God.

    Theological Significance of Genesis 1-11

The primeval history isn’t only a chronicle of early human civilization. The narratives that make up this history were chosen for a reason, as they tell an important story about God’s relationship to humanity. The story begins with God dedicating the cosmos as his own temple and assigning its functionaries. The most important functionaries of God’s cosmic temple are humans, who are designated as “the image of God,” his representatives on earth (Gen. 1:26f). These humans are given the task of filling the earth and governing it and its creatures.

    From these humans, God chooses two individuals to make his covenant with, and sets them in an oasis that he planted. (For the purposes of the story, it doesn’t matter much if Adam and Eve were taken from a population of existing humans or created ex nihilo, though the text claims the latter.) But Adam and Eve fall short of the covenant, choosing to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they were forbidden to eat from. As a result, God kicks them out of the oasis. This removes them from the tree of life, condemning them and their descendants to mortality and a life of toil.

    Adam and Eve’s descendants continue to fall short of the covenant, lording over and killing each other, always acting wickedly. God decides to wipe out their civilization with a massive flood, but chooses a righteous man and his family to continue the covenant. After this flood completely reshapes their world as they knew it, God makes a new covenant with Noah’s family (Gen. 9:8ff). Once again, they immediately fall short of this covenant, when Noah’s son Ham sexually assaults his father.

    As Noah’s descendants spread out over the land, some of them end up in the plains of Sumer. Once there, they immediately forget the covenant made between Yahweh and their ancestor Noah, and begin to build a city and a new temple for their pagan pantheon of gods. These arrogant people form a kingdom that spreads out and takes over the whole land (Gen. 10:8-12). As they continue to build their city and pagan temple, God confuses their speech so that they’re unable to agree on their aims. They are forced to stop building their temple, and their kingdom collapses.

    But this isn’t the end of the story. Out of the people who failed God in Sumer, he chooses another man, Abram, to make another covenant. Through his descendants, the entire world will be blessed (Gen. 12:1-3). The descendants of Abram, the nation of Israel, also continually fail God and break his covenant, and are exiled to Babylon after hundreds of years of disobedience. But through it all, God promises that there will be another descendant of Abram, a prophet and king, who will save the people of Israel and the entire world (Num. 24:15-19; Deut. 18:15-19; Ps. 89:30-37; Isa. 49-53).

    From this summary, we can see that the primeval history sets up humanity’s purpose in creation (the image of God) as well as their continual disobedience to God’s covenant, and God’s continual faithfulness. This foreshadows Israel’s own cycles of covenant faithfulness, disobedience, exile, and return, but it also looks forward to a time when one human will break this cycle, undo the curse and thus reconcile all of humanity to God (Gen. 3:15). The great story of Genesis 1-11, which sets the stage for the rest of the Hebrew Bible, would have the same theological significance whether or not it is historically accurate. But due to its historical accuracy, we can have faith that the primeval history, and the story it contains, is divinely inspired.

Conclusion

The primeval history of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 1-11) has been a source of contention for Christians, because it’s believed by many to contradict the findings of modern science. On the contrary, as I’ve shown through this series of posts, the biblical account lines up perfectly with what science has discovered about early human civilization in the ancient Near East! This is evidence that the primeval history, which sets the stage for the rest of the biblical story, was inspired by God. We don’t need to choose between the Bible and science; they actually reinforce each other.

______________________________

[1] Monika Karmin et al., “A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture,” Genome Research 25, no. 4 (2015): 461.

Primeval History (Genesis 1-11): Six Days of Creation?


    Now that we’ve gone through the entire primeval history from the garden of Eden onward, it’s time to take a look at the most difficult passage to interpret, the Genesis 1 creation account. If taken as a literal account of material origins, it says that the time from the creation of the universe to the first human beings was six 24-hour days. This even seems to be supported by Exodus 20:11, which uses the 6-1 day structure of the creation account as the basis for the Sabbath. But if that’s true, it means all the findings of modern science are wrong, requiring many more miracles than what’s described in the biblical account [1], and even undermining the accuracy of the rest of the primeval history (Gen. 2-11), which is supported by modern science (see the earlier posts in this series). So is this creation account just wrong, or is there a better way to interpret it?

    Note: This post is largely a summary of the argument in Old Testament scholar John Walton’s book The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. I’ve removed a lot of details from his argument for brevity, and added a few where I felt it was important. But all credit regarding the argument in this post goes to him.

    Functional vs. Material Creation

Looking at this text from our modern, scientific worldview, which views the material world as most important, it seems to be describing the material origins of the universe, i.e., how God brought everything into being. However, this materialistic worldview which elevates physical being to a position of primary importance hasn’t always been around. In the ancient Near East, the function of a thing was considered to be most significant, and most in need of an explanation, rather than the material existence of that thing. [2]

    For example, the Insinger Papyrus from Egypt includes its own creation account, which describes the creation of all things but doesn’t deal with their material origins. Rather, it tells us what is the purpose of each of the created things. [3] The same is true of the Egyptian Instruction of Merikare, which includes a hymn to the creator god Atum (130-135). [4] The Akkadian creation myth KAR 4 tells us that heaven was created as an abode for the gods, that the earth was created to make the ground firm, and that the Tigris and Euphrates were made to properly place canals and ditches, but it doesn’t say anything about how these were materially formed. [5] The Babylonian Enuma Elish and Sumerian Debate Between Summer and Winter have the same emphasis on functionality (but not materiality). [6]

    This isn’t just true of extra-biblical texts from the ancient Near East, but even other biblical texts, such as the creation account in Psalm 104. This poetic description of creation begins by telling us that God created light for his glory (vv. 1-2; cf. Gen. 1:3-5) and heaven as his abode (vv. 2-4; cf. Gen. 1:6-8). The earth was founded so that the ground might not be shaken, and the waters went to their appointed places to provide a drink for the animals (vv. 5-13; cf. Gen. 1:9-10). Plants were created to give food for animals and people, the trees were made as a home for the birds (vv. 14-18; cf. Gen. 1:11-13). The heavenly lights were made to mark time for animals and people (vv. 19-23; cf. Gen. 1:14-19). All these things are given by God to the creatures of the land and sea (vv. 24-30; cf. Gen. 1:20-25). This psalm is clearly a parallel description of the Genesis 1 account (it’s even in the same order!), but it’s concerned only with functional purpose, not material origins. [7]

    Those who hold to a ‘material origins’ view of Genesis 1 (whether young-earth creationists, gap theorists, or old-earth creationists) may object that this interpretation abandons a ‘literal’ reading of the account. That I’m being inconsistent by interpreting Gen. 1 figuratively while interpreting the rest of the primeval history literally. However, this objection equivocates between ‘literal’ and ‘scientific’ or material; just because I don’t think Genesis 1 is a scientific account of origins doesn’t mean I’m not interpreting it literally within its cultural context. Furthermore, as we’ll see, there are indications within the creation account itself and the rest of the Hebrew Bible that it takes a functional view of origins.

    “Formless and Void”

The first thing the biblical author tells us, after the fact that “God created the heavens and the earth,” is that “the earth was formless and void” (Heb: tohu w’bohu). What does this mean? The Hebrew words tohu and bohu are only found a little over a dozen other times in the Old Testament, so let’s see how they’re used elsewhere:

The desert wilderness in which Israel spent 40 years was tohu (Deut. 32:10)

The Israelites should not turn from God to things that are tohu (1 Sam. 12:21)

The paths of caravans go to tohu and they perish (Job 6:18)

The north is stretched out over tohu, and the earth over nothing (Job 26:7)

God causes princes to wander tohu where there is no way (Ps. 107:40)

Jerusalem under siege is a city of tohu (Isa. 24:10)

The wicked turn aside the righteous for tohu (Isa. 29:21)

Edom will be destroyed and become a wilderness, tohu and bohu (Isa. 34:11)

The nations and their rulers are tohu to God (Isa. 40:17, 23)

The works of idolaters are in vain and their idols are tohu (Isa. 41:29)

Those who make idols are tohu (Isa. 44:9)

God did not create the earth tohu but to be inhabited (Isa. 45:18)

God did not ask Israel to seek him in tohu or the land of darkness (Isa. 45:19)

God’s servant has labored and spent his strength for tohu (Isa. 49:4)

The wicked rely on tohu when unjustly accusing the righteous (Isa. 59:4)

The land of Israel is tohu and bohu during the Babylonian exile (Jer. 4:23)

In every other instance throughout the Hebrew Bible, tohu and bohu do not refer to material non-existence or formlessness, but rather purposelessness or vanity. The only possible exception is Job 26:7, where the north is stretched out over tohu; however, this most likely refers to the waters of chaos that existed under the earth in ancient Near Eastern cosmology (Exod. 20:4; Ps. 24:1f; 136:6; cf. Enuma Elish 1.3-5; 4.128-140). [8]

    The two most notable uses of tohu and bohu are in Isaiah 45:18 and Jeremiah 4:23. Isaiah tells us that God “did not create [the earth] tohu, he formed it to be inhabited!” The opposite of tohu is not “existent” or “formed,” but “inhabited,” showing that tohu isn’t about material formlessness but whether something is functioning according to its God-given purpose. Likewise, Jeremiah clearly echoes the Genesis creation account by saying, “I looked on the earth, and it was tohu and bohu.” But this is in the context of a prophecy about the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem and exile (Jer. 4:5-27). The land of Israel didn’t cease to exist materially at this time, but it ceased to function according to its God-given purpose as a home for the Israelites.

    The Days of Creation

Based on the meaning of tohu and bohu, the Genesis creation account starts from a place of functionlessness, rather than a place of total material non-existence or formlessness. But what about the days of creation themselves? If we go through the actual creation story without reading any modern assumptions into it, the first three days of creation involve only the creation of functions and no actual material creation. The fourth through sixth days are less straightforward, but still emphasize function over material.

    On day 1 of creation, God “said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” God then separated the light from darkness, and named the light “Day” and the darkness “Night” (Gen. 1:3-5). The original readers of this text would have had no concept of light as a material object (photons), so there is no material creation on this day, just separation and naming.

    On day 2 of creation, God separates the cosmic waters into two by making a raqia (“firmament”), and names the raqia “Heaven” (Gen. 1:6-8; cf. Enuma Elish 4.128-140). If the raqia is a physical dome, as the original readers likely would have believed, then we now know such a dome doesn’t exist, so there is no material creation on this day. If the raqia is simply an “expanse,” as in some translations, then an “expanse” is not material so there is also no material creation, only separation and naming.

    On day 3 of creation, the waters below are gathered together and the land appears, and God names the waters “Sea” and the land “Earth” (Gen. 1:9-10). God assigns the land to bring forth plants (Gen. 1:11-13). As the dry land simply “appears” from beneath the waters, there is once again no material creation, only separation and naming, as well as assigning a function (to the land to bring forth plants).

    There’s nothing in the first three days that could be interpreted as material creation ex nihilo. This is surely significant, for if Genesis 1 were intended to give an account of material origins, it would tell us how these things were made. Instead, it emphasizes the assignment of these things to their proper place and function, and God naming them. The same emphasis is found in other ancient Near Eastern creation stories, such as the Enuma Elish, which tells us that nothing had a name before creation, not even the gods (1.1-8).

    On day 4 of creation, we’re told for the first time that God “made” (asah) something that could be material, the sun, moon, and stars (Gen. 1:14-19). This could be interpreted as either material or functional creation. The verb asah simply refers to the completion of a task, which could be material creation or assignment of function. [9] For example, in Exodus 20:9-10, it is used to describe people “doing” work, which obviously doesn’t involve material creation ex nihilo. Overall, the emphasis in this passage is on the function of the heavenly bodies – to give light, to separate day and night, and to separate light from darkness. Therefore, on the fourth day of creation, God assigned functions to the heavenly bodies.

    On day 5 of creation, God “created” (bara’) the tanninim (“sea monsters”) and other creatures of the sea and sky (Gen. 1:20-23). Like asah, the verb bara’ is ambiguous, and often refers to the assignment of function. [10] The overall emphasis in this passage is on the function of these creatures – to multiply and fill the sea and sky. Moreover, the tanninim were seen as creatures of chaos, so this is saying that even they have a function in God’s ordered creation. The same point about sea monsters is made elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Ps. 148:7; Isa. 27:1; 43:20; 51:9; cf. Job 41).

    On day 6 of creation, God “made” (asah) and “created” (bara’) the land animals and humans. Once again, the emphasis is on the function of humanity, which is the climax of the creation account and the most important function. All the rest of creation functions in relation to humanity, as we are meant to spread over the earth, to have dominion over the animals, and to eat the green plants (Gen. 1:26-30).

    In summary, the entire Genesis 1 account deals with the assignment of things to their proper place and function, rather than telling us how they were materially created, much like other ancient Near Eastern creation stories. Throughout the creation account, God sees that “it was good,” which means that it is functioning according to its assigned purpose (cf. Gen. 2:18). The closest it gets to describing material origins is when God commands the earth to bring forth plants, and the sea and land to bring forth life (Gen. 1:11, 20, 24). But this doesn’t mean that plants or animals are made out of dirt, or that sea creatures are made out of water, it just means that’s where they come from. (See the Sumerian epic The Exploits of Ninurta [390-410] for a similar statement.)

    The Seventh Day

Finally, on day 7 of creation, God “rested from all the work he had done” (Gen. 2:2f). Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, we’re told that God’s “resting place” is his temple (1 Chron. 28:2; Ps. 132:8, 13f; Isa. 66:1), which in a broad sense encompasses his entire creation (Isa. 66:1). The Babylonian creation story, Enuma Elish, also ends with the gods creating a temple that “shall be a dwelling for our rest at night; come, let us repose within!” (6.51-54) The idea that the cosmos is also the temple of God/the gods can be found all throughout ancient Near Eastern texts. [11]

    This helps to explain why Genesis 1 fits the creation of the cosmos into a seven-day framework. In the ancient Near East, the ceremony for the dedication of a temple lasted multiple days (usually seven), during which time the powers of the temple were declared and the roles of temple functionaries were declared. This is seen in over forty texts that describe temple dedication ceremonies. [12] The dedication of Yahweh’s temple and consecration of his priests in the Bible also lasted for seven days (Exod. 29:37; Lev. 8:31-36; 1 Kgs. 8:65; 2 Chron. 29:17; Ezra 6:22?). Importantly, the material creation of the temple always takes place before its dedication (and takes much longer than seven days).

    Therefore, the most likely explanation of the seven-day framework in Genesis 1 is that it’s meant to be the seven-day dedication ceremony of God’s cosmic temple, in which the proper place and function of the temple is first assigned (1:3-13), its functionaries – i.e., the heavenly bodies, animals, and humans – are designated (1:14-31), and finally God himself takes his place in the temple (2:1-3).

    Conclusion

If we look at the Genesis creation story from a modern, materialistic worldview, it seems to contradict the findings of modern science about the age of the cosmos and evolution of life on earth. But when we look at it using an ancient Near Eastern lens, as emphasizing functional purpose over material origins, there’s no contradiction. The story begins with a functionless (tohu w’bohu) heaven and earth, which over a seven-day dedication period is transformed into God’s own temple. The six days of creation may have been 24-hour days, or epochs, or even instantaneous (as some early Christians believed); this makes no difference. As Genesis 1 deals with the function of creation, while science deals only with empirical evidence and material origins, there can be no contradiction between the two.


______________________________

[1] Among other things, it would mean that God sped up radioactive decay by a factor of millions and miraculously removed the heat from this process, that he created the genomes of all organisms to look like they descended from a common ancestor, that he intervened to increase the genetic diversity of humans to make it look like our genetic common ancestor lived much more than 6,000 years ago… this list could go on for hours.

[2] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 21-35.

[3] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 30-31.

[4] See a translation of this text here.

[5] See a translation of this text here.

[6] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 31-33.

[7] The psalmist’s creation account also indicates that animals like “donkeys,” “cattle,” “storks,” “wild goats,” “young lions,” and even “people” existed materially as early as days 3 and 4 of the Genesis creation story (Ps. 104:10-23; cf. Gen. 1:9-19), even though the function of these creatures was not defined until later (Ps. 104:24-30; cf. Gen. 1:20-26). Likewise, the death and predation of animals is regarded as a natural and good part of the created order (Ps. 104:21), which contradicts interpretations like young-earth creationism that deny animal death before the Fall.

[8] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 176 n. 2.

[9] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 64.

[10] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 36-45.

[11] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 77-85.

[12] Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1992), 260-284.

Primeval History (Genesis 1-11): The Tower of Babel


    So far in this series of posts, we’ve seen how the findings of modern science support the primeval history of the Bible (Gen. 1-11), despite what both skeptics and science denialists claim. The stories of the garden of Eden, the pre-Flood world, Noah’s Flood, and Noah’s descendants all parallel what we find in the history of early human civilization. The last narrative of the primeval history is that of the tower of Babel, which claims to explain the origin of the different languages in the ancient Near East. Let’s see how well this story corresponds to the historical record.

    Nimrod the Hunter

Before the actual story of the tower of Babel, the biblical author tells us about a king named Nimrod whose exploits were legendary in the ancient world:

Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior. He was a mighty hunter before Yahweh; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Yahweh.” The beginning [or head] of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Akkad, all of them in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. (Gen. 10:8-12)

Although Nimrod was associated with the tower of Babel in later Jewish and Christian tradition, he’s not mentioned in the actual Babel narrative. Nonetheless, if he was a historical figure, his exploits certainly would have left some evidence behind. So is there any evidence that such a king existed?

    First of all, we’re told that the beginning or head/center (depending on how Hebrew reshith is interpreted) of his kingdom was in “Shinar” (Sumer), and that the first cities he ruled were “Babel” (Babylon), “Erech” (Uruk), and Akkad. This means that Nimrod, if he existed, is most likely named on the Sumerian King List. [1] His kingdom also extended as far as Nineveh in northern Mesopotamia, which he is said to have built, among other towns. Finally, he was well-known as a hunter in the ancient world.

    There is a king in the Sumerian King List who matches this description. According to the SKL, one of the first kings of Sumer after the Flood was Enmerkar, king of Uruk. The name “Enmerkar” literally means “Enmer the Hunter,” and the consonants of his name (nmr) are almost identical to the original Hebrew consonantal spelling of Nimrod (nmrd), as noted by archeologist David Rohl. [2] Enmerkar was credited as the builder of at least one town(s) as early as the Jemdet Nasr period (ca. 3100 BC), as the “ad-gi4 list” from this time speaks of “Enmerkar… who know[s] how to build towns.” [3] For this reason, his reign is dated to the Late Uruk period (ca. 3400-3200 BC).

    In line with the biblical account, the period of Enmerkar’s reign was one of expansion. The Uruk expansion was first identified in the 1970s, when two sites were discovered in Syria which had significant similarities to the Uruk civilization in Sumer. Uruk-influenced sites or Uruk ‘colonies’ existed in southern Iran, northern Mesopotamia, and even as far northwest as Anatolia. [4] Several hypotheses about this expansion have been advanced, most convincingly, that the Uruk civilization was an informal empire motivated by economic imperialism. [5] Interestingly, a common motif in Late Uruk art and architecture is the ‘hunter-king’ who is at the head of political and religious authority. [6] This evokes the biblical description of Nimrod, king of Erech (Uruk), as a “mighty hunter.”

Figure 1. Adapted from Wikipedia. Map of Uruk expansion overlaid with the regions of the “head” and periphery of Nimrod’s kingdom according to the biblical account.

    The only difficulty in identifying Nimrod with the Late Uruk king Enmerkar is the fact that the biblical author says he ruled “Babel” (Babylon). The city of Babylon didn’t exist until the late 3rd millennium BC, and didn’t become prominent until the time of Hammurabi (mid-2nd millennium BC). It couldn’t have been one of the chief cities of Nimrod’s kingdom. However, the name of Babylon (NUN.KI) in Akkadian cuneiform was also the name of Eridu, a very prominent city which Enmerkar is said to have built in the epic Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. [7] One of the religious quarters of Babylon was also called “Eridu.” The 3rd-century BC historian Berossus, in his History of Babylonia, used “Babylon” interchangeably where the Sumerian King List spoke of “Eridu,” showing that the two cities were still conflated at that late date.

    The Tower of Babel (Eridu)

Now we’ve identified Nimrod the hunter-king with Enmerkar, king of Uruk, whose kingdom began with Eridu and Uruk and spread as far as Nineveh. But what about the tower of Babel story itself? Here’s what the Bible states about this event:

Now the whole land had one speech and the same words. And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and fire them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole land.”

Yahweh came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built. And Yahweh said, “Look, they are one people, and they have all one speech, and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their speech there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” So Yahweh scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the land, and they left off building the city. Therefore it was called Babel, because there Yahweh confused the speech of all the land, and from there Yahweh scattered them abroad over the face of all the land. (Gen. 11:1-9)

Note that Nimrod is nowhere mentioned in this narrative; rather, the focus is on the people of the land. Although it’s possible Nimrod was their king, it’s also possible that they were acting under a different king, no king, or over the span of multiple kings’ reigns.

    As argued above, the “Babel” of the biblical account is most likely Eridu, which had the same name in cuneiform (NUN.KI) as Babylon and could be conflated with that city. Eridu was one of the first settlements in southern Mesopotamia, founded ca. 5400 BC, and was considered the first city in Sumerian mythology, which is consistent with the Bible’s claim that “Babel” was the first city built in “Shinar” (Sumer) after the Flood.

    Eridu was also the site of a major temple to the Sumerian god Enki called E-Abzu (“House of the Aquifer”). The first stratum of this temple (XVII) dates to ca. 5300 BC, shortly after the founding of the city, and the last stratum (I) dates to the Late Uruk period. [8] Interestingly, based on Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, the Late Uruk king Enmerkar (whom we have identified with Nimrod) was associated with the building of this temple. After the last period of construction, however, further building suddenly stopped. According to the excavators,

One of the most extraordinary aspects of the terrace-structure associated with Temple I, was the immensel [sic] long time during which it must have remained standing and even in use. For, at least a thousand years after it was built, it had been re-paved with broken bricks, bearing the stamp of a Larsa king. [8]

This puzzling cessation of construction at E-Abzu after the Late Uruk period is a remarkable confirmation of the biblical account of the tower of Babel, which states that the people “left off building the city” after they were scattered by Yahweh!

    Language Confusion

The story of the tower of Babel also purports to explain how the different languages in the ancient Near East came about. Interestingly, the Sumerian epic Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta makes a similar but opposite statement. In this epic, Enmerkar seeks to obtain rare stones from the land of Aratta in order to build up the E-Abzu temple in Eridu. He tells his messenger to chant the following incantation to the lord of Aratta:

“…may the lands of Cubur and Hamazi, the many-tongued, and Sumer, the great mountain of the decree of magnificence, and Akkad, the land possessing all that is befitting, and the Martu land, resting in security – the whole universe, the well-guarded people – may they all address Enlil [the chief god] together in a single language! …Enki… the lord of Eridu, shall change the speech in their mouth, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one.” [7]

Here we see that Enmerkar’s attempt to build the temple of E-Abzu needed all the people of the land to have the same speech, to agree as one in their praise of the gods Enki and Enlil. Changing their speech, as Yahweh did in the biblical account, would foil this attempt.

    However, there was already more than one language in the ancient Near East at this time, as the above quote makes clear. In what sense was “the whole land” of “one speech,” and how did God “confuse their speech” (Gen. 11:1, 7)? The word “speech” (Heb: saphah; LXX: glossa) used here is not the same as the word used to describe the distinct “languages” (Heb: lashon; LXX: cheilos) of the nations (Gen. 10:32). Sapheh typically isn’t used to refer to the language spoken, but to the content of the speech – e.g., righteous or evil, praising or blaspheming. [9] This doesn’t mean that the people all had the same spoken language and it was divided, but that they had unity of purpose in praising the pagan god Enki and building his temple, and God made it so they could no longer agree. This interpretation was held by ancient Jewish and Christian commentators as well. [10]

    Conclusion

Like the rest of the primeval history, the story of Nimrod and the tower of Babel is supported by the sciences, specifically archeology. The existence of Nimrod is confirmed by the evidence for the Late Uruk king Enmerkar – both were known as hunters, town-builders, ruled over a Mesopotamian kingdom from Uruk and Eridu, and had almost identical names. The tower of “Babel” (Eridu) can be identified with the temple of Enki, E-Anzu, which was built continually from ca. 5300 to 3200 BC until construction suddenly stopped. The confusion of speech in Genesis 11 is indirectly corroborated by the Sumerian epic, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. Each of these facts would have been difficult or impossible for an Israelite in the 1st millennium BC to know, so this is evidence for the divine inspiration of the biblical account!


______________________________


[2] David M. Rohl, From Eden to Exile (Lebanon, TN: Greenleaf Press, 2003), 74.

[3] Dina Katz, “Ups and Downs in the Career of Enmerkar, King of Uruk,” in Fortune and misfortune in the Ancient Near East, ed. Olga Drewnowska and MaÅ‚gorzata Sandowicz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 201-2.

[4] Guillermo Algaze, The Uruk World System (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 11-97.

[5] Guillermo Algaze, The Uruk World System, 110-127.

[6] Guillermo Algaze, The Uruk World System, 14-15, 41; Michael Roaf, Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East (Oxford: Andromeda Oxford Ltd., 1996), 71; Guillermo Algaze, “The Prehistory of Imperialism,” in Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors, ed. Mitchell S. Rothman (Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 2001), 34; Hans J. Nissen, “Cultural and Political Networks in the Ancient Near East During the Fourth and Third Millennia B.C.,” in Uruk Mesopotamia and its Neighbors, 156-7; Henri Frankfurt, The Cambridge Ancient History 1:2 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 80.

[7] For the meanings of NUN.KI see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/𒉣𒆠#Akkadian; David Rohl, From Eden to Exile, 65; for the epic Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, see https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1823.htm.

[8] Fuad Safar et al., Eridu (Baghdad, Iraq: Ministry of Culture and Information, 1981), 78-87; the first archeological evidence of baked bricks was also found at Eridu, dating to the Uruk period, which accords with the biblical account (Gen. 11:3), see Kadim H. Hnaihen, “The Appearance of Bricks in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Athens Journal of History 6, no. 1 (2020): 80.

[9] Chris Gousmett, “The confusion of languages,” Evangelical Quarterly 89, no. 1 (2018): 42-46.

[10] Philo, Conf. Ling. 15ff; Jerusalem Targum [Gen. 11:1]; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 17.17; Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 41.16.

When was the Trinity discovered?

    I’m interrupting the ongoing series of posts about Genesis 1-11 to present something very interesting that I found while reading the 4th-century Cappadocian Fathers. According to most Protestants, the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed by God, through Jesus, to the writers of the New Testament in the 1st century AD. At the very least, it’s believed to be an inference that can easily be drawn from the NT, which was believed by Christians from the earliest times of the church. Protestant trinitarians must believe this, because they reject the infallibility of the Church as believed by the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. If the Trinity was a later discovery, not able to be inferred directly from the biblical texts, this removes the basis for Protestants to believe in the Trinity.

    However, the belief that the Trinity can be inferred directly from the Bible (and was always believed by the church) wasn’t even held by the earliest trinitarians in the 4th century AD. According to Gregory of Nazianzus, the 4th-century trinitarian apologist, this doctrine was first explicitly written down by Athanasius of Alexandria, allegedly under the influence of divine inspiration:

Here too was shown in a very high degree the simple-mindedness of Athanasius, and the steadfastness of his faith in Christ. For, when all the rest who sympathised with us were divided into three parties, and many were faltering in their conception of the Son, and still more in that of the Holy Ghost, (a point on which to be only slightly in error was to be orthodox) and few indeed were sound upon both points, he was the first and only one, or with the concurrence of but a few, to venture to confess in writing, with entire clearness and distinctness, the Unity of Godhood and Essence of the Three Persons, and thus to attain in later days, under the influence of inspiration, to the same faith in regard to the Holy Ghost, as had been bestowed at an earlier time on most of the Fathers in regard to the Son. (Oration 21.33)

There are a few interesting things to note about this passage. First, Gregory says that prior to Athanasius, “few indeed were sound upon both points” — that is, there were very few theologians who held that both the Son and the Holy Spirit were united in Godhood with the Father. Even the belief that the Son was one in essence (homoousios) with the Father was only “bestowed at an earlier time on most of the Fathers”; presumably, by this Gregory refers to the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, at which the Father and the Son were declared to be homoousios. At the Council of Serdica in AD 343, the bishops of the West came up with a statement proclaiming “one Godhood of Father and Son,” without mentioning the Holy Spirit. [1]

    Second, according to Gregory, the doctrine of the Trinity was first set down in writing by the bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, who became a bishop three years after the Council of Nicaea in AD 328. He, possibly “with the concurrence of but a few,” was the “first and only one” to set in writing that the Son and the Holy Spirit both had a “Unity of Godhood and Essence” with the Father. Athanasius was actually quite radical in his day, and was known as Athanasius Contra Mundi (“Athanasius Against the World”) for much of his ministry, because he was opposed to so many other bishops. He was even deposed from his see by a council of sixty Eastern bishops and the emperor Constantine in AD 335, due to both the radicality of his beliefs and his alleged mistreatment (even assassination) of ‘Arians.’ [2]

    Finally, Gregory also says that the doctrine of the Trinity was first explicitly set down in writing “in later days” (i.e., after the Council of Nicaea) “under the influence of [divine] inspiration.” This is a truly incredible claim, not only because it implies that the Trinity wasn’t taught before ca. AD 330, but because it assumes a view of divine inspiration that every Protestant should be inclined to reject. We don’t believe that any church is infallible (for good reason); why should we believe that Athanasius was? If we do admit that a church father can be inspired, why Athanasius and not his opponents? Personally, I have a hard time believing that a man who was known to use violent tactics (even, allegedly, assassination) to suppress dissent could have been so pious and inspired by God as his friends believed. [3]

    But if the Trinity was such a new doctrine in the 4th century that Athanasius was the first to set it down in writing, then why was it universally believed by the church after that time? First of all, it wasn’t. Although trinitarianism grew in popularity, largely due to the apologetic work of the Cappadocian Fathers, it was by no means universally believed. Gregory of Nazianzus admitted in 380 that “the wise men amongst ourselves [i.e., Christians]” could not agree on whether the Holy Spirit was a power, a created being, or God (Oration 31.5). The first explicit mention of a tri-personal God, the view that God is in some way three persons (i.e., trinitarianism proper) doesn’t occur until the 370s. [4]

    The reason why the Trinity became universally accepted wasn’t because of some consensus reached by the fathers discussing among themselves, but by a twist of fate. The Roman emperor Theodosius I happened to be a trinitarian, and in AD 380, he simply outlawed all other views:

According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the singular Deity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in equal Majesty and in a Holy Trinity. We order the followers of this law to embrace the name of Catholic Christians. But as for the others, since, in our judgment they are demented and insane, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of Heretics, and shall not presume to give to their assemblies the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and in the second the punishment of our authority which, in accordance with the will of Heaven, we shall decide to inflict. (Edict of Thessalonica)

Theodosius I proceeded to depose the Homoian bishop of Constantinople and place Nicenes (still a minority party in that city) in positions of power. This edict was upheld by a ‘kangaroo council’ the next year, called by Theodosius I, which only trinitarian bishops were allowed to attend. [5] From that point onward, until the Protestant Reformation, non-trinitarians were harshly persecuted and not allowed to lead congregations. If Theodosius had been an Arian instead, or a binitarian, the church’s beliefs about God would look very different today.

    The fact is, trinitarianism was a new doctrine, even in the 4th century AD when it was mandated as the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was admitted even by trinitarian apologists like Gregory of Nazianzus, as we saw above (Oration 21.33). Although they believed that their interpretation could be derived from the Scriptures, they fully admitted that this interpretation was new, and was first set down in writing by Athanasius of Alexandria under divine inspiration in ca. AD 330. Protestants, therefore, are on very unsure footing in their belief in the Trinity. Even Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have to recognize the historical contingencies on which their belief in this doctrine rests. Shouldn’t we rather go back to the Scriptures themselves and believe what they say about God: that he is one person, the Father alone, and that Jesus is his human Son and Messiah who was exalted by him? [6]

______________________________

[1] https://www.fourthcentury.com/creed-of-the-western-serdican-council/. They believed that the Father and Son were the same in essence, but they did not believe the Father and Son were co-equal like later trinitarians, as they immediately went on to say, “No one denies that the Father is greater than the Son: not on account of another essence, nor yet on account of their difference, but simply from the very name of the Father being greater than that of the Son.” For this reason, Athanasius strenuously rejected to the Creed of Serdica, even though it was signed by about ninety bishops from the West.

[2] https://www.fourthcentury.com/the-council-of-tyre-ad-335/

[3] “In Alexandria itself, he maintained the popular support which he enjoyed from the outset and buttressed his position by organizing an ecclesiastical mafia. In later years, if he so desired, he could instigate a riot or prevent the orderly administration of the city. Athanasius possessed a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated by violence. That was both the strength and the weakness of his position. Like a modern gangster, he evoked widespread mistrust, proclaimed total innocence - and usually succeeded in evading conviction on specific charges.” — Timothy Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 230.

[4] Dale Tuggy, “When and How in the History of Theology Did the Triune God Replace the Father as the Only True God?”, TheoLogica 4, no. 2 (2020): 27-51.

[5] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 5.8.5-10; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 7.7.2-5.

[6] To see what the Scriptures actually teach about the nature of God and Jesus, see my blog post, “The Biblical Case for Unitarianism.”

Primeval History (Genesis 1-11): The Table of Nations


    Throughout this series of posts on the primeval history of the Bible, we’ve seen how the biblical account is not only consistent with but supported by modern science. Based on archeological and paleoclimatological data, the garden of Eden existed in the modern-day Persian Gulf around 10,000 BC. Genetic evidence supports the biblical description of an extremely violent pre-Flood world, peaking in the mid-7th millennium BC. The biblical data can also be used to date Noah’s Flood to ~6,500 BC, the exact time that there is known to have been a massive local flood in the ancient Near East. In this post, we’ll take a look at the account of Noah’s descendants and their spread across the post-Flood world (Gen. 10).

    The Table of Nations

After describing the devastating flood that took place in Noah’s day, the author goes on to give a detailed account of Noah’s descendants and where their lineages lived. Although his wasn’t the only line that survived the Flood, it’s clear that it has a special significance in the biblical account, as he was the ancestor of the Hebrews and the nation of Israel (Gen. 11:10-32). [1] After human civilization in the Near East was devastated, Noah’s descendants spread out across the land and repopulated it.

Figure 1. Map of the locations of Noah’s descendants according to the biblical Table of Nations (Genesis 10). Note the lack of representation east of the Zagros mountains, in modern-day Iran.

    However, when viewed in light of the extent of civilization in the ancient Near East, the extent of the Table of Nations is rather selective. No people group east of the Zagros mountains in modern-day Iran is represented, even though Neolithic human civilization existed as far as the Indus Valley. This is even in spite of the fact that Indo-Iranian cultures were in contact with Mesopotamian cultures (see, for example, the legend of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta). Why is the Table of Nations selectively describing the spread of human civilization over the Levant, Europe, and North Africa, while ignoring Indo-Iranian cultures?

    The Neolithic Migration

This mystery becomes much less problematic in light of the findings of genetics and archeology, which have identified a migration of Neolithic people from the Levant into Europe and North Africa beginning in the 7th millennium BC. [2] The initial migration of farmers, from eastern Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) into the Aegean, can be dated to after 6,500 BC on archeological grounds. [2] Incidentally, this is the date of the massive flood that was suggested to be Noah’s Flood in my previous post. Neolithic civilization spread slightly later to North Africa, from groups of farmers living in the Levant and Europe. [3] In contrast, the Indo-Iranian Neolithic developed separately from the Levantine-European-North African Neolithic, and forms a distinct genetic grouping. [4]

Figure 2. From Fig. 4 of [4]. There are two distinct genetic groupings separating cultures east and west of the Zagros mountains, which stretch all the way back into the Neolithic.

Thus, once again, the biblical account and modern science support each other! The biblical primeval history, including the Table of Nations, is primarily concerned with the origin of Israel and other Semitic peoples. Therefore, it ignores the origin of Neolithic civilization east of the Zagros mountains, as this was distinct from the spread of civilization in the Levant, Europe, and North Africa.

    Based on the Table of Nations, it appears that Noah’s descendants mixed with the other Neolithic farmers of Anatolia after the Flood, who subsequently spread their culture across Europe and North Africa. This makes even more sense if the “mountains of Ararat” on which Noah’s vessel landed (Gen. 8:4) were in northern Mesopotamia, as usually supposed, rather than in southern Iran (see my previous post for a brief discussion of this). Noah’s lineage would only have been one of many in the ancient Near East, so we wouldn’t expect any specific genetic evidence of his descendants’ spread, but the extent described in Genesis 10 is totally consistent with what we find from genetics and archeology.

    Conclusion

After the account of Noah’s Flood, the biblical author describes the spread of Noah’s descendants across the land. But strangely, no people group east of the Zagros mountains is mentioned in the Table of Nations. This corresponds well to the findings of modern science, that Neolithic culture spread from eastern Anatolia throughout Europe and North Africa after around 6,500 BC, but Indo-Iranian Neolithic culture was genetically and archeologically distinct. This is a remarkable confirmation of the accuracy of the biblical account, once again showing how the Bible and modern science, rather than contradicting, perfectly complement each other!


______________________________

[1] See footnotes 7 and 8 of the previous post. According to the biblical author, the lines of Jabal, Jubal, and the nephilim survived the Flood (Gen. 4:20-22; 6:4; Num. 13:33), which indicates that the universal language of Genesis 7 is hyperbolic (cf. Josh. 10:40).

[2] Mark Lipson et al., “Parallel palaeogenomic transects reveal complex genetic history of early European farmers,” Nature 551 (2017): 368-372; Ayça Omrak et al., “Genomic Evidence Establishes Anatolia as the Source of the European Neolithic Gene Pool,” Current Biology 26 (2016): 270-275.

[3] Luciana G. Simões et al., “Northwest African Neolithic initiated by migrants from Iberia and Levant,” Nature 618 (2023): 550-556.

[4] Farnaz Broushaki et al., “Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent,” Science 353, no. 6298 (2016): 499-503.

A response to N. T. Wright on universalism (part 2 of 3)

Part 1: N. T. Wright’s general concerns about universalism What then of the texts which are cited as positive evidence for universalism? The...