Introduction
Archaeology
is a principal support for Theology though it is not found in books, but in
the earth from which man came. Man goes back to the earth to
search for the history buried
within, and through his search he finds fragments that he
puts together hoping to someday
complete the puzzle, and have a full understanding of God
and man’s beginning. He searches for
proof of the truth that already exists. “…archaeology
illuminates the text of the Scriptures and
makes valuable contributions to the field of biblical
interpretation and exegesis.”[1]
Archaeology is
a science that studies cultures that have passed into
history by analyzing artifacts and literary
sources that have been left behind, and long hidden from
human view.
When
artifacts are found they must be analyzed, and there are certain questions that
are
asked. 1) Who was the originator? Who made it or wrote it?
2) Where and when was it made or
written? 3) Who was the audience meant to be? 4) For what
purpose was it intended? 5) How
does it enhance our understanding of the past? Very often
the archaeologist deals with only a
small piece of the whole. It is from this they search to
piece together a complete picture. By
comparing Genesis with archaeological finds it is hoped that
light will be shed on the evidence
found that will illuminate those searching for the truth.
The
Mesopotamian area which is considered the cradle of civilization has produced
many archaeological finds that have been of tremendous
interest to Old Testament scholars.
“Archaeological research has thus established beyond doubt
that there is no focus of civilization
in the earth that can begin to compete in antiquity with the
basin of the Eastern Mediterranean
and the area immediately to the east of it-Breasted Fertile Crescent.”[2] It was here that they found
the Babylonian creation story on seven tablets called Enuma
elish. “Because of its bearing upon
the opening chapters of Genesis, few Semitic inscriptions
have awakened greater general
interest.[3]
.
The search
for Noah’s Ark has always gone on, and will continue, but there have been
archaeological digs that have produced the Babylonian Deluge
Story, and the Sumerian Flood.
There have been many different versions of the flood that
come from around the world. Each
slightly different and most of them polytheistic. In Genesis
we also study the Patriarchs and the
Joseph story.
Creation
Genesis begins with the creation
account which is where it all starts. “In the beginning
God” and with that statement we look back at an eternity in
which there can be no archaeological
digs. Man has always wanted to know and understand his
beginning. The Genesis story is only
one of many creation accounts. Man seeks the answer by
creating myths that satisfy the need for
connection to the past. These early creation myths helped
man explain the functioning of the
world. Man asked “Why” and seeks to find the answer.
The Babylonians and the Assyrians had a creation myth entitled
Enuma Elish. John H.
Sailhamer says, “Its title is taken from the first words of
the epic, which begins, “When on high
(enuma elish) the heaven had not been named, firm ground
below had not been called by
name….”[4]
Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria reigned from 668-626 B.C. During his reign he
created
an immense library that was discovered by Hormuzd Rassam in
1852-1853. It was in this library
that the Babylonian creation accounts were found. They are
believed to date from Hummurabi in
1700 B.C.
“The
Enuma Elish consists of about one thousand lines of text on seven clay tablets….comparing
it with the Genesis narratives of creation, one finds some interesting similarities.
(1) Genesis speaks of seven days of creation; the Babylonian account was recorded
on seven tablets. (2) Both describe a time when the earth was waste and void.
(3)In Genesis, order follows chaos; in Enuma Elish, Marduk defeats chaos and
establishes order. (4) Both accounts tell of the creation of moon, stars, plant
life, animals, and man. (5) Man was created on the sixth day according to
Genesis; Enuma Elish records man’s creation on the sixth tablet.”[5]
Comparison
of Genesis and Enuma elish
The differences are many: (1) Enuma
Elish is polytheistic, and there are
many gods working on creating different aspects of creation.
(2) Marduk is also a creation as
well as a creator. (3) Genesis is monotheistic with God as
creator of all, but he always existed
and will always exist. (4) Enuma Elish has lower morals
while the morals of Genesis are
exemplary. (5) Tablets two and three do not deal with
creation.
“Tablet 2 describes a counter plot
of Ea against Tiamat and his search for a champion to oppose Tiamat. He
appoints Marduk to the task. Tablet 3 tells of a great banquet held in preparation
for Marduk’s entrance into battle.” [6]
(6) With Enuma Elish matter already exist, but God is the
creator of all matter in Genesis.
Enuma Elish was very political, and
was created to highlight Marduk who was the main
diety of Babylon. It was to help Babylon maintain her
sovereignty. Enuma elish was written to
be a hymn which was later used by the Assyrians by changing
the name of the god to Ashur. The
Germans found this version early this century. Other tablets
have been found with various
accounts of creation. There is little consistency within the
versions of creation found on the many
tablets.
Genesis was first and foremost a
creation account. “The one God, supreme and
omnipotent, is in superb control of all the creatures and
elements of the universe There is an
infinite gap between Him as creator and the creature or the
creation.”[7]
Even though sin entered
the world He is completely in control, and planned a remedy
for this from the beginning.
The Genesis account of creation and
Enuma elish come from the same area which is
agreed on by both Genesis and archaeologists. It is the area
where civilization had its start. It has
been postulated that Abraham may have brought the creation
story from Ur, and that it was
passed down through his linage until the time of Moses when
he wrote it down in the book of
Genesis. There are similarities in the Genesis and the
Babylonian accounts, but when compared
with the difference they become irrelevant.
The
question arises about the parallels of the two accounts. “Both have
substantially the
same phenomena to account for; and since men customarily
think along similar lines, no
dependence upon each other need be assumed.”[8]
There are difficulties with this suggestion due
to the similaries in the two accounts. Merrill F. Unger
discusses the fact that there
appears to be a connection between the two accounts. He
gives four possibilities. “The Genesis
account is drawn from the Babylonian tradition. The
Babylonian is drawn from the Genesis
narrative. These traditions arose spontaneously. The two
accounts go back to a common
source.”[9]
Both accounts were written to fit within the different worldviews of the two
societies.
The Babylonians were polytheistic, so even if they borrowed
the outline from the Genesis
account it would never have been written with one God
creating all. Their thinking was not along
those lines. One God as God of all would have been
incomprehensible. The Biblical view with
its clarity and purity would not have appealed. The
Babylonian account has a certain complicated
crassness to it. They were dealing with an attempt to find a
way to explain what they experienced
with all their senses. It is difficult for humans to think
beyond their abilities, so it is easy to see
why they would create gods that fit within their worldview
with many of the same emotions and
actions. Even today we have super heroes to tackle the
issues of society that appear to big for a
mere human to be able to rectify. A huge problem is the fact
that Enuma elish was written four
centuries earlier than Genesis, but there is the possibility
that the Hebrews had an oral tradition
that explained the creation centuries before Genesis was
written.
If we turn
this around and assume that the Genesis account was taken from the
Babylonian account similar issues arise. The Hebrews were
monotheistic. They would find the
Babylonian account unacceptable. Once you read Enuma elish
it becomes very difficult to see
any possibility of rewriting to create the clarity and
purity of the Genesis account. The facts are
laid out in an orderly fashion with God as creator. Moses
may have cleaned up the Babylonian
tradition and made it acceptable, or “… the Holy Spirit could have imparted the
revelation of
these events to him apart from any need of oral or written
sources.”[10]
The third
idea that Unger put forth was that the ideas were spontaneously brought into
existence, because of the similarity in the thinking of
humanity. It would be similar to a universal
mind. The thought appears in the mind of people across the
globe simultaneously. He points out
that this is not a rational suggestion.
The forth
suggestion was that they all “go back to a common source.” This is not so far
fetched since man has a tendency to here an idea, and take
it and run with it forming it into
something that will align with his interpretation of the
world around him. We see two forms of
the creation story in the Babylonian accounts and the Hebrew
account. The Babylonian account
is polytheistic and the Hebrew account is monotheistic. The
Enuma elish was acknowledged as
being associated with the creation account in Genesis in the
late 1800’s. It was considered the
source of the Biblical account and the Near Eastern myth.
The fact is Genesis attests to God’s
superiority over all while the Enuma elish intertwines the
supernal with the earthly. It reads like
a super hero comic book. Genesis was written with clarity
and purity. It is the word of God
revealed to man.
The
Flood Epics
The search for Noah’s ark has been
carried on for centuries. Mt. Ararat has been
considered the most plausible area although there are
several spots where the landing could have
occurred. John W. Montgomery wrote a book called Quest for Noah’s Ark where he writes of
documented accounts of sightings of the ark from ancient
times until today. He also climbed Mt
Ararat in search of the Ark. Russian soldier’s reported
seeing the Ark in 1916 when flying over
the area. “The Russian troops claimed to have seen a large
ship or barge submerged in a swampy
area on Mount Ararat. The record of this expedition
disappeared in the ensuing Russian
revolution, but some of the soldiers involved in it migrated
to the United State and spread the
story here.”[11]
Many tried to verify the story, but failed. Montgomery felt it was valid. Many
have
searched, but at this point there has been no successes.
In the same library that Enuma elish was found
were also found text relating to a
Babylonian deluge story. They were found by George Smith who
was part of the British
Museum staff. The text was incomplete. It was reported in
1872 at the Society of Biblical
Archaeology in London. They found a backer who agreed to
finance the reopening of the
excavation at Nineveh to search for the missing fragments of
the flood epic. They were found
only two weeks in. Several others have found slightly
different copies in Mesopotamian cities.
The Sumarian flood version was found
at Nippur that was written about the time of
Hammurabi (c. 1700 B.C.). It is felt that it is even older
than that.
“As
the fragment begins, some of the Gods lament the impending flood which the company
of gods as a whole have already decided to send on mankind. The god Enki sought
to devise a plan for saving at least one man-Ziusudra, the king and administrator
of the temple provisions. Ziusudra was told to stand by a wall, where he was
warned of the flood, and instructed to build a boat, though the text is missing
at this point. Then a great rain swept over the land for seven days and nights.
Afterward the sun came out and Ziusudra worshipped before the sun god and
offered a sacrifice of an ox and several sheep. Subsequently the gods bestowed
immortality on the hero of the flood story and placed him in paradise known as
Dilmun, probably somewhere in the area of the Persian Gulf.”[12]
There is
another work called Gilgamesh Epic. This was written on twelve tablets
and also
has a “Babylonian Noah” who gains immortality. In tablet
eleven he describes the flood planned
by the gods to destroy mankind. Not all of the gods agreed
with this. Ea warned Utnapishtim
telling him to build a cube shaped ship and bring his
family, craftsmen and animals onto the
ship. On the appointed day it rained bran in the morning and
wheat in the evening. He closed the
door and all fury let loose. It lasted six days and nights
and was over. He sent out a dove,
swallow and raven at intervals. They all returned, but the
raven. Everything dried up, the animals
were released, and a sacrifice was offered to Enlil who bestowed
immortality on him and his
wife. They were assured that such a thing would never happen
again.
One can see
several similarities in the Genesis account, and the Mesopotamian account.
The differences are far greater. We find that as with Enuma
elish the flood story is polytheistic.
Genesis is monotheistic. Another difference is that the gods
were pantheistic. The gods were
manifestation of nature which they controlled. Another
difference is the cause of the flood. God
judged man. “The Atra-hasis Epic states that Enlil sent the
flood to destroy human beings
because they were so noisy Enlil could not sleep.”[13]
There are other differences; 1) God gave a
120 year period for people to repent, and stay judgement. This
was not granted by the
Mesopotamian gods. 2) The sizes of the boats were very
different. 3) The people and animals
were different. Noah took his family only with two of every
kind of animal with seven each of
the clean animals. 4) The physical causes were different.
God sent rain and it says the fountains
of the deep broke forth. It was more of a hurricane in the
Gilgamesh Epic. 5) the length of the
flood was forty days and forty nights in Genesis, and it was
six days and six nights in the
Babylonian, and seven days and nights in the Mesopotamian
epic. 6) Noah’s ark landed on
Ararat. Utnapishtim’s landed on Mount Nisir. 7) The birds
were different. Noah sent a raven first
and a dove on three occasions. They sent a dove, then a swallow, and finally
a raven. 8) The
effects of the flood were different. Nothing survived unless
it was on the ark in the Genesis
account. In the Atrahasis Epic all men did not parish. 9)
Noah was not given immortality and
Utnapishtim was.
The same
possibilities exist with the Flood accounts that existed with the creation
accounts: 1) The Babylonians borrowed from the Hebrews 2) The
Hebrews borrowed from the
Babylonians 3) The ideas were spontaneous 4) They were taken
from a common source, The
theological differences are great between the biblical
account, and the Near Eastern accounts.
The Near Eastern accounts vary greatly amongst themselves.
“Recent comparative studies of
ancient accounts of the flood suggest that an early Flood
story once enjoyed worldwide
circulation.”[14] The Greeks had a flood story in which Zeus
sent a flood to destroy humanity and
rescues one person. Flood stories are found in most
cultures. India has several that appear to
have been created from one main story. “In comparing all
such stories, the biblical story of Noah
clearly exhibits a premythological stage preceding the known
ancient accounts. Moreover, it is
also reasonable to conclude that the Biblical account lies
closest to that great catastrophe that
rests at the base of the collective memory of mankind.”[15]
Patriarchs
It is
interesting to wonder if the Patriarchs had any clue as they went about their
daily
activities, just living their lives as they felt was best,
that they would be written about and studied
in some far off distant time. Would they have done anything differently
if they had known? It is
probably no exaggeration to say they have influenced
millions of lives through time. Even when
God told Abram that he would be the father of many nations
did he fully comprehended the
magnitude of the actuality?
It is something to think about.
Albright,
who was an American scholar, felt that one could verify historical information
by studying the marriage customs, their names, and land
purchase laws, etc. “No less important,
the patriarchs were realistically described as carrying on a
Bedouin lifestyle, moving with flocks
throughout the central hill country of Canaan, between
Shechem, Bethel, Beersheba, and
Hebron.”[16]
Were they placed in their proper
historical or chronological time? That became an
important question. There are mentions of camels which
creates an issue with time. Through
archaeological research we know that camels were not used in
the Near East as beast of burden
until around 1000 B.C.
Another
issue is the Philistines. “They had not established their settlements along the
coastal plain of Canaan until sometime after 1200 B.C. E.”[17]
The facts that separate the
patriarchal history from myths is the references to people,
places and things. Trying to make
these things align with archaeological discoveries has been
difficult.
There was an important
archaeological discovery at Ebla. They found one of the largest
collections of third millennium B.C. tablets that had ever
been unearthed. After much study of
the tablets they thought they saw a reference to the
patriarchs, but it proved to be untrue. They do
tell about the lives of the people in Syria-Palestine in the
third millennium which is helpful. It
allows a glimpse of what life must have been like for
Abraham.[18]
The search
will continue for the Historicity of the Patriarchal age. At this point it is
only
concrete within the Bible, and so as the Bible tells us
about Abraham, “ Abraham believed God,
and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Romans 4:3).
There are times when we walk by
faith, and not by sight.
Conclusion
It is interesting to realize that
man’s history is buried in the earth that God created him
from. It may be fragmented, but with careful study of all
evidence man can draw conclusions that
hopefully bring him closer to the truth. It is much like
painting a picture each stroke of the brush
by the artists brings us closer to a revelation of what the
completed picture will be.
All agree
that Mesopotamian area is the cradle of civilization, and it has produced many
archaeological finds that have been of tremendous interest
to Old Testament Scholars. The story
written on the Enuma elish tablets have been evaluated and
compared to the Genesis account
bringing man closer to the reality of man’s beginning.
It is
important that all information be examined and evaluated. The goal is a fuller
understanding of the word, but it is extremely important
that it be looked at with a critical eye,
and much prayer. The guidance of the Holy Spirit is
essential to all study of the Scripture. The
goal is to find evidence of the truth that already exist in
the word. All available information
needs to be evaluated from archeological to historical to
arrive at a valid truth.
There are
always new artifacts and tablets and scrolls being unearthed. Even now there
are archaeological finds being studied. Tomorrow the
historicity of the patriarchs may be
revealed. All things are done in Gods time.
Bibliography
Arnold, Bill T. Encountering the Book of Genesis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Academic, 1998.
Brenton, Lancelot. LXX Septuagint. United States of
America: Beloved Publishing, 2014.
Cocks, H.G. 2010. “Sodom and Gomorrah,
1851.” Victorian Studies Association of
Western Canada. Vol. 36, No. 1: 27-31, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/141039101 (accessed Feb. 5, 2016).
Dolansky, Shawna. 2016. “Biblical
Views: The Multiple Truths of Myths,” Biblical
Archaeology Review42.1(Jan/Feb):18,60.http://members.bibarch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=42&Issue=1&ArticleD=10 (accessed 2/7/2016).
Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher
Silberman. The Bible Unearthed. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 2002.
Free, Joseph, Howard Vos (revised
and expanded). Archaeology and Bible
History. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992.
Moorey, Roger. A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Great Britain: The Lutterworth
Press, 1991.
Sailhamer, John. Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 1998.
Thompson, Thomas L. The Historicity of the Patriarchal
Narratives. New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co. 1974.
Unger, Merrill Frederick. 1953.
“Archeology and Genesis 3-4.” Bibliotheca
Sacra 110, No. 437:11-17, ATLASerials,
Religion
Collections, EBSCOhost
(accessed Feb.7, 2016).
Vos, Howard F. Genesis and Archaeology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1985.
[1] Joseph P. Free
and Howard F. Vos. Archaeology and Bible History. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1992, 13.
[2]
Merrill F. Unger. 1953. “Archeology
and Genesis 3-4.” Bibliotheca Sacra 110, No.
437:11-17, ATLASerials, Religion Collections, EBSCOhost (accessed Feb.7, 2016).
[3] Merrill F. Unger.
Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954, 27.
[4] John H.
Sailhamer. Biblical Archeology. Grand
Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing House, 1998, 23.
[5] Howard F. Vos. Genesis & Archaeology. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985, 16.
[6] Ibid., 15.
[7] Merrill F. Unger. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954, 32-33.
[8] Ibid., 35.
[9] Ibid., 35.
[10] Ibid., 35-36.
[11] Howard F. Vos. Genesis and Archaeology. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985,31-32.
[12] Ibid.,35-36.
[13] Ibid., 39.
[14] John H. Sailhamer.
Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998, 31.
[15] Ibid., 31.
[16] Israel Finkelstein
and Neil Ashur Silberman. The Bible Unearthed. New York, NY: Simon
and Schuster, 2001, 35.
[17] Ibid., 37.
[18] Roger Moorey. A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Cambridge:
The Lutenburg Press, 1991, 139-155. Though not quoted all information on Ebla
was found in these pages.
Written by Kathleen Hadley
copyright 2015
