Rex Banks
Mesopotamia.
Ur and Haran.
Visits To Egypt?
The Coalition of Mesopotamian Kings (Genesis 14).
The Hittites.
Sodom and Gomorrah.
"A fictitious narrative, located in a country with which the writer is not personally familiar, must either avoid local allusions or be found frequently in conflict with the peculiarities of place and of manners and customs. By this conflict the fictitious character of the narrative is exposed."
Following Wellhausen many scholars have argued that erroneous historical details, anachronisms, incorrect geo-political details and such like provide ample proof of the fictitious character of the narrative in Genesis chapters 12 - 50.
In the middle of the twentieth century in particular, this position was challenged by such scholars as William Albright and Cyrus Gordon, who successfully demonstrated that the patriarchal narratives harmonise beautifully with what we now know of the ancient Near East, and as a result many were led to revise their negative view of the Genesis account. Then in the 1970s a vociferous and persistent group of scholars re-examined the evidence used by Albright and Gordon, and insisted that this evidence did not support the historicity of the patriarchs. In turn they were answered by archaeologists such as Kenneth Kitchen (e.g. "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?" BAR [March/April 1995] ) who take the patriarchal and Exodus accounts in Scripture seriously.
Clearly then the patriarchal narratives have received a great deal attention from the scholars over
the past century, and clearly too differing world views have influenced the assessment of the
archaeological information which has come to light during this period. In the following
paragraphs we will look at some of the evidence which has convinced many scholars of the
essential historicity of the biblical account of the life and times of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Mesopotamia.
In Genesis 8:4 we read that the ark "rested upon the mountains of Ararat" which is a "mountainous plateau in western Asia from which flow, in different directions, the Euphrates, the Tigris the Aras and the Choruk rivers". (Inter-national Standard Bible Encyclopaedia) Henry Morris tells us that "Modern computer studies have shown... that the geographical centre of the earth's land areas is located within a short distance of Mount Ararat," adding that this is "a 'coincidence' that can hardly be other than providential". (The Genesis Record)
Sometime prior to the confusion of languages (Gen. 11:1) the descendants of Shem Ham and Japheth "journeyed east" (NASV) or "moved eastward" (Gen. 11:2) and "found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there." (This is a better rendering than the KJV's "from the east") Scripture identifies the "land of Shinar" as Babylonia (Dan. 1:1, 2) and the city of Babylon was located on the banks of the Euphrates River. Evidently the journey from Ararat was circuitous since Shinar is southeast of Ararat. Any way, under the leadership of Nimrod, son of Cush, the people resolved to build a city and a tower in the land of Shinar so as to make a name for themselves and to avoid being scattered over the face of the whole earth. (Gen. 10:8; 11:4) We are told that "the beginning of ...(Nimrod's) kingdom was "Babel and Erech and Accad and Caineh in the land of Shinar, " (10:10) and that from that land "he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah and Resen between Ninevah and Calah; that is the great city" (Gen. 10:11,12) Likely the expression "that is the great city" refers to the cities as a group.
So, according to the biblical record it was here that Nimrod " founded the domination which was the first distinguished by the name of a kingdom on the face of the earth". (Clarke) Cooper says: "Moreover there is much evidence to suggest that he himself (i.e. Nimrod) was worshipped from the very earliest times. " He reminds us of Nimurda, the Assyrian god of war and others.
Too, Bacchus, the Roman god bears a name which is derived from the Semitic bar-Cush meaning son of Cush, so here we have another example of the preservation of the name of an early ancestor in the legends of his descendants.
Now do archaeological discoveries have anything to say about the rise of civilisation in the land of Shinar? Indeed they do. In their Streams Of Civilisation, Albert Hyma and Mary Stanton have the following:
"The area of Mesopotamia was part of a great curving plain known as the Fertile Crescent. This plain was one of the few areas in the Middle East with enough water to allow successful farming. Three Rivers provided water for the Fertile Crescent. The two major Rivers were the Tigris and Euphrates, while the tiny Jordan River watered the area known today as Israel....It was in the southeastern corner of the Fertile Crescent that Sumer, the oldest known civilisation in the world, developed. Many scholars believe that Nimrod, one of Ham's grandsons, founded this civilisation." (emphasis mine)
Under the heading Sumer, Encyclopaedia Britannica has:
"...site of the earliest known civilization, located in the southernmost part of Mesopotamia between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, in the area that later became Babylonia and is now southern Iraq from around Baghdad to the Persian Gulf....they bequeathed their culture to their Semitic successors, and they left the world a number of technological and cultural contributions, including the first wheeled vehicles and potter's wheels; the first system of writing, cuneiform; the first codes of law; and the first city-states." (emphasis mine)
In light of the reference to the construction of the tower of Babel it is interesting to find the following in Britannica under the heading Ziggurat:
"...pyramidal, stepped temple tower that is an architectural and religious structure characteristic of the major cities of Mesopotamia (now in Iraq) from about 2200 until 500 B.C. The ziggurat was always built with a core of mud brick and an exterior covered with baked brick. It had no internal chambers and was usually square or rectangular... Approximately 25 ziggurats are known, being equally divided in number among Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria...." (emphasis mine)
Of course reference to ziggurats covered with baked brick, reminds us that the Babel tower was also constructed of bricks which have been burnt thoroughly. (Gen. 11:3, 4) It is interesting to note that Mesopotamia did not have the same quantities of stone as other areas in the ancient near east, hence the mention of "brick for stone." Burning bricks makes them stronger still.
Concerning the tower of babel James Montgomery Boice makes the following good comment:
"The text speaks of the top of the tower as 'in', 'on', 'with', or 'by', the heavens (all four being possible translations of the one Hebrew preposition). This could mean that the top was dedicated to the heavens as a place of worship (the view of Morris) or even that it had a representation of the heavens (a zodiac) upon it."
I think this last possibility is the real meaning, for the reason that astrology, which focuses on a study of the zodiac, originated in Babylon. Turn to any book on astrology and you will find that it was the Chaldeans (another name for the inhabitants of Babylon) who first developed the zodiac by dividing the sky into sections and giving meanings to each on the basis of the stars that are found there. (Genesis: An Expositional Commentary)
Turning now to written materials recovered from Sumer, it is fascinating to learn that there is also the very real possibility that a reference to the confusion of languages recorded in Genesis 11 has been preserved. A recovered work entitled Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta contains the following:
"Chant to him the holy song, the incantation sung in its chambers - the incantation of Nudimmud: 'On that day when there is no snake, when there is no scorpion, when there is no hyena, when there is no lion, when there is neither dog nor wolf, when there is thus neither fear nor trembling, man has no rival! At such a time, may....the whole universe, the well-guarded people -- may they all address Enlil together in a single language! For at that time....Enki... shall change the speech in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one.' " (emphasis mine)
This is one of 400 Sumerian texts which can be accessed at the following site: Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Robson, E., and Zlyomi, G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature [<http://www etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/>], Oxford 1998
Certainly the reference to a god's having placed different languages in the mouths of men, reminds us of the biblical account of the confusion of tongues.
Equally fascinating is the story of The Flood preserved in another Sumerian document (see The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. [http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/catlist.htm <[http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/catlist.htm>]) The document is fragmentary but the basic story is clear enough:
"A decision that the seed of mankind is to be destroyed has been made. The verdict, the word of the divine assembly, cannot be revoked. The order announced by An and Enlil cannot be overturned. Their kingship, their term has been cut off; their heart should be rested about this.......
All the windstorms and gales arose together, and the flood swept over the.... After the flood had swept over the land, and waves and windstorms had rocked the huge boat for seven days and seven nights, Utu the sun-god came out, illuminating heaven and earth. Zi-ud-sura could drill an opening in the huge boat and hero Utu entered the huge boat with his rays. Zi-ud-sura the king prostrated himself before Utu. The king sacrificed oxen and offered innumerable sheep..."
"More and more animals disembarked onto the earth. Zi-ud-sura the king prostrated himself before An and Enlil. An and Enlil treated Zi-ud-sura kindly ......, they granted him life like a god, they brought down to him eternal life. At that time, because of preserving the animals and the seed of mankind, they settled Zi-ud-sura the king in an overseas country, in the land Dilmun, where the sun rises."
Clearly then archaeological discoveries relating to the earliest known civilisation harmonise well
with the Genesis account of man's activities in the land of Mesopotamia in the post Flood period.
Ur and Haran.
"And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot and the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans in order to enter the land of Canaan; and they went as far as Haran and settled there." (Gen. 11:31)
The discovery of the city of Ur provides another good example of how archaeology can illuminate a brief biblical reference. Werner Keller wrote that "no one could have guessed that the quest for the Ur which is mentioned in the Bible would lead to the discovery of a civilisation which would take us farther into the twilight of prehistoric times than even the oldest traces of men which had been found in Egypt." (The Bible As History) Between 1922-1934 Sir (Charles) Leonard Woolley carried out the work of excavating the site of this ancient city, and the results were remarkable. Britannica describes Ur as "an important city of ancient southern Mesopotamia, situated about about 140 miles (225 km) southeast of the site of Babylon and about 10 miles (16 km) west of the present bed of the Euphrates River." We are told that the city " became the capital of the whole of southern Mesopotamia under the Sumerian kings of the 1st dynasty of Ur (25th century B.C.)" Excavations revealed a very advanced civilisation whose "architects were acquainted with the column, the arch, the vault, and the dome-i.e., with all the basic forms of architecture" (ibid)
At the time of Abraham the houses of private citizens " were comfortable and well built two-story houses with ample accommodation for the family, for servants, and for guests, of a type that ensured privacy and was suited to the climate". (ibid)
Clearly when Terah departed from Ur with Abraham and his family, he left a great city, sophisticated surroundings and a comfortable lifestyle. Interestingly we are told that although heading for Canaan, the family "went as far as Haran and settled there". (Gen. 11:31) Now we are not told why the family settled at Haran but again archaeology may shed some light upon this.
In an article entitled The Genesis Narrative in the Light of Recent Scholarship, we find the following in Britannica:
"The city (of Haran [Rex]) has been definitely located in upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, in the Balikh valley and can be found on the site of the modern Harran in Turkey. It has been shown that Harran was a pilgrimage city, for it was a centre of the Sin cult and consequently closely related to the moon-god cult of Ur. The Mari tablets have shed new light on the patriarchal period, specifically in terms of the city of Harran."
Now in light of the close ties between the cities of Ur and Haran and the fact that the latter was a pilgrimage city, it is no surprise that Terah found the latter an agreeable place to settle. Once again archaeology has illuminated the text for us.
Finally there is the significant fact that whereas the city of Haran was a busy commercial centre
in Abrahams day, from 1800 to 800 B.C it was unoccupied. Clearly it is not likely that an
individual living at a much later date, (as the critics allege) and at a time pig the city was long
deserted and desolate, would accurately represent the very different condition of Haran many
centuries earlier.
Visits to Egypt?
The account of Abraham's trip to Egypt (Gen. 12) used to be cited by many critics of the Bible as one example of the unreliability of the scriptural record. Allegedly the writings of first century historians Strabo and Diodorus made it clear that Egyptians had not permitted strangers to enter their land at the time of Abraham's supposed visit. Moreover proof of the unhistorical nature of the account was also to be found in the "anachronistic" reference to camels (Gen. 12:16 cf 30:43; 31:17, 34; 32:7,15; 37:25) since it was argued that these animals were not domesticated until the first millennium B.C. Thanks to recent archaeological discoveries it is now clear that these criticisms are not valid.
First consider the evidence from Beni-Hasan, an Egyptian Middle Kingdom archaeological site on the eastern bank of the Nile. According to Britannica:
"The site is noted for its rock-cut tombs of the 11th- and 12th-dynasty officials of the 16th Upper Egyptian (Oryx) nome, or province. Some of the 39 tombs are painted with scenes of daily life and important biographical texts.... The tomb of one, Khnumhotep II, contains a scene showing Semitic Bedouin merchants in richly coloured garments entering Egypt." (emphasis mine)
Clearly evidence of this visit by Asiatic Semites to Egypt in the early second millennium B.C. completely destroys the critics' case that Abraham could not have made the trip to Egypt because of a closed-door policy. The camel argument has fared no better. Donald J. Wiseman tells us in his essay entitled Archaeology and the Old Testament:
"Camel bones from Mari c. 2500; representations on seals, plaques and figurines from Byblos, Babylonia, and Egypt; and references in Sumerian and Babylonian texts show that the citing of camels in Abraham's time is no anachronism. At that time camels were ridden behind the hump and, with donkeys, were used as slow- moving beasts of burden, though their major domestication and use in war did not occur until c.1500-1250 B.C." (The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol 1)
Here we have another example of the situation in which the critics were less informed than the
Biblical scribes.
The Coalition of Mesopotamian Kings (Genesis 14).
Further corroboration of the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives is found in the account of an invasion of Canaan by a coalition of Mesopotamian rulers at the time of Abraham (Genesis 14). We are told that the coalition is made up of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim (or nations). (Gen. 14:1) In his The Stones Cry Out, Dr J. Randall Price explains how reference to these rulers helps to confirm the antiquity of the Genesis account:
"Despite the fact that the kings named in Genesis 14 have yet to appear in extra biblical cuneiform accounts, we do know that the right names are connected with the right places. We know this because, while the specific personages are not mentioned outside the Genesis narrative, such names do appear in various Mesopotamian texts of this period. To demonstrate this let us consider the names of the four Eastern kings given in Genesis 14:1.
'Amraphel king of Shinar' is thought to be a typical West Semetic name from Lower Mesopotamia, found in both Akkadian and Amorite sources, and possibly connected with the Amorite name Amud-pa-ila. 'Shinar' in Egyptian texts is used for Babylonia. 'Arioch king of Ellasar' appears as the Arriyuk(ki)/Arriwul(ki) in texts from Mari (Amorite) and Nuzi (Hurrain). At Mari this was the name of the fifth son of Zimri-Lim, Mari's king.
'Chedolaomer, king of Elam' is clearly an Elamite name, based on familiar Elamite terms:....(it is ) known from at least three royal examples. 'Tidal king of Goiim' is well attested as an early form of the Hittite name Tudkhalia, which was the name of at least five Hittite rulers..."
Moreover, as Donald J. Wiseman and Edwin Yamauchi point out, it is very clear that this incident in Genesis 14 was recorded by someone who was well acquainted with the conditions of the time, conditions which were in some ways peculiar to the period. They say:
"From a study of the Mari texts, it is evident that an incident like that related in Genesis 14...could likely have taken place only in this period, which according to the Mari letters, was one in which such coalitions were formed". (Archaeology And The Bible)
This is but one indication among many that the Patriarchal narratives are not pious frauds
composed by propagandists at a late date and which betray their origins by their many
anachronisms. Instead all of the evidence suggests that they are sober accounts recorded by
individuals who are thoroughly acquainted with the events and customs which they describe.
The Hittites.
Evidently it is possible to identify at least four different ethnic groups in antiquity to whom the name "Hittite" is applied, but in the Old Testament "the term 'Hittite(s)' refers either to an ethnic group in Palestine during the patriarchal age, the period of the Exodus, and the period of the Conquest, or to the 'neo-Hittite' peoples and kingdoms of Syria during the first millennium B.C." (H.A. Hoffner, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopaedia of the Bible vol.3)
The former are the "sons of Heth (Gen. 10:15; 23:3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 20; 25:10; 27:46; 49:32) whom we encounter a number of times in Scripture. Now, for a long time the Hittites were known only from Scripture. A little over two decades ago John Garstang wrote in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia that "Twenty five years ago some of the foremost orientalists did not believe in the existence of a Hittite nation." This absence of extra biblical confirmation was considered by many to be further proof of the legendary nature of the patriarchal narratives. Then once again, archaeological discoveries pulled the rug out from underneath the feet of the critics. Garstang explains:
"Following the recognition and rescue of certain hieroglyphic inscriptions from Hamath upon the Orontes in 1872 by Dr Wright, the archaeological fragments of the forgotten Hittite empire were pieced together in 1894 by Prof Sayce....He concluded that in pre-Hellenistic antiquity, the whole of Asia Minor had been dominated by a common political power and cultural influence, which he ascribed to the Hittites......."
Garstang concludes his lengthy article by telling us that "the mention...of Hittites as among the recognised elements of the population of Palestine in patriarchal times, is not of necessity anachronistic; it reflects on the other hand the state of society, under Babylonian influence, which tolerated Semetic colonists among the Hittite communities of Asia Minor." So once again the scepticism of the critics was shown to be groundless.
In addition, as knowledge of Hittite custom and practice increased, new light was thrown upon certain biblical texts. By way of example, R.K Harrison tells us that "as a result of the recovery of certain Hittite legal texts from Boghazkoy, the purchase of the Cave of Machpelah by Abraham (Gen. 23:3ff) comes into considerably clearer perspective". (Introduction to the Old Testament) We recall that Abraham wanted to purchase the cave but not the entire property, while Ephron insisted upon disposing of the entire property. Harrison explains:
"Under ancient Hittite law the one who purchased the entire property of the vendor assumed at the time of transfer, certain legal obligations to render feudal services, the nature and extent of which are at present obscure....As a result Abraham expressed interest in only a part of the total estate with a view to avoiding any attendant legal obligations." (Gen. 23:9)
Harrison adds:
"The mention of trees in the narrative reflects the Hittite practice of listing the exact number of trees growing on each piece of property sold."
Thus not only has archaeology enabled one of the greatest nations of the ancient world to emerge from obscurity to confirm once again the historicity of the Genesis account, but it has also contributed to a better understanding of the text itself.
Many similar examples could be cited, among them the discovery, in 1995, of a long-lost city
called Urkesh, which appears to be a city of the Horites, a group which at one time was unknown
outside scripture. Clearly those critics of the Bible who are so very quick to find fault with the
scriptural record would do well to keep in mind the old adage that the absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence.
Sodom and Gomorrah.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the best known incidents of Scripture. According to the book of Genesis, Sodom and Gomorrah were two of a group of five cities which stretched along a luxuriant plain in the Jordan Valley. (Gen. 13:10, 11) According to the biblical account, because of the wickedness of the inhabitants "the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven". (Gen. 19:24) The picture is one of complete devastation:
"All its land is brimstone and salt, a burning waste, unsown and unproductive, and no grass grows on it, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Lord overthrew in His anger and in His wrath." (Deut. 29:23)
Predictably the critics maintained that this account of destruction was nothing more than a story, or a vaguely remembered incident set down in writing long after the time of the alleged event. Fortunately not everyone agreed. Randall Price tells us that in 1960, trees were found standing in a growth position at a depth of 23 feet at the southern end of the Dead Sea, showing that the water of the Dead Sea had risen and submerged ancient land areas. What's more, further excavations at a site known as Bab edh-Dhra on the eastern shore of Transjordan, uncovered a 23 foot thick fortification wall surrounding the city. Evidence also emerged that the city had been destroyed by fire, and some puzzling details emerged. Randall Price has a lengthy quotation by archaeologist Bryant Wood, part of which is as follows:
"The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Dhra is the biblical city of Sodom...(The dead of the city) were buried in a building right on the surface - a structure that archaeologists referred to as a charnel house...(These structures) all had one common feature and that was that they had been burned - from the inside out...
(W)hat they discovered was that the fire did not begin inside the building but rather the fire started on the roof of the building, then the roof burned through, collapsed into the interior and then the fire spread inside the building. And this was the case in every single charnel house that they excavated...
Now this is something that is quite difficult to explain naturally...how do you explain the burning of these charnel houses in a cemetery located some distance from the town? Archaeologists really have no explanation for that, but the Bible gives us the answer. The Bible talks about God's destruction on these cities... and it speaks of God reigning fire and brimstone down on these cities from heaven and there in the cemetery, we have evidence that that is exactly what happened." (emphasis mine)
Interestingly too, investigations of the shallow southern end of the Dead Sea have revealed
"abundant deposits of asphalt, petroleum and natural gas...( which) reminds us of the statement in
Genesis 14:10 that the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen (tar) pits" (ibid). Randall Price
records the suggestion of one geologist that the "fire from the Lord out of heaven" may have been
due to the ignition, by lightning, of these combustible materials. He also reminds us that there
were five "cities of the plain," four of which were destroyed by God at the same time, and tells us
that a total of five sites have been located in the area. All sites had been destroyed or abandoned
at about the same time and the same ash deposits found at Bab edh-Dhra were found at each
site. Certainly dense smoke ascending from the sites (Gen. 19:28) is consistent with a petroleum-based fire. The bottom line is that although the evidence is not decisive, the facts uncovered by
archaeology do suggest that the biblical cities of the plain have been discovered.
Jacob's Blessings
Anything written by Walter C. Kaiser on the Old Testament is worthy of careful study, and his recent book entitled The Old Testament Documents, Are They Reliable is likely to become a reference work for many students of scripture. In a chapter dealing with the patriarchal narratives, Kaiser points out that "(these narratives) contain a distinctive flavour, pattern of living, and several unique socio-legal institutions that are not found in the social mores and norms of later ages." Kaiser cites the example of Jacob's blessings upon his twelve sons in Genesis chapter 49. He points out that Jacob gave to each son an equal share of the inheritance and adds:
" Later, at Sinai, this would change with the Mosaic law specifying that a double share of the inheritance go to the first born son (Deut 21:15-17).... (And) the extra biblical texts from the ancient Near East confirmed that the situation reflected in Jacob's distribution of an equal inheritance for all his son's was precisely what was found in the Laws of Lipit-Ishtar (20th century B.C). Some 200 years later in Hammurabi's Code, (18th century B.C.) the situation had changed already so that the sons of a man's first wife got first choice over the sons of his second wife. Pig we go further from the 18th to the 15th century B.C. the tablets from Mari and Nuzi demand that the natural first born son was to receive a double share over that of the adopted son. Finally, the first millennium Neo-Babylonian laws required the same distribution, with the sons of the first wife getting a double portion and the secondary sons only receiving a single share."
Kaiser's point is that the record of Jacob's blessing upon his 12 sons in Genesis chapter 49,
accurately reflects the prevailing custom at the time when, according to Scripture, the patriarch
lived upon the earth. However it does not reflect the conventions of a later age, and again, surely
the simplest explanation is that the writer is intimately acquainted with the events and situations
which he describes.
Conclusion to Part 2.
Thus far we have considered examples of archaeological materials which relate to the scriptural record of the patriarchal period in the lands of Mesopotamia and Canaan.
The following quotation from a Britannica article entitled The Genesis Narrative in the Light of Recent Scholarship nicely sums up Part 2:
"(The patriarchal age) until the end of the last century was unknown and considered virtually unknowable. It was assumed, based on a presumed dating of hypothetical biblical sources, that the patriarchal narratives in the Bible were only a projection of the situation and concerns of a much later period (9th- 5th century B.C.) and of dubious historical value...
However, after World War 1, archaeological research made enormous strides with the discovery of monuments and documents, many of which date back to the period assigned to the patriarchs in the traditional account.... (These discoveries) offered exegesis a new basis, which specialists utilized to show that, in the biblical book of Genesis, narratives fit perfectly with what, from other sources, is known today of the early 2nd millennium B.C. but imperfectly with a later period. A biblical scholar in the 1940's aptly termed this result "the rediscovery of the Old Testament". (emphasis mine)
Part 3 begins with a change of location as we turn our attention to Egypt and ask the question "Is there any extra-biblical evidence that the sons of Jacob entered this land and grew into a numerous people as the Scripture says?" Home|Contents