Genesis 1-7 in Review

These first few chapters of the Bible are some of the most difficult to understand, and perhaps cause some of the most controversy amongst Christians. I have taken what I have learned in regard to the historical and cultural context of Genesis and tried to use those things to decipher the meaning and themes behind these passages. The train of thought which I have pursued led to conclusions which most conservative fundamentalist Christians would deem uncomfortable at best, and heresy at worst.

What are the options regarding the interpretation of these first few chapters of Genesis? The fundamentalist evangelicals would say it must be interpreted literally, and can be used as a scientific historical document which can be proved. The post-modern version would suggest that these stories are myth, taken from surrounding cultures and modified to suit the ancient Israelite belief system.

Let's assume for a moment that the latter is the truth. Would this option really change the gospel as we know it? Would it change what Jesus said to us in the gospels? Would it mean that God doesn't exist? Hardly. In fact, it would almost make the gospel more accessible to people living in our current culture. It seems to me that most people in our current culture who are looking at Christianity from the outside in, see us as an isolated, strange, weird sub-culture that have strange beliefs and practices. Why we hold on so dearly to our literal interpretation of the Genesis story, in the face of evidence and proof to the contrary, is something that non-Christians cannot understand. This can be an incredible barrier for someone who wishes to join a Church, yet does not want to have to believe something that makes them seem close-minded.

At this point, some of you may be thinking that not believing in a literal Genesis is watering down the truth, that we don't have to be like the culture we are in. However, if one looks at the history of Christianity, it is filled with examples of how Christianity adapted to fit the culture it was in. We have even shown examples in the Bible itself, of how the religion of the Israelites changed in order to suit the culture in which it was situated. Even our current idea of fundamentalist evangelicalism and creation science was born out of modernity at the end of the late 1800's. At that time, the scientific method became very public, as did science in general, and Christianity, as it always does, adapted to the culture it was in. It adopted the scientific method and applied it to the Bible and with great success. The fundamentalist version of Christianity flourished and many people came to Christianity because of their adaptation to the culture.

Well, I would propose that it is again time to adapt. If we don't, we risk becoming an obsolete religion that still keeps women out of leadership and in roles where they are only allowed to teach our children; while that same woman is the CEO of a multi-million dollar company. We risk being viewed as a people who, like ostritchs, stick our heads in the sand in order to avoid facing the truth and facts about the Bible. Of course these times of transition are very uncomfortable. When the first organs were brought into the church, there were many who believed it to be an instrument of the devil due to its uses in popular culture. Hymns were thought to be evil because they were not directly from scripture. These days, a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is dubbed as heresy and a watering down of the gospel. Of course one is free to believe how they want to, but to condemn another "version" of Christianity simply because it is adapting to the culture and speaking to the next generation is to deny Christianity's progression.

One of Post-modern Christianity's greatest strengths is that it has the ability to unify all Christians. What better testimony to God's greatness would there be than to look past our petty differences in theology to show a united front. Today, I attended a city-wide church service that was meant to bring all the churches in the city together. Together at this service, a collective offering was taken towards the Canadian foodgrains bank. I found this to be very encouraging. Post-modern Christianity has the potential to expand that circle of unity.

I believe that it is not a matter of if Christianity will change and adapt, but merely when. I believe it is already in the progress of changing now. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks the way I do. I'm sure there are many others out there who think the same way, but maybe are afraid to voice their opinions for fear of rejection. I know that is how I have been for about 4 years. I put on the fundamemtalist mask, tried to pretend that I believed how they did, but I found that it just made me sad. That wasn't who I was anymore, and its not who I want to be anymore. I, for one, am no longer content to disregard the evidence surrounding the Bible. I would rather be a part of the progression of Christianity than trying to live in a Christianity that is rapidly becoming obsolete.

Whose Giant Boat Is This Anyways?

We now enter into one of the most famous passages of the Bible. Perhaps the most well known by Christians and non-Christians alike. I am of course referring to the account of the flood (if you haven't yet guessed by the title of this post). If you have read any of my previous posts, I'm sure you already know where this one is going, expecially if you chose to follow the links to some of the Ancient Near Eastern texts provided, you will have already read those stories which will pertain to what we are talking about here.

First we shall examine the archaeological evidence surrounding the flood. Secondly, we shall look at the Sumerian and Babylonian accounts of the flood as a comparative study. It is of course my opinion that the flood, as told in Genesis 6, is not an historical event, rather a myth which is designed to teach the reader something about the nature of God. You will see how I have come to this conclusion from the evidence to follow.

Let us take a look at the archaeological evidence. Is there any evidence of a world-wide flood to be found? Or, let us bring the scope down a little. Is there any evidence of a flood covering the whole of the Ancient Near East (which would constitute the whole world in the eyes of the ancient person)? I remember being told by fundamentalist Christians that archaeology does indeed support a world wide flood. However, after having read about it for myself (and not merely trusting what I am told) I found that this is not the case.

Large deposits of water-borne clay and sand due to a prolonged inundation have only been found on three Mesopotamian sites. These are Ur, Kish, and Shuruppak. Sir Leonard Woolley, one of the first archaeologists to excavate at Ur, dug 14 test pits. Seven of these pits revealed water-borne deposits at varying levels. The deepest and thickest of these is during the Ubaid period (between 4500BC and 4300BC). The other thinner layers were dated to about 2800-2600BC. The layers which were found at Kish were dated around the same time as the thinner layers at Ur. At Shuruppak, there is one single 'sterile layer' dating to around 2900BC.

This archaeological evidence does not reflect a widespread inundation of the entire Ancient Near East. Rather, it merely suggests limited, localized inundations probably due to river overflow and changes of course. It is important to note, that Eridu, which lies only 20km from Ur in a shallow depression and has been excavated down to its virgin soil, shows no sign of a flood. Thus, we can conclude from this that there is no archaeological or physical evidence of a flood which covered the entire of the Ancient Near East, let alone the entire planet.

Another interesting factor to consider is that there are those who claim that Noah's Ark has been found. One can find an article related to this here with links on the site to both sides of the arguement. I personally do not think that this is Noah's Ark. I believe that those who do claim that it is 'the ark', are trying to force scientific evidence onto the situation, and not analyzing things objectively. They are so desperate to prove that the Bible (in particular the flood story) is historically and scientifically accurate, they will grasp at even a small hope, and twist science to their advantage. I believe that this account is a myth as we shall soon prove as we move on to the textual evidence. Also, even if this was the giant boat from the flood, it would belong to Atrahasis, not Noah as we shall soon see.

We will move on to the textual evidence. These discoveries are not new, and it is surprising to me that most Christians have not heard of these texts. Or if they have, are not telling others about them (I, for one, grew up having no idea that the Bible was not the first account of the flood). It was in 1872 that George Smith, a British Assyriologist, first announced that he had discovered among the tablets in Ashurbanipal's library another account of the flood so similar, that it would be impossible to call it a coinicidence. What he had found at that point, was the "Epic of Gilgamesh." It is within this story that we find the account of the flood which was discovered by George Smith. One can read a translation of it here. It is far too lengthy to quote in this post, but I will quote some of the highlights. I strongly recommend following the link and reading the entire thing for yourself. You will see the striking resemblance. Here are some examples.

O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu: Tear down the house and build a boat! Abandon wealth and seek living beings! Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings! Make all living beings go up into the boat. The boat which you are to build, its dimensions must measure equal to each other: its length must correspond to its width. Roof it over like the Apsu.I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea: 'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered I will heed and will do it. But what shall I answer the city, the populace, and the Elders!'

Here is another quote:

Six days and seven nightscame the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land.When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding,the flood was a war--struggling with itself like a woman writhing (in labor).The sea calmed, fell still, the whirlwind (and) flood stopped up.I looked around all day long--quiet had set inand all the human beings had turned to clay!

And another:

When a seventh day arrived I sent forth a dove and released it.The dove went off, but came back to me;no perch was visible so it circled back to me.I sent forth a swallow and released it.The swallow went off, but came back to me;no perch was visible so it circled back to me.I sent forth a raven and released it.The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.Then I sent out everything in all directions and sacrificed (a sheep).I offered incense in front of the mountain-ziggurat.

Thus it is painfully obvious that these stories are strikingly similar in events. So, if you have never heard of this before, you are asking yourself this question. "Which one of these accounts came first?" The Gilgamesh epic found in Ashurbannipal's library dates to about 650 BC. That is how old the tablet is. The writing of Genesis is dated to somewhere around 1400BC (although we do not have any physical document of Genesis dated from that period. This is merely an estimate based on content). So, if you are a hard core historical accuracy bible buff, at this point you are standing and throwing your hands into the air in victory crying "YES! YES! Those Babylonians stole it from us, precious!!" But, I must ask you to please take a seat, as the battle is not over. The account of the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh was not originally in that story. It was taken from a much much earlier Sumerian account of the flood and inserted into the Gilgamesh Epic.

The Sumerian account of the flood, also known as "The Poem of the Supersage (Atrahasis)" is where the account of the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh was taken from. We have about two thirds of the account (physical tablets) which date to around 1700 BC, thus beating out Genesis by at least 300 years (and that being the assumption that the date of the writing of Genesis is correct). However, the oldest record of the flood we have dates to about 2100 BC, albeit it is not a full account, but merely a fragment. The New York Times published an article of its discovery in 1910. You can read the article here. So, I'm sorry to break it to you, but the Sumerian account of the flood antedates the Genesis account by at least 700 years. Again, it would be unlikely that the dominant culture of the time (Sumerian) in 2100 BC was looking for ideas to write about from a small enigmatic tribe of nomads (the Israelites).

So, I think we have established that the flood never did happen, as there is no scientific evidence to prove so. Secondly, we have also proven that the Israelites didn't come up with the flood story to begin with, rather it was a creation of the Sumerians. So what does that leave us with? Well, it certainly does not negate the value of the Genesis account of the flood, for it is within these stories that we find out more about the nature of God. The Israelites took the story of the flood, and inserted their own theme into it, in order to show something about God. So, next we will examine the two themes presented in the two different accounts and we will see that the Israelites had their own unique spin on the story - changing one's outlook on life.

In the Genesis account, we find that the reason for the flood is a moral issue. God sees the wickedness of humanity and wishes to blot them out. However, he finds one righteous man, Noah, through whom he will proliferate humanity after the rest of humanity is wiped out. In the Sumerian version, we find that the background to the flood was that humanity had grown too numerous and so noisy that the gods couldn't sleep. Thus Enlil decided to put an end to them. He used several ideas such as epidemic and famine, and finally flood. There seems to be no moral issue at stake here, but simply that the humans were noisy (and no doubt we are).

In Genesis, God warns Noah, the only righteous man alive, and has him build a giant boat to avoid the flood. In the Sumerian account Ea warns Atrahasis of the impending doom, and instructs him to build a boat as well. Why is Atrahasis chosen? Certainly not for any moral reason. From there, the two accounts are very similar as they simply recount the events of the flood.

Thus, it is my opinion that the Genesis account is simply meant to show us something about God. God does not tolerate wickedness, and rewards righteousness. The wicked were destroyed and the righteous were saved. Pretty simple and obvious. The Babylonian version is an explanation as to why bad things happen to us.

Ea spoke to Valiant Enlil, saying: 'It is yours, O Valiant One, who is the Sage of the Gods. How, how could you bring about a Flood without consideration Charge the violation to the violator, charge the offense to the offender, but be compassionate lest (mankind) be cut off, be patient lest they be killed. Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a lion had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a wolf had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that famine had occurred to slay the land! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that (Pestilent) Erra had appeared to ravage the land!

This account gives an explanation as to why all these things happen to humanity; to keep our population in check. It is an explanation of suffering. It is probably not a very comforting explanation, but an explanation none the less.

In conclusion, I think that we can see that there is no scientific or archaeological evidence for the flood having ever happened. Rather, it was a myth composed by the Ancient Near Eastern people. Also, we have seen that the Sumerian account was the first account of the flood written and that the Israelites borrowed this story into their own mythology. However, both accounts have very different themes. It is my opinion that the Israelite version of the flood was borrowed from the Sumerians and changed to demonstrate the qualities of the God that they worshipped.

I would like to end with a quote by Jean Bottero, from his book "Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia":

"It is this Flood, the one in the Bible, that lingers in our memory, imbued as we are - like it or not - with the scenes and teaching of that ancient book. But the aim of history is to seek to understand by 'going back', by 'what was there before', children by their fathers and rivers by their sources. That is why, in addition to what they recover en masse from our oldest forefathers in direct lineage, from those incomparable Sumerian and Babylonian civilisers and their heritage that has come down to us, filtered, reworked, enriched, sometimes impoverished, by the millennia, Assyriologists can also throw light on the Bible for us. They do so by reintroducing its content into its 'historical continuum', which illuminates it so particularly. Peaceable and unobtrusive, these people's calling is not exactly easy; spending one's life deciphering, analysing, penetrating the secrets of thousands of clay ' notebooks', hatched with spiky and daunting cuneiform characters! One may wonder, however, whether this arduous immobility is not more fruitful than all the mighty to-ings and fro-ings to bring back a few worm-eaten planks, which with touching naivety are assumed to be a relic of the shipwreck of an 'Ark' as fabulous as the Giant's seven-league boots."

The Sons of God and The Age of Heroes

As one sits reading Genesis, its going along quite nicely through chapters 4 and 5, nothing really extraordinary (except for the lifespan of Adam and his posterity of course), and then we come to chapter 6, which I find to be quite fascinating.

1Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
2that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
3Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

If we were to take this literally, there was a time historically when the "Sons of God" were marrying human women and having children of their own, who were known as the nephilim; mighty men who did great deeds. We all know that I don't take this literally, so we shall explore who these Sons of God and the nephilim were, as intended by the author of Genesis, and who he understood them to be.

There are several opinions on who or what the Sons of God are. The literal translation of the Hebrew is 'Sons of God' - "Beni ha elohim". One theory is that they are the sons of Seth, which are denoted as the sons of God in the pseudepigriphal work, "Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan".

Another opinion, and probably the most popular among fundamentalists, is that the sons of God were indeed angels that had come to earth to procreate with humans. If one is to take this literally, it seems quite difficult to accept as an historical account. However, the doctrine of angels in the Bible is an evolving one. Unless you place the label of angel upon other words in the Bible (such as this instance, denoting the sons of God), the Israelites did not have a fleshed out belief in angels until the Exile. It was then that they developed a doctrine of angels and demons. This was in reaction to the religious systems in which they were placed that already had a belief in angels and demons. It is my opinion that in all likelihood, the belief in angels and demons in Israelite religion came as a result of being exposed to the religion of the Babylonians and the Persians while in exile. It is not until the book of Daniel that angels are mentioned in the way that we would understand them.

One point in favour of these being angels is that although the Israelites may not have had a doctrine of angels and demons until the Exile, this does not deny the existance of these beings from the beginning of time. They may have simply called these beings by different names as they understood them at the time. Thus, another theory regarding this could be that angels and demons always existed, yet have been called by different names throughout the Bible.

Another proof for the fact that these would be angels is that of the writings of Flavius Josephus - a Jewish historian who lived from 37-100 AD. In his work entitled Jewish Antiquities, chapter 3, verse 72-73, he refers to the sons of God as angels.

"But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many angels of God coupled with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants."

This was the common idea during that time that the sons of God were angels of God. But again, one must realize that even Josephus, although he wrote this during the 1st century AD, was still removed from the writings of Genesis by hundreds of years. Perhaps if Josephus had access to the archaeological data, and the thousands of cuneiform tablets we have in our posession now, his opinion on the matter may have differed.

Thus, I do not think that the sons of God in this passage are angels, as the Israelites did not as of yet have an understanding of what angels were. As I mentioned before, it is possible that they were angels, just called by a different name according to the writer's understanding at the time, I believe that the origin of these sons of God comes from the surrounding cultures. To discover the true identity of these mysterious beings, we must look farther back into the past and see what those around the Israelites believed about God and the gods.

If one examines the structure of the religions of the Ancient Near East, we see a pantheon of gods. The gods would also have children together. For example, Anu is considered to be the father of all the gods in the Sumerian pantheon. The Anunnakku, which could mean "princely offspring", are the gods of the earth, particularily the ones that came from heaven to work on the earth. They later became associated with the underworld as well. In a Sumerian hymn, the Anunnakku were put to work to help build the temple at Girsu. There were fifty Anunnaku for the city of Eridu. Anu is considerred to be the king or father of the Anunnakku. In the Epic of Creation, the Anunnaku are divided into the anunnaku of heaven and earth. Thus, it was a common conception that the 'princely offspring', or perhaps sons of the gods, lived on earth and performed various works on the earth. Therefore, it is my opinion that the sons of God referred to in Genesis are very likely an adaptation of the Anunnaku from the Sumerian and Babylonian religions.

Now, we leave the sons of God behind and move onto the next uncomfortable subject in these verses, the Nephilim; the offspring of the sons of God and women. In regard to this text, there are a few different sources that we will look at.

First, it stands to reason that if a god and a human were to procreate, the subsequent offspring would be considered what we as english speakers call a demi-god. Now this term is by no means foreign to our thought. I remember quite well a cartoon show which I watched as a child that some of you may still remember: The Mighty Hercules. Ahhhhh, I can remember the theme song quite well. "Hercules, hero of song and story! Hercules, winner of ancient glory! Fighting for the right, fighting with his might; With the strength of ten, ordinary men! Hercules, people are safe when near him! Hercules, only the evil fear him! Softness in his eyes, iron in his thighs; Virtue in his heart, fire in every part of The Mighty Hercules!" Then there was Newt (sp?) with his high pitched voice. "Herc! Herc! It's Deadalus! It's Deadalus!"

Hercules was the son of Zeus and the mortal Alcmena. Thus, he was part god and part human. Now, we are all very familiar with the fact that he performed great deeds and was very strong. However, there was a hero just like Hercules, who was very well known to the Ancient Near Eastern person. He is someone whom we have already met in previous posts and whom we shall return to again and again. His name is Gilgamesh. You can read for yourself the description of him in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Supreme over other kings, lordly in appearance,he is the hero, born of Uruk, the goring wild bull. He walks out in front, the leader,and walks at the rear, trusted by his companions. Mighty net, protector of his people,raging flood-wave who destroys even walls of stone! Offspring of Lugalbanda, Gilgamesh is strong to perfection, son of the august cow, Rimat-Ninsun;... Gilgamesh is awesome to perfection. It was he who opened the mountain passes, who dug wells on the flank of the mountain. It was he who crossed the ocean, the vast seas, to the rising sun, who explored the world regions, seeking life. It was he who reached by his own sheer strength Utanapishtim, the Faraway, who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed! ... for teeming mankind. Who can compare with him in kingliness? Who can say like Gilgamesh: "I am King!"? Whose name, from the day of his birth, was called "Gilgamesh"? Two-thirds of him is god, one-third of him is human. The Great Goddess [Aruru] designed(?) the model for his body, she prepared his form ... ... beautiful, handsomest of men, ... perfect

We see here that Gilgamesh was seen as a demi-god, who performed many great deeds. If you feel like it, you can read all about what he does here. Now you may be saying to yourself, just because Gilgamesh was a demi-god and did mighty deeds, doesn't mean that the Israelites got the idea of the Nephilim from that! Well, now we come to the climax of this post. Be prepared to be astonished and amazed as I pull out of my magic hat, a bold example of syncretism in ancient Israelite beliefs.

The dead sea scrolls contain a fragment which has been called, "The Book of Giants". It belonged to the book of Enoch but was previously unknown until it was discovered with the Qumran texts. According to the book of Enoch, the mingling of the sons of God and humans was free and interactive and they begot children, who were the nephilim, the giants. These giants were 450 feet high. The sons of God were actually perceived as wicked and were led by Shemihaza. They began to oppress humanity and thus God decided to imprison them until the final judgement and to destroy the earth with the flood.

This gives us more detail about these beings that is not talked about extensively in Genesis. It seems that this matter is simply stated and then they move on. The book of Enoch gives more detail. Further to that, The book of Giants elaborates on the exploits of the nephilim/giants. It is unfortunately very fragmented, but there is enough to gain an idea of what the content of the book is, and to give us our proof text for syncretism in regards to the nephilim. I will quote some of it here, and give a brief summary.

"they knew the secrets of....sin was great in the earth.....and they killed many....they begat giants." The sons of God then exploit the fruitfulness of the earth and perform unnatural acts on animals and humans. The outcome is a brood of giants and monstrous beings. "they begot giants and monsters....they begot, and behold, all the earth was corrupted....with its blood and by the hand of....giants which did not suffice for them and.... and they were seeking to devour many....the monsters attacked it."

The giants are then troubled by a series of dreams and visions. They see a vision of a tablet being immersed in water and it emerges symbolizing the destruction of the earth by a flood and that Noah and his sons will be saved. They then go on to discuss the dream. They then realize the futility of fighting against the forces of heaven.

"I am a giant, and by the mighty strength of my arm and my own great strength...anyone mortal, and I have made war against them; but I am not...able to stand against them, for my opponents....reside in heaven and they dwell in the holy places. And not...they are stronger than I. of the wild beast has come, and the wild man they call me. ...Then Ohya said to him, I have been forced to have a dream... the sleep of my eyes vanished, to let me see a vision. Now I know that on....Gilgamesh...three of its roots.... while I was watching, there came...they moved the roots into this garden, all of them, and not....concerns the death of our souls...and all his comrades, and Ohya told them what Gilgamesh said to him.... and it was said... concerning....the leader has cursed the potentates and the giants were glad at his words. Then he turned and left."

That will suffice to make the point. What is important for our point, is that we see one of the giants, one of the nephilim, is named Gilgamesh. It is no coincidence that Gilgamesh is identified with these "mighty men who were of old, men of renown". It is obvious that the writer of this book of Giants borrowed from the Sumerian/Babylonian mythology regarding Gilgamesh and his semi divine status. This is an obvious example of syncretism in Ancient Israelite religion and beliefs. Thus, I believe the nephilim, or the giants, represent wholly or in part, the demi-gods represented in Mesopotamian religion.

In conclusion, it is my belief that the Israelites were not so different from their Mesopotamian neighbours in their beliefs regarding prehistory. There seems to be a common theme throughout Ancient Near Eastern literature of a time somewhere in the nebulous past, where the gods and humans interacted freely and produced great heroes who were part human and part god. This is informally dubbed, "The Age of Heroes". These great heroes lived extremely long lives, were of unusual size, posessed amazing strength and performed great deeds.

Do I think there was actually a time in history like this? No, I don't. But I do believe that this little blurp in Genesis 6 shows us that the Israelites were not original in their beliefs and that chances are, they borrowed many of their ideas for their mythology from their Mesopotamian neighbours, who were the dominant culture of the time.