Curious what theologians throughout history made of Genesis 4

Conversation Side Conversation
61

Okay. Here’s a rough layout to get you familiar.

If you add up the ages given in Genesis 5 and note the age it says Noah was when the flood came, you can determine the flood happened 1656 years after Adam was created (AC - Adam created). The Tower of Babel story roughly a century later. Given Adam was 130 when Seth was born, Cain was banished sometime around a century AC.

Abraham was born just under 2000 years after AC. It says his father was from Ur and the story depicts Abraham going to Egypt and interacting with an Egyptian pharoah. Considering what we know about Sumer and Egypt, Adam could not have been created any earlier than roughly 5500 BC. So we’re looking at a timeline around 5500 to 3500 BC.

So there’s your timeline. The place is specifically laid out to be Mesopotamia. So, in that time and place, does it match up to these events?

The first city was Eridu in Sumer. Created around 5300 BC. The first phase of the Sumerian culture (Ubaid period) lasted about 1300 years, until around 4000BC. Then came the Uruk period, a second culture very similar to the Sumerian Ubaid, but distinct.

Flood evidence found in Ur, a pre-flood Sumerian city, showed to be sandwiched between Ubaid and Uruk artifacts, showing this flood to have happened at the end of the Ubaid. Post 4000 BC Sumer grew. To the west Egypt was taking shape along the nile. To the east the Indus Valley culture was coming together.

So, according to the timeline, Cain left about 100 after Adam, established a city, then the flood about 1500 years later. Roughly along the same time as the Ubaid culture, then a flood.

A century later the people living in post-flood Sumer build a tower at Eridu. Then came the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BC)…

" one of the most intense aridification events during the Holocene. It occurred around 3900 BC (5900 years Before Present), ending the Neolithic Subpluvial."

[i]“It triggered human migration to the Nile, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organized, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC.” - https://en.everybodywiki.com/5.9_kiloyear_event[/i]

The societies it’s speaking about are Egypt and the Indus Valley, which is where the post-flood descendants of Noah were “scattered” to. And because each of these cutures spoke a different language, it really did confuse the language of these people.

62

That’s my primary hang up. It wasn’t the author doing the writing that juxtaposed these lineages as they are. So if the intent was to contrast, then the intent was on the part of the redactor.

63

And again the dodge. I didn’t say you did it in this thread. It’s something you’ve done repeatedly in other threads.

Really? Then why don’t you apply them here? Why do you repeatedly cast aspersions on the historical-critical method?

So what? And as if you’re any judge of narratological methods. You can’t even show any published work yourself. At least I have a paper.

64

Not so easy to fudge and cherry-pick working within such a narrow time frame and such a specific location. I’d say that doesn’t make for a safe bet.

65

From what I have read, the main views are these.

  1. Etiological; to establish the origin of certain crafts.
  2. Theological; to commence a narrative of “two seeds”, the “sons of God” (the faithful), and the “sons of men” (the unfaithful).

Scholars commenting on the conflict with the global flood interpretation of the narrative often make comments along the lines of “The composer of this narrative didn’t notice or didn’t care about the contradictions”, or “The composer of this narrative wrote at a time when the other narrative sections were not yet extant, so there were no contradictions; tension between the two narratives was caused by a later redactor conflating them”. Have you seen Carol Hill’s work on the characters in this chapter?

While we’re here, let’s talk about Genesis 5. Modern commentary draws parallels with Sumerian chrono-genealogies. Sumerian texts have similar records (the Sumerian King List, and the Rulers of Lagash), with even longer ages; kings ruling for tens of thousands of years. However, the context in which these ages are found, it is clear they were not intended to be taken literally.

En-me-barage-si is said to have ruled for 900 years. His historicity is established by epigraphical evidence, so we know he was a real figure. This also means that scribes recording the lives of the kings, were contemporary with En-me-barage-si and knew that he did not literally rule 900 years. There is no epigraphical evidence that people in his day believed he had ruled for centuries; the earliest attribution of a 900 year reign dates to around 600 years after his kingship.

As a side note, you can see that historians accept the historicity of En-me-barage-si even though he is said to have ruled for 900 years. Likewise, Gilgamesh is considered a historical figure despite having supposedly reigned for 125 years.

There are other patterns in the Sumerian King List which indicate the numbers are symbolic. In the earliest stage of the king list, rulers reign for up to 43,000 years. Then “the flood swept over”, and the next section of the king list describes kings with reigns which are drastically shorter; still centuries long (even over 1,000 years), but on average less than one tenth the length of previous reigns. In a later section, the reigns become much shorter still; down to less than 500 years.

Later again, the reigns drop massively, down to less than 100 years, and typically less than 30. Each reduction in the pattern of reign lengths, is preceded by a change of kingship from one city state to another. So when the city state of Eridug rules, the reigns are tens of thousands of years, when the city state of Kish rules the reigns are rarely over 1,000 years, when the city state of Ur rules the reigns are less than 100 years.

The length of rulership is associated with a gradual declining glory of the empire, and indicative of the strength of the prevailing city state. Interestingly, when the when the city state of Kish ruled for the first time the reigns are centuries long though rarely over 1,000 years, but when the city state of Kish ruled for the second time, the reigns are much shorter, less than 500 years. This indicates that the second time Kish ruled, the city state had declined greatly in power and glory.

Another indication that the reigns were not taken literally, is the way in which they are treated by other Sumerian texts. For example, a list extremely similar to the Sumerian King List, was produced by the city state of Lagash. This list, called the Rulers of Lagash, was actually written not as a sober historical document, but was written specifically as a parody of the Sumerian King List, an expression of the feud which Lagash had with the other city states.

The Rulers of Lagash is intended to ridicule the Sumerian King List. But a superficial reading of the text does not reveal this. Here’s an excerpt from the Rulers of Lagash.

164-172En-entar-zid: his god was Mes-an-du (?), of the seed of ancient days, who had grown together with the city, he acted for 990 years. …, the son of En-entar-zid: he dug the canal Urmah-banda, and the canal Tabta-kug-jal, his personal god was Mes-an-du (?); his master Nin-jirsu commanded him to build his temple; he acted for 960 years.

173-175En-Enlile-su: he acted for 600 years. …, the son of En-Enlile-su: his personal god was Ninazu; he acted for 660 years.

176…: he acted for 1110 years.

177-181Puzur-Ninlil: he acted for X x 60 + 1 years. En-Mes-an-du (?), the son of Puzur-Ninlil: his personal god was …, he acted for 120 years. Dadu, the son of En-Mes-an-du (?): he acted for 160 years. Tuggur, the son of Dadu: he acted for 160 years.

182…: he acted for 120 years.

183-191Puzur-Mama, the scribe of Ninki: his personal god was Zazaru; he acted for … years. Lamku-nijgena (?), the administrator of Puzur-Mama, who built the wall of Jirsu, his …, and the Tirac palace in Lagac: he acted for 280 years. Henjal, the son of Lamku-nijgena (?): his god was Pabilsaj (?), he acted for 140 years. …, the son of Henjal: he acted for 144 years.

192-199Ur-Ninmarki, the scribe and scholar: …, his personal gods were Haya and Nisaba, he acted for X + 20 years. Ur-Ninjirsu, the son of Ur-Ninmarki: he acted for X x 60 years. Ur-Bau, the scribe of Ur-Ninjirsu, who … in the assembly: he acted for X + 30 years. Gudea, the younger brother of Ur-Bau, …, who was not the son of his mother nor the son of his father: he acted for … years.

200Written in the school. Nisaba be praised!

Genealogies and rulership records could have social, historical, political, theological, and even cosmological significance. They were very important documents. In the case of the Rulers of Lagash record, the parody is identified by comparing the list with the original Sumerian King List. Similarly, it has been proposed that the chrono-genealogies of Genesis 5 are a parody of the Sumerian King List.

66

Two points:

1- You haven’t answered my question about whether you regard the Bible text as we have it as divinely inspired. It would save some time if you would answer the question, so that we don’t end up talking at cross-purposes. (And note, by inspired, I don’t mean it has to be read with mechanical literalness, or that its science has to be accurate modern science, etc. I’m not asking if you’re a fundamentalist or a literalist. I’m just asking if you consider yourself a Christian and whether you believe that our current text of Genesis is a divine as opposed to merely human product.)

If you think the current text is inspired, that doesn’t require believing that each of the sources employed by the text were in their original form inspired. It might mean only that the redactor was inspired, and that those sources are inspired only insofar as they have been filtered, modified, harmonized, etc. by the inspired redactor. In that case there would be no problem in speaking of a contrast intended by the redactor, rather than by the authors of the sources.

2- No matter which of the two sources you regard as written earlier, Genesis 4 or Genesis 5, one of them was written earlier, which makes it possible for the later author to write his story with the first story in mind. So we don’t even have to suppose active tinkering by a redactor. We can imagine the later writer shaping his narrative with a view to the pre-existing narrative – with the shaping done under divine inspiration.

67

Sadly, it’s about what I expected. Cherry-picking, force-fitting. I don’t see the point. If you’re trying to establish the truth of the bible, and Cain started the Sumerian civilization, it would all have been destroyed by the flood and all its people killed. Start over.

68

@John_Harshman, @Jeremy_Christian proposes that “the global flood” is all a misunderstanding by translators … and that the flood was just a regional flood (with hundreds and thousands of animals loaded on board to save them from getting their feet wet).

Jeremy, I think some of the reaction you receive to your scenario (or scenario of scenarios) is that it seems to be neither fish nor fowl.

When Rohl came out with his dramatically different chronologies… the general reaction was simple:

“Prof Rohl, you are reinterpreting huge sections of the Bible so that you can establish a new Chronology so that people won’t have to reinterpret the parts of the Bible that people have traditionally struggled with.”

What?! Now what’s the point of that?

So what exactly do you think you are proving that makes it worth while for Christians to completely re-interpret the Bible along your viewpoints?

69

But a regional flood of the sort described in Genesis should have killed everyone in the area except for Noah and his family, right? If it’s just a garbled tale about some plain old flood that didn’t even cover the whole Fertile Crescent, why should you credit anything in Genesis? Cherrypicking.

2 Likes
70

Well, considering there was a silt deposit in the soil in the Sumerian city of Ur situated between Ubaid period artifacts and Uruk period artifacts, it would seem that this flood played a role in ending the Ubaid period in that city. A period that had lasted roughly 1500 years.

Both Genesis and Sumerian texts refer to this flood and the Sumerian kings list delineates between before and after the flood, so it seems it was pretty significant and certainly not cherrypicked.

71

In a global flood scenario that would be the case. But given the bible later speaks of a bloodline that existed before and after the flood (Nephilim in Gen6/Num13), it seems there were at least some survivors.

What about that appears cherry-picked or force-fit to you? Is there anything I could have said that wouldn’t have resulted in that response?

72

Well, to start, it potentially gives us the correct historical context in which these stories are set. Once it can be seen in human history we can begin to understand the impact these events had and how they served to shape the human world from that point forward.

Plus, correctly understanding the events that serve as the foundation for the entirety of the story to follow, there are many insights that begin to emerge from places that before seemed contradictory or vague.

For example, I’ve found it to be hugely useful in understanding the actions of God throughout the OT and what His overall goal was and how He achieved it.

73

I do not. There are too many mistakes that seem to me to be editing errors to be divinely inspired. Example Gen12/20/26 (Wife–sister narratives in the Book of Genesis - Wikipedia)

74

Historical-critical analysis of the narratives[edit]

The Jewish Encyclopedia’s article “Sarah” notes that

“the story of Sarah’s life, brief and incomplete as it is, presents nevertheless curious repetitions, e.g., the incident with Pharaoh and a similar incident with Abimelech (Genesis 22:10 and Genesis 20:1).”

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia , the recurring story has a unified purpose:
“From the point of view of the history of culture these episodes are very instructive. But it is not very probable that Abraham would have run the risk twice. Moreover, a similar incident is reported in regard to Isaac and Rebecca (Genesis 26:7-11).”

“This recurrence indicates that none of the accounts is to be accepted as historical; all three are variations of a theme common to the popular oral histories of the Patriarchs.”

@Jeremy_Christian

Again, you are missing my point:

If Rohl raises havoc with the Biblical timeline so that he can say he solved the problems in another part of the timeline … we have no firm foundation for anything.

Look at the final words I quote from your Wife/Sister story cycle link: “… none of the accounts is to be accepted as historical…”

Much of Genesis is a foundation of sand… none of which is particularly reliable… except, apparently, those sections which support your claims.

75

Thanks for clarifying. May I ask a follow-up question? You seem to have done an inordinate amount of private study of the Bible, for someone who thinks it is merely a human book, and one filled with editing errors to boot. What motivates such an intense study of such a flawed book?

Two comments here. The first is that you shouldn’t rely on Wikipedia for good scholarship on Biblical exegesis. Most of the people writing the articles on religion on Wikipedia are rank amateurs. (I say that as someone with a doctorate in religion from a top secular university, and with a lot of graduate work on Hebrew Bible under my belt, plus several publications on the interpretation of Genesis.) But we recently discussed the problems with Wikipedia here, so I won’t go into any more detail on that one.

The second comment is that you assume that the differences in the narratives indicate “mistakes,” i.e., a sloppy editing of inconsistent variations on a story. You don’t even consider the possibility that the variations on the theme might be deliberate, and meant to teach something to the reader who carefully notes the similarities and differences and relates them to the changing narrative context at each point. You just assume that the historical-critical approach is the valid one, and you unconsciously rule out a narratological approach.

If you really want to understand the Bible, you should study it using more than one scholarly method. The historical-critical approach has its uses, but it doesn’t automatically get the final say.

If you want a general introduction to narratological approaches to the Bible (not particularly in reference to the wife-sister narratives), a good beginning is one of the works which helped to open the world of Biblical scholarship to narratological study, Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative. When I was going to graduate school, there was fierce resistance among most Biblical scholars to Alter’s approach and to anything like it, and I saw whole academic careers destroyed by vindictive historical critics (the Christian historical critics being at least as vindictive as the atheist ones!), but since then the narratological approach has become an accepted approach, and a good deal of work has been done employing it.

I don’t propose to try to argue you into accepting an alternative approach. All I can do is say, “Taste, and see if you like the flavor.”

76

So, even though the story is told using real people and places, we’re supposed to assume it’s fiction? When Jesus told stories as parables, he didn’t use actual people. Why use actual people and places if it’s meant to be fictional?

“all three are variations of a theme common to the popular oral histories of the Patriarchs” … Yes, exactly.

So, the much more likely explanation is that it’s an editing error. This same story was told/written multiple times, the characters changed over time, multiple stories were edited in along the places where these characters stories were told. Simple.

77

But that’s nothing like what’s described in Genesis, in which all that was not in the Ark died. Sure, there are floods every so often, especially in the marshy area that the Sumerians settled in. That’s not what Genesis is talking about. You are picking the pieces of the biblical narrative and the pieces of the archaeological record that you want to fit, while ignoring the rest.

No, they refer to a flood. But it doesn’t seem like the same flood.

The customary way to weasel out of that is to suppose that the flood was intended to kill off only the descendants of Adam. But those descendants, under your scenario, would be all of Sumerian civilization. You’re still picking the parts of Genesis you want to use and ignoring the rest. I admit I don’t see what your goal would be.

78

@Jeremy_Christian:

It is an editing error? What do you mean? They repeated a slightly different version of the story three times… and that is a slight error?

How about this one:

The first 3 gospels say Jesus ended his career by overturning the money-changer tables at the Temple.

The Gospel of John says Jesus started his career by overturning the money-changer tables at the Temple.

None of the 4 books mention the purported other occurrence of the tables … even though it would have been most relevant to have done so.

So which of the four gospels are so badly corrupted they can’t even get this major part of the story correct? The first 3? Or the 4th one?

79

Genesis 6:11-13 - Now the earth [LAND] was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth [LAND] had become, for all the people on earth [IN THE LAND] had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth [LAND] is filled with violence because of them.

Both Genesis and the Sumerian texts say Uruk was established not long after the flood.

80

The gospels are first-hand accounts recounted by four different individuals. It is common in cases like this for four different witnesses to remember details differently. That’s understandable.

This story of Abraham was probably told numerous times. It’s a good story to tell. The common man getting one over on a rich ruler. Over time the names would change to make the story relevant to the times it’s being told. Multiple copies were written.

Rather than choosing one, the editor edited in the one with the name “Abram” into the part of the story before his name was changed, the one with the name “Abraham” into the part after his name was changed, and the one that says “Isaac” into his portion of the story.

To see this as an editing issue is understandable, but to make this out to be God creating a teachable moment is a bit of a stretch.