Curious what theologians throughout history made of Genesis 4

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Jeremy_Christian

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.

@Jeremy_Christian

Exactly!!

And then you turn around, sit down, and punch out a yarn that this is all traceable to the Sumerians, etc. etc. etc…

There is just not enough reliable information in Genesis or the other early O.T. books to trace it to anything. Take the word “iron”, for example:

Gen 4:22
And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

Genesis, in the midst of the Bronze Age, says Tubalcain was a forger of Iron.
But iron was known… so let’s see what the Biblical trend is for IRON… let’s go to Leviticus:

Num 35:16
And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.

Ahhhh… this is where things go south… Numbers… they aren’t even in the highlands of Israel yet, and they are talking about people using every day blunt objects of IRON! If this was reliably the Bronze Age, it would essentially be saying that if you kill someone with Iron, you are a murderer, but if you kill them with the more common Bronze of this period, you are off the hook!

Deu 3:11
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

This Deuteronomy text is classic Iron Age… a whole bed is made of Iron… and a huge one at that!

Deu 4:20
But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.

This is another reference to the writer completely engulfed by a prevailing Iron Age mentality … During the time of Exodus, Egypt was still making things in bronze. Egypt would not have had the reputation for being an “iron furnace” because “iron furnaces” were not yet commonly known!

Deu 27:5
And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them.

Ditto for this text … which thinks iron tools are so prevalent, that even the altars are faced with iron tool work.

Deu 28:48
Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.

In Deuteronomy 28, more of the same: here, precious IRON is being used as a neck shackle… impossible during the bronze age!

Jos 8:31
As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.

In Joshua 8, iron is so common, it is the expected tool to be used on pagan altars… but most people don’t place Moses in the Iron Age. Do you, @Jeremy_Christian?

Jos 17:16
And the children of Joseph said, The hill is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of Bethshean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel.

Jos 17:18
But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.

2 verses in Joshua 17 that say Chariots of Iron?!?!? This would not be possible in the Bronze Age.

.
.
.

In these last 3 verses in Judges … more discussion of iron chariots… this depends on just where you place Judges in the Biblical timeline, @Jeremy_Christian.

Jdg 1:19
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Jdg 4:3
And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.

Jdg 4:13
And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@Jonathan_Burke

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.

The ages in the Sumerian King’s List is understandable. Most likely another error in translation. Because the Sumerian’s were known to have used a base-60 number system, when translating they used that system as well. It’s a pretty strong indicator that this is what happened since all the numbers given are divisible by 6.

Similar to roman numerals, in base-60 an I=6, X=60, C=600. So you can imagine the numbers would get inflated pretty quickly if the numbers written were actually supposed to be the standard base-10.

@Jonathan_Burke

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.

If those ages are translated base-10 they’re actually pretty comparable to the ages given in Genesis. And like Genesis, both show these spans to decrease dramatically after the flood.

@Jonathan_Burke

The Rulers of Lagash is intended to ridicule the Sumerian King List.

That’s fantastic! I did not know that.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@Jonathan_Burke

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?

This is what I’ve found as well. With both the Etiological and the Theological seeming to totally ignore the flood which would render both irrelevant.

I have not yet seen Hill’s work. Looks like something I’m going to have to dig into a bit.

As for scholars blaming the composers and editors, I’m looking for the theological explanation in the context of a believer studying and deciphering the “inerrant word of God”. Admitting it to be a fallible man-made product can’t be the common conclusion.

[John_Harshman]

@Jeremy_Christian

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

No, Genesis says nothing about Uruk.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@John_Harshman

No, Genesis says nothing about Uruk.

Genesis 10:10 - The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@gbrooks9

And then you turn around, sit down, and punch out a yarn that this is all traceable to the Sumerians, etc. etc. etc…

There is just not enough reliable information in Genesis or the other early O.T. books to trace it to anything.

You’re right. There’s very little in there to go on. That’s what got me started on all of this in the first place. I had so little context I couldn’t make sense out of these first books.

But there’s just enough in there to work with. Specifically there’s a timeline and detailed explanation of the geographical location these stories are set in.

In this age quite a bit of archaeological and anthropological research has been done in this time and place and a lot is now known that hasn’t been known for very long.

Using this little bit of information a lot can be learned. And if you can actually find where/when these stories happened, even more can be made of it.

I understand how you see it. There’s a lot of people out there with a lot of different crazy ideas about this stuff. All I can do is consistently address the objections.

[John_Harshman]

@Jeremy_Christian

The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar.

Is Erech the same as Uruk? Didn’t know. But note: Babylon and Akkad are there too. These are just cities that the writer of Genesis knew were old, though they’re all of different ages and the majority aren’t even Sumerian cities. You can’t take those stories seriously, and you’re still cherry-picking.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@John_Harshman

Is Erech the same as Uruk? Didn’t know. But note: Babylon and Akkad are there too. These are just cities that the writer of Genesis knew were old, though they’re all of different ages and the majority aren’t even Sumerian cities. You can’t take those stories seriously, and you’re still cherry-picking.

They’re Sumerian. For example, Babylon is Eridu. It just hadn’t been called Eridu for a very long time. It was known as Babylon. Same place. Same with Akkad. Akkadians took Sumer over. Akkad was a Sumerian city before it was known as Akkad.

[John_Harshman]

None of that is true. Babylon and Eridu are different cities a long distance apart, and Babylon was founded by Akkadians. Akkad was never a Sumerian city either. The various cities were all founded by different peoples at different times.

[John_Harshman]

Good gravy: Kalneh isn’t even a real city; it’s a mistranslation of a word meaning “all of them”. You, sir, are a true scholar.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Jeremy_Christian

They’re Sumerian. For example, Babylon is Eridu. It just hadn’t been called Eridu for a very long time. It was known as Babylon. Same place. Same with Akkad. Akkadians took Sumer over. Akkad was a Sumerian city before it was known as Akkad.

@Jeremy_Christian,

Maybe you need to become an expert on Sumer before you try to become an expert on the Old Testament? Since we don’t know where Akkad was, it may have been a Sumerian city, or it may have been Sumerian wasteland, thus first settled by Akkadians:

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

BABYLON vs. ERIDU
" Based on an Old Babylonian period itinerary from Mari, Syria, Akkad would be on the Tigris just downstream of the current city of Baghdad. Mari documents also indicate that Akkad is sited at a river crossing."

Babylonia

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

AKKAD vs. UNKNOWN LOCATION
“… ruling from his (archaeologically as yet unidentified) capital, Akkad (also Agade ).”

" Based on an Old Babylonian period itinerary from Mari, Syria, Akkad would be on the Tigris just downstream of the current city of Baghdad. Mari documents also indicate that Akkad is sited at a river crossing."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

You got close with Erech (or: Erek) … but it is not the Babylonian name for Uruk. It is the Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic name for Uruk. Middle Persian used a spelling more like Eraq… perhaps the Greeks picked up on that pronunciation that continued into the modern period.

H751 - 'ereḵ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

.
.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[Jeremy_Christian]

@John_Harshman

None of that is true. Babylon and Eridu are different cities a long distance apart, and Babylon was founded by Akkadians. Akkad was never a Sumerian city either. The various cities were all founded by different peoples at different times.

You’re right, I was wrong about Eridu/Babylon. I was thinking of this …
“One name of Eridu in cuneiform logograms was pronounced “NUN.KI” (“the Mighty Place”) in Sumerian, but much later the same “NUN.KI” was understood to mean the city of Babylon.”

But all, Uruk, Akkad, and Babylon, were Sumerian sites referred to here by their Akkadian names after Sumer came under Akkadian rule.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@John_Harshman

Good gravy: Kalneh isn’t even a real city; it’s a mistranslation of a word meaning “all of them”. You, sir, are a true scholar.

Who said anything about Kalneh?

[John_Harshman]

@Jeremy_Christian

Who said anything about Kalneh?

You did.

@Jeremy_Christian

The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar.

@Jeremy_Christian

Uruk, Akkad, and Babylon, were Sumerian sites

Well, Uruk was. One out of three.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@John_Harshman

Uruk, Akkad, and Babylon, were Sumerian sites

Well, Uruk was. One out of three.

You do understand the Akkadians and Babylonians and Sumerians were all in the same place, just during different times, right? They’re all in southern Mesopotamia. The area being referred to here as “Shinar”.

[John_Harshman]

@Jeremy_Christian

You do understand the Akkadians and Babylonians and Sumerians were all in the same place, just during different times, right?

Not true. The Sumerians were generally restricted to the area around the mouth of the two rivers, while Akkad and Babylon with northwest of that. Neither was ever a Sumerian city. And both postdate the founding of the major Sumerian cities.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@John_Harshman

Not true. The Sumerians were generally restricted to the area around the mouth of the two rivers, while Akkad and Babylon with northwest of that. Neither was ever a Sumerian city. And both postdate the founding of the major Sumerian cities.

You see the map posted above that shows Babylon situated between Kish and Sippar? Sumerian cities.

Anyway, before we got off on this whole ridiculous and irrelevant side bar, we were talking about how the flood in Genesis and the one in the Sumerian texts are the same because of their relation to Uruk.

The two versions of the stories mirror each other because Genesis and the Sumerian stories share the same history because they’re happening in the same region at the same time.

[John_Harshman]

@Jeremy_Christian

You see the map posted above that shows Babylon situated between Kish and Sippar? Sumerian cities.

Sippar, perhaps. There seems considerable doubt about how much of the population of Kish was Sumerian rather than Akkadian.

@Jeremy_Christian

The two versions of the stories mirror each other because Genesis and the Sumerian stories share the same history because they’re happening in the same region at the same time.

But they don’t mirror each other that much. In order to make them match you have to assume that most of Genesis is garbled. Is that your claim?

[Jeremy_Christian]

@John_Harshman

But they don’t mirror each other that much. In order to make them match you have to assume that most of Genesis is garbled. Is that your claim?

You don’t think?

Sumerian version : The first man was created in Eden, mentioned as the “garden of the gods”, and is located in between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Sound familiar?

A flood story complete with a “flood hero” who had previous knowledge of the flood and who built a boat and saved his family and a bunch of animals.

Then, the Babel story … “Once … the whole universe, the people in unison, spoke to Enlil in one tongue. … Then Enki, the lord of abundance … changed the speech in their mouths, brought contention into it, into the speech of man that [until then] had been one.”

[John_Harshman]

@Jeremy_Christian

Sound familiar?

No, as a matter of fact. In the bible, Eden is located at the headwaters of (not between) four rivers, one of which is the Nile. But it’s true that the Sumerian creation and flood stories have many similarities to Genesis. The usual notion is that the Genesis stories were cribbed from the Sumerian, not that they represent the same real events. And neither of them is identifiable with archeology.