The River of Eden and It's Four Branches (Please Click here for Part Two of this Article)
(The Euphrates and its Four Alluvial "Heads" [And the Homeric Ionian Greek Freshwater River Ocean])
Please click here for _my map_ showing the location of the Garden of Eden based on my research.
Please click here for this website's most important article: Why the Bible Cannot be the Word of God.
For Christians visiting this website _my most important article_ is The Reception of God's Holy Spirit:
09 May 2005 (Revisions through 01 July 2008)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I understand that Genesis is _denying, refuting and challenging_ the Mesopotamian myths' explanation of Who, What, Why, Where, When and How man came to made, what his purpose on earth is, and why he does not possess immortality. I understand that the Hebrews accomplished these denials or challenges by taking motifs and concepts from a variety of contradicting myths and giving them "new twists," changed the names of the characters, the locations, and sequences of events. It is my understanding that the Hebrews were deliberately CHANGING _or_ RECASTING the earlier myths and their motifs IN ORDER TO REFUTE AND DENY, AND CHALLENGE THEM, hence the "reason why" there are _no_ individuals called Adam, Eve, the Serpent, Yahweh, Noah, Shem, Japheth and Ham appearing in _any_ of the Mesopotamian pre-biblical myths. This "understanding" explains why there appear to be "echoes" or "parallels" or "similarities" between Genesis and the Mesopotamian concepts and motifs regarding man's creation. The Hebrews are NOT "copying" the Mesopotamian stories, they are RECASTING CERTAIN MOTIFS AND CONCEPTS WITHIN THEM in order TO REFUTE THEM.
Why did the Hebrews seek to deny, refute and challenge the Mesopotamian beliefs? Why did Christianity refute and deny Judaism? Why did Islam refute and deny Judaism and Christianity? Apparently each felt that its predecessor had wrong or erroneous beliefs regarding the relationship between God and Man and accordingly each sought to "correct" these "false" views via recastings or reworkings of the earlier stories in order to_deny, refute, and challenge_. For example, the New Testament while preserving verses from the Old Testament, gives these verses new meanings, rejecting the Jewish interpretations. Islam recast certain stories in the Old and New Testaments, Abraham offered his son Ishmael to God instead of Isaac, Jesus is not the God who made Adam and Eve in his role as the Logos or Word, Allah is the God of Abraham, not Yahweh or Christ.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
03 December 2007 An important WARNING or CAVEAT:
For two millennia (2000 years) scholars have attempted to locate the Garden of Eden by identifying the Edenic rivers. It is obvious to me after some 30 years of personal research that this is a flawed and unproductive methodology. The below article will explore the "problems" in using modern maps of rivers and wadies (dry river beds) to pinpoint the location of the Garden of Eden.
I understand that the Garden of Eden is a myth, a later Hebrew reworking of motifs appearing in earlier Mesopotamian myths regarding how and why man came to be created by the gods. These myths reveal that man was created inorder to work in their city-gardens located in Lower Mesopotamia, then called Akkad and Sumer.
My research suggests that Genesis' notion that a river rises in Eden and becomes four streams is recalling the Euphrates subdividing into three or four branches in the Lower Mesopotamian floodplain. In support of this proposal I have provided several maps drawn up by scholars showing just such a situation. The perceptive reader will, of course, quickly realize there is _not_ agreement among scholars on how to show these subdivisions of the Euphrates. Some show three, others four streams. To some degree the subdivisions are based on attempts to align the streams with the remains of ancient cities who drew their water for irrigation purposes from them. On just about any subject there exists scholarly disagreements and controversy. The purpose of the below maps is to call to the reader's attention that "some" scholars understand the Euphrates subdivided into three or four streams in antiquity and this phenomenon _becomes for me_ the "background" for Genesis' portrayal of a river rising in Eden and becoming four streams. Some scholars have noted that the Hebrews in the book of Genesis appear to have borrowed and recast the Sumerian notion that ten kings reigned before the Shuruppak Flood of circa 2900 B.C. making them into Abraham's pre-flood ancestors (Genesis 5:1-28), denying that they are kings and changing their names. I suspect these scholars are correct. Perhaps the "four" streams crossing the Lower Mesopotamian floodplain called edin in Sumerian were _also_ "recast" with different names as well? That is to say, the Hebrews apparently preserved two of the four streams' names as the Euphrates (Purattu) and Hiddekel (Id-iqlat), but changed the names and locations of the other two streams, the Arakhtu/Arahtu and Abgal/Apkallatu (the Pishon associated with Havilah and Gihon associated with Cush)? With these caveats or warnings in mind let the reader proceed!
The first century A.D. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus understood that Eden's river subdivided into four great rivers which encompassed the world. Whether this is his speculation or he is passing on a tradition will never be known. If he is correct then it may possibly be that Genesis' narrator took the notion that a river in Eden subdivided into four streams (the Euphrates subdividing into four major channels in Lower Mesopotamia, the Sumerian edin/eden floodplain) and gave this phenomenon "_a new twist_," by having two of the streams flowing through the Mesopotamian edin/edin as flowing in other parts of the world? Perhaps Wadi Bishah near the Yemen becoming the Pishon (Khawlan in the Yemen becoming Havilah) and the Gihon becoming the Nile in Cush (Sudan)? In other words he was engaged in a little "tongue-in-cheek" over-embellishment or "stretching of the truth" of the real geographical facts: that a stream leaving God's garden in Eden is the source of water for _all_ the great streams of the known world, no matter how farway they are from Mesopotamia (the Gihon/Nile in Cush/Sudan and the Pishon/Bishah near the Yemen).
Many Christians are interested in locating the Garden _OF_ Eden. The Bible however, states that God planted a Garden _IN_ Eden:
Genesis 2:8 TANAKH (Philadelphia. The Jewish Publication Society. 1988. [5748 since the Creation])
"The LORD God planted a garden _in_ Eden, in the east, and placed there the man whom He had formed."
Some scholars understand Eden is Sumerian edin (Note: Sumerian edin is rendered as eden by some scholars), the great semi-arid plain of Lower Mesopotamia (where lay ancient Akkad and Sumer) crossed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and I am in agreement with this understanding.
Three CONTRADICTING Mesopotamian myths reveal man was created in three cities: Eridu, Nippur and Babylon by the gods Enki (Ea), Enlil (Ellil) and Marduk (biblical Merodach). Other myths, the so-called "Ewe and Wheat" and "Eridu Genesis Myth," state that primeval man aimlessly wanders a steppe (edin), abandoned and ignored by the gods, in a state of nakedness with wild animals for companions, eating grass and lapping water at waterholes before the goddess Nintur takes him from this place of desolation and has him build cities for the gods and care for their city gardens.
My personal research reveals that "many Mesopotamian locations or sites" are bound up in Yahweh-Elohim's "Garden _in_ Eden" account from differing myths involving different characters. That is to say, EVERY MESOPOTAMIAN CITY had its GOD'S GARDEN in which man worked, to provide food for the god. There is NOT _A_GARDEN_IN_EDIN, but _MANY_ GOD'S CITY GARDENS _IN_ EDIN. The Hebrews in "recasting" the Mesopotamian myths are _REFUTING_ this fact, replacing the many GOD'S CITY-GARDENS IN EDIN with ONE GOD'S GARDEN IN EDEN, portraying it as "unassociated" with a city; another Hebrew _refutation_ of the Mesopotamian belief that a God's garden is an aspect of the city the god dwells in. Genesis has Cain building the world's first city, Enoch, AFTER THE EXPULSION from the Garden in Eden. Genesis is refuting, challenging and denying the Mesopotamian understanding of how man came to be created and PLACED IN A GOD'S CITY GARDEN to care for it.
So, dear reader, in reality, it is quite impossible to "locate" the Garden _in_ Eden using Genesis' description of one river becoming four streams because this is a "recasting" of earlier Mesopotamian myths. No such river system exists or has ever existed except in the realm of fantasy and imagination.
Some Christian scholars claim Eden's garden can never be found because Noah's flood destroyed the original beds of the Edenic rivers, burying them under tons of Flood sediment. Some Roman Catholic scholars date Noah's Flood to ca. 2958 B.C. while some Protestants claim the Flood was ca. 2348 B.C. Both dates fall in the 3rd millennium BC. The problem? According to Geologists and Archaeologists there is no evidence of a worldwide flood covering the earth's mountaintops in the 3rd millennium B.C. Villages in the Middle East (Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Egypt) are documented from the 12th through 1st millenniums B.C. and there is no universal Flood deposit in this period of time.There is also no geological evidence that the Tigris (biblical Hiddekel) and Euphrates rivers ever arose from one river. The biblical portrayal of Eden's river system is then, fantasy.
If scholars are "correct" that Sumerian edin was later transformed into Eden, and I assume they are, and if I am correct that the city gardens of edin (ancient Akkad and Sumer of Lower Mesopotamia) have been transformed into Genesis' Garden _in_ Eden, what then is recoverable for pinpointing the biblical "Paradise" on a modern map?
The "Golden Key" for unlocking the mystery of where the Garden in Eden lies is to _isolate the prototype_ for Mesopotamia's city gardens of the gods. In other words, WHAT CITY WAS THE _FIRST_ TO BE CREATED WITH ITS GOD'S CITY GARDEN according to the myths ? This "prototype" was identified over 100 years ago in the 19th century by professional scholars (Assyriologists). Even today, in the 21st century, one encounters in the scholarly literature the acknowledgement of the site which constitutes "the prototype" for the gods' city gardens in edin. This site has been excavated by trained archaeologists, its modern name is Tell Abu Shahrein, in the Sumerian myths it was called Eridug meaning "the good city," (Akkadian/Babylonian: Eridu). For further information on Eridu being the Mesopotamian EQUIVALENT of the Garden of Eden you will need to access an article which is divided into TWO parts. Please click here for PART ONE and click here for PART TWO (Note: after clicking on the article go to your browser menu at the top of your screen, click on the "FIND" Box, enter Eridu, and the FIND Box will scan the article highlighting this word, saving you the tedious task of reading the whole article. PLEASE READ _BOTH_ PARTS. A little warning: Eridu is but _one_ of several pre-biblical sites that came fused together into Genesis' garden of Eden)
Now, on to the Original Subject, the Four Rivers of Eden and the "Problems" in identifying them:
Apparently Sumerian edin, later superceded by Akkadian seru or seri, meaning "plain," also rendered "steppe" or "desert" by others, applies equally well to the "semi-arid desert-plains" of _both_ Upper AND Lower Mesopotamia. The Sumerians knew of two edins, a high steppe/plain called an edin and a low steppe/plain called ki edin. The term edin was applied to _uncultivated land_. The gods' city-gardens were _never_ called edin. The cities and their city-gardens were surrounded by uncultivated steppe/plain called the edin. Thus the gods' city-gardens were _in_ the edin, or surrounded by the edin. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers flow through the uncultivated edin, later, according to myths, the gods created Mesopotamia's cities and city-gardens in the formerly uncultivated edin and make man to care for their city-gardens.
For approximately 100 years (cf. Friedrich Delitzsch. Wo Lag das Paradies? [Where Lay the Paradise?] Leipzig, Germany. 1881) various scholars have suggested that Genesis' Eden is recalling the Sumerian word edin which is variously rendered by different scholars as "plain" or, on other occasions, "steppe," "desert," and "wilderness."
Therein lay the problem for me ! A "plain" can be a flood-plain _or_ a high plain ("steppe"). My earlier error was in assuming that edin or "plain" applied exclusively to the Lower Mesopotamian flood-plain. Steppe and Flood-plain are not synonymous in geographical nomenclature although both are types of a plain. Because I understand that the Euphrates is the "river of Eden" which becomes four rivers, it finally dawned on me that it is a single river ONLY in the high plain or "steppe" (Sumerian: an-edin) once it leaves this area near Sippar it breaks up into numerous channels across a much lower plain, the flood-plain (Sumerian: ki edin). Because I understand that edin is the Mesopotamian plain from Haran to Eridu, the river of Eden mentioned in Genesis is the Euphrates from the Habur river to Ramadi. Near Sippar (south of Ramadi) it becomes several channels, thus Genesis' "single" river in Eden as well as its four streams, both lie in edin the plain, the high plain or steppe as well as the low plain or flood plain of Lower Mesopotamia!
Maisels on edin being the uncultivated "steppe" surrounding Mesopotamian cities:
"The wool and meat requirements were met by continuous movements from the periphery of Mesopotamia to the temple centres, funneled largely through Dreham (Calvot 1969:103-13) to supplement the state herds kept on both the alluvial fallow and upon the surrounding non-cultivable (edin) steppelands (Adams 1981:148). Steppe, stubble, and riparian verdure were, however, systematically linked in the ecology of pastoral nomadism, tribally organized." (p. 186. Charles Keith Maisels. The Emergence of Civilzation, From hunting and gathering to agriculture, cities, and the state in the Near East. London & New York. Routledge. 1990, 1993. ISBN 0-415-096596 paperback)
To the degree that Sumerian edin means "uncultivated steppe" please click here for a map showing the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flowing through steppelands as demarcated by Maisels. In other words, Maisel's map of "the steppe" reveals the location of "edin-the-uncultivated-steppe," and to the degree some scholars have suggested the biblical Eden is derived from Sumerian Edin you will "see" what Eden looks like, its huge! Note: The Mesopotamians never called their city-gardens Edin. Their cities and city-gardens LIE IN or WERE SURROUNDED BY UNCULTIVATED STEPPE (THE EDIN).
Pinches:
"Like Sippar too, Babylon was situated in what was called the plain, the edina, of which Babylonia mainly consisted, and which is apparently the original of the Garden of Eden." (p. 43. Theophilus G. Pinches. The Old Testament In the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia. London. Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge. 1908)
Pinches -if I am reading him right- notes the mention of Sumerian edin as a "plain" of verdue (my emphasis):
"Though one cannot be dogmatic in the presence of the imperfect records that we possess, it is worthy of note that _Eden DOES NOT OCCUR_ as the name of the earthly paradise in any of the texts referring to the Creation that have come down to us; and though it is to be found in the bilingual story of the Creation, it there occurs simply as the equivalent of the Semitic word _serim_ in the phrase "he (Merodach) made the verdue of the _plain_." (p. 72. "From the Creation to the Flood." Theophilus G. Pinches. The Old Testament In the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia. London. Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge. 1908)
Some explanation is needed here regarding Akkadian seru, seri or serim and its replacement of Sumerian edin:
Professor Blenkinsopp of Notre Dame University (1992) on motifs and concepts drawn from the Atrahasis Flood myth and the Epic of Gilgamesh by Genesis' author:
"...just as Genesis 1-11 as a whole corresponds to the structure of the Atrahasis myth, so the garden of Eden story has incorporated many of the themes of the great Gilgamesh poem." (pp. 65-6. "Human Origins, Genesis 1:1-11:26." Joseph Blenkinsopp. The Pentateuch, An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York. Doubleday. 1992. ISBN 0-385-41207-X)
I understand that Enkidu and Shamhat have been recast by the Hebrews into Adam and Eve in agreement with Professors Graves and Patai (cf. pp. 78-79. "The Fall of Man." Robert Graves & Raphael Patai. Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. New York. Greenwich House. 1963, 1964, reprint of 1983) and the watering hole they encountered each other at has been transformed into Genesis' Garden _in_ Eden.
What "baffled" me for the longest time was, how did the encounter of Enkidu (Adam) and Shamhat (Eve) at a watering hole in the Akkadian seru ("steppe") come to be morphed later by the Hebrews into the Hebrew word `eden?
The Sumerian word for uncultivated steppeland is edin. The Epic of Gilgamesh although written in Akkadian which renders "steppe" as seru or seri, states unequivocally that Shamhat saw Enkidu at the watering hole as a wild man of "edin" (the steppe). How is it that the watering hole is described as being in _the edin_ instead of being in _the seru_?
Akkadian scribes were trained in both Sumerian and Akkadian, they frequently used Sumerian LOGOGRAMS (cuneiform signs) as "substitutes" for Akkadian words. Hence Enkidu "the wild man of the steppe" was written using the Sumerian logogram (EDIN)! The scribe knew upon seeing this logogram that it was synonymous with the Akkadian word seru or seri, meaning steppe.
Professor Spieser on Enkidu's arrival at the watering hole in the steppe (steppe in Sumerian being edin, Akkadian seru), where wait Shamhat the harlot-priestess of Uruk and the Hunter (Note: the below bold print is transcribed by Heidel, which follows, into Akkadian):
"The creeping creatures came, their heart DELIGHTING in water.
But as for him, Enkidu, born in the hills-
With the gazelles he feeds on grass,
With the wild beasts he drinks at the watering-place,
With the creeping creatures his heart DELIGHTS in water-
The lass beheld him, the savage-man,
The barbarous fellow from the depths of the steppe:
"There he is, O lass, Free thy breasts,
Bare thy bosom that he may possess thy ripeness!
Be not bashful! Welcome his ardor!
As soon as he sees thee, he will draw near to thee.
Lay aside thy cloth that he may rest upon thee.
Treat him, the savage, to a woman's task! Reject him will his wild beasts that grew up on his steppe,
As his love is drawn unto thee."
The lass freed her breasts, bared her bosom,
And he possessed her ripeness.
She was not bashful as she welcomed his ardor..."
(p. 44. E. A. Speiser. "The Epic of Gilgamesh." James B. Pritchard. Editor. The Ancient Near East, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton, New Jersey. Princeton University Press. 1958. paperback)
Heidel reproduces the above words (which I have rendered above in bold print) from the Epic of Gilgamesh ("he" is in reference to Enkidu):
"...while on Tablet I. 4:7, he is called
itlu (GURUS) sag-ga-sa-a sa-qa-bal-ti seri (EDIN):
"The savage man from the midst of the seru."
(cf. p. 233. Alexander Heidel. "A Special Usage of the Akkadian Term Sadu." The Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Vol. 8. No. 3. July 1949)
My thanks to Robert M. Whiting, PhD. of Helsinki, Finland, a professional Assyriologist (Managing Editor of the world-renown Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, The Assyrian State Archives Series) for explaining to me that Heidel's 1949 transcription reveals that the scribe actually wrote the word "steppe" using the Sumerian LOGOGRAM (EDIN), and that modern scholars "read" (EDIN) as a substitution for seru. Heidel's transcription also reveals that the Akkadian word itlu was actually written as (GURUS) another Sumerian LOGOGRAM. Whiting explained that the use of Sumerian logograms in lieu of Akkadian words is quite common in Akkadian compositions.
Whiting's explanation solved the the long-standing mystery for me of how _seru_ the "steppe" came to become Hebrew `eden, I realized that the Hebrews had apparently _morphed_ the Sumerian logogram (EDIN) into Eden! Hebrew `eden means "DELIGHT" or a "placed well-watered," and we are told when Enkidu appeared at the watering hole in EDIN, his and the wild animals' heart's DELIGHT was its "WATER." So, I understand that the Hebrews took this notion of a naked man's DELIGHT over WATER and _morphed_ EDIN's watering hole into Hebrew `eden, a place of DELIGHT (The Mystery solved at long last, after some 3000 years!).
Enkidu's exploits first appear in several Sumerian short stories which were later brought together to create the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh and the plain/steppe he wanderd naked with animal companions (like Adam) is edin in Sumerian. The Akkadian "rewrite" apparently preserved the original Sumerian logogram (EDIN). So a naked Shamhat had sex with a naked man of (EDIN), and this act of copulation lasting 6 days and 7 nights caused his wild animal companions the gazelles to flee from him when he attempted to rejoin them. Shamhat convinced him to leave (EDIN) with her and go to Uruk to meet Gilgamesh. He agrees and she covers his nakedness with part of her clothing. The naked man of (EDIN) who has been forsaken by his animal companions casts his lot with womankind for companionship (just as naked Adam's animal companions were supplanted by a naked Eve) and together they leave (EDIN"S) watering hole clothed and naked no more. Down through the millennia the "undoing" of a naked man of (EDIN) and his casting his lot with a naked woman instead of the animals of edin/seru was preserved in the Sumerian logogram (EDIN). Clay tablets written in Akkadian from Jerusalem were found at Tell el Amarna in Egypt, the capital of Pharaoh Akhenaton (reigned: 1350-1334 B.C.). These tablets reveal the city had scribes trained in Sumerian and Akkadian and I suspect they passed on to their Jewish sons and daughters the story of the wild naked man of (EDIN) who was forsaken by edin's beasts over a naked woman, and these Jews in Iron Age II (1100-587 B.C.) rewrote this account as Adam and Eve in Eden. When Enkidu arrived at the watering hole we are told his and the beasts' hearts' _DELIGHT_ was its water. Shamhat, however saw the watering hole as a place of DESOLATION, bereft of shepherds, urging Enkidu to leave with her this edin. I "suspect" the Jews _morphed_ Enkidu's and the beasts' heart's DELIGHT with water at the watering hole in (EDIN) with the Hebrew word 'eden meaning DELIGHT or "a place well-watered" (so, some scholars). The Hebrews (Jews) are denying, refuting, and challenging the Mesopotamian understanding that the gods' gardens are city-gardens and their hearts' delight is to live in cities. The Hebrews have God's garden as being in the midst of the wilderness of 'eden (edin) where can be found in Mesopotamian myths naked man with wild animals for companions DELIGHTING in the water of the watering holes of edin. Edin's watering hole is _not_ presented in the Epic of Gilgamesh as a God's city-garden or a lush garden, it is a place of desolation in city dweller's eyes, only naked primeval man and his wild animals have their "heart's DELIGHT" here in its water.
Please click here for a map showing what I believe to be the location of watering hole where Enkidu (Adam) was "undone" by Shamhat (Eve), which became Genesis' garden in `eden.
As regards the Iron Age II (1100-587 B.C.) Jews being _descendants_ of Jerusalem's Jebusites who had scribes trained in writing and reading Sumerian and Akkadian here's the Bible's explanation:
Judges 3: 5-6 RSV
"So the people of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, AND _THE JEBUSITES_; and they took their daughters to themselves for wives, and their own daughters they gave to their sons; and they served their gods."
Note: Some Conservative Protestant Scholars understand the Exodus was circa 1446 B.C. and Conquest of Canaan circa 1406 B.C. For these scholars "the days of the Judges" extend from 1406 B.C. to Saul's reign circa 1020 B.C. The Jebusites of Jerusalem, circa 1350-1334 B.C., _in_ "the days of the Judges" possessed scribes trained in writing Akkadian and Sumerian as witness the letters from Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaten advising him only Jerusalem remains loyal to Pharaoh, the rest of the land has gone over to Pharaoh's enemies described as "slaves who have become Habiru." I "suspect" the Jewish descendants of the Jebusites transformed the Mesopotamian accounts handed down to them from their Jebusite ancestors, transforming them into Genesis' Garden of Eden account.
Alternately: Perhaps Terah, Nahor and Abraham of Ur of the Chaldees transformed edin into `eden?
There is some confusion on how to interpret Genesis' statement regarding the "river of Eden" and its four streams, do the streams divide after leaving the garden or does the division of one river into four streams occur within the garden? What is mean by "THERE"? The land of Eden? or the garden of Eden?
Genesis 2:10, RSV
"A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and THERE it divided and became four rivers."
The Jewish scholar Yahuda (1934) thought the splitting of the four rivers occured _after_ leaving the garden of Eden:
"It must first be emphasized that in Genesis 2:10 there is no mention of four rivers flowing through paradise. Quite on the contrary, it is expressly stated that "a river went out of Eden to water the garden," which can only mean one river. The four rivers mentioned immediately afterwards actually have nothing to do with paradise itself. The whole passage (Genesis 2:10-14) does not refer to paradise, but to the relation of the four rivers to that one river of paradise. All that this passage meant to convey was that the one river of paradise gave origin to the four greatest world streams, thus representing paradise as the source of prosperity and fertility for the whole earth...As already stated, the text of the Paradise story does not say a single word which suggests that the four rivers were within the paradise "to water the garden." The Hebrew text of Genesis 2:10 does not mean that the division of the one river into four was effected within the area of paradise. What it means to convey is that those rivers came forth from that one river after it had left the garden." (pp. 164-165; 168. "The Story of Paradise." Abraham S. Yahuda. The Accuracy of the Bible, the stories of Joseph, the Exodus and Genesis Confirmed and Illustrated by the Egyptian Monuments and Language. London. William Heinemann Ltd. 1934)
The Jewish scholar Cassuto seems to agree with Yahuda (1944):
"...we are told that a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and thereafter it divided into four big rivers..." (p. 77. Umberto Cassuto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Vol. 1. [From Adam to Noah]. Jerusalem. The Hebrew University. 1944-1968 in Hebrew; 1961-1989 in English. ISBN 965-223-480-X)
If the Hebrew Eden is recalling the Sumerian/Akkadian edin-the-steppe, the problem becomes finding a river in "edin-the-steppe" of Mesopotamia that becomes four rivers!
I suspect that what is being recalled here is the Euphrates being the source of numerous streams which crisscross the floodplain of Lower Mesopotamia. That is to say edin-the-steppe (a steppe is geographically described as a high plain, usually grassy with no trees, except where a river in the steppe might provide enough water for their growth) is NOT exclusively Lower Mesopotamia's great floodplain from Baghdad to the Persian Gulf -as I had earlier and mistakenly thought- but instead, _also_ Northern Mesopotamia's high steppe from the vicinity of ancient Haran to Sippar (modern Abu Habbah west of Baghdad). Thus I am _now_ proposing that "the river of Eden" is the Euphrates between Haran and Sippar and that Eden is both the "High Plain" and Low Plain . That is to say, the "Garden of Eden" appears to have been located in Mesopotamia! We are told Eden was located "IN THE EAST" and we are told that Haran, which came to be identified with Abraham's adoptive home was "IN THE EAST". That is to say, Haran is in edin-the-plain of Northern Mesopotamia:
Genesis 29:1, 4 RSV
"Then Jacob went on his journey, and he came to the land of the people OF THE EAST...Jacob said to them, "My brothers, where do you come from?" They said, "We are from Haran."
Ancient Mesopotamian texts spoke of Sippar as Sipar Edina, translated by Pinches (1908) as "Sippar of Eden." Geologically speaking _the High Steppe of northern Mesopotamia _begins near Sippar_, and it is in this location that the Euphrates is transformed from a single stream to several watercourses as it meanders over the great floodplain of Lower Mesopotamia and eventually empties into the Persian Gulf. So, perhaps Sipar Edina means "Sipar of the Steppe"?
Pinches (1908) on edin (his edina) possibly being Eden of the Bible:
"It had long been known that one of the Akkadian names for "plain" was edina, and that that word had been borrowed by the Babylonians under the form edinnu, but it was Professor Delitzsch, the well-known Assyriologist, who first pointed out to a disbelieving world that this must be the Eden of Genesis. The present writer [Pinches] thought this identification worthless until he had the privilege of examining the tablets acquired by Dr. Hayes Ward in Babylonia on the occasion of his conducting the Wolfe expedition. Among the fragments of tablets that he then brought back was a list of cities in the Akkadian language (the Semitic Babylonian column was unfortunately broken away) which gave the following:
Transcription Translation
Sipar, D.S. Sippara.
Sipar Edina D.S. Sippara of Eden.
Sipar uldua D.S. Sippara the everlasting.
Sipar Shamash D.S. Sippara of the Sun-god.
Here at last was the word Eden used as a geographical name, showing that the explanation of Delitzsch was not only plausible, but also, in all probability true in substance and in fact." (p. 70. "From the Creation to the Flood." Theophilus G. Pinches. The Old Testament In the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia. London. Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge. 1908)
Perhaps Genesis' notion that the Euphrates and Tigris were once a part of an edenic stream is recalling a 4th millennium B.C. situation preserved in very ancient oral traditions "from before" Abraham's 3rd millennium B.C. world?
Cf. the below statements by Michael Roaf (an Associate Professor at the University of California, Berkeley) and Susan Pollock (an Associate Professor at the State University of New York, Binghamton) on the Tigris and Euphrates _separating from each other_ in this time period:
Roaf (emphasis mine in capitals):
"In the Early and Middle Uruk periods there was a vast increase in the number and size of sites. The northern part of the region near Nippur, where meanders of an old river course can still be seen, was particularly well populated. This ancient course was about the same size as the modern Euphrates. It appears that in the Early and Middle Uruk times THE TIGRIS AND EUPHRATES JOINED FARTHER UPSTREAM and then flowed in a number of channels through the alluvial plain." (p. 59. "The Urban Explosion, 4000-3000 B.C." Michael Roaf. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Facts on File. 1990. ISBN 0-8160-2218-6)
Pollock on the _union_ of the Tigris and Euphrates prior to the 4th millennium B.C. and their consequent separation when the Euphrates moved westwards (emphasis mine in capitals):
"Around the middle of the fourth millennium, the Euphrates abandoned one or more of its major channels in the northern alluvium, shifting its bed further to the west. This shift RESULTED IN THE SEPARATION OF THE TIGRIS AND EUPHRATES. It may have contributed to the frequent movement of settlements in the Nippur-Adab region during that time as people relocated to follow water availability." (pp. 71-72. "Settlement Patterns." Susan Pollock. Ancient Mesopotamia, The Eden that Never Was. New York. Cambridge University Press. 1999, 5th printing 2004. ISBN 0-521-57568-0 paperback)
"The frequent shifting of settlements, especially smaller ones, is a striking feature of the settled landscape of southern Mesopotamia...Cessation of flow in river or irrigation channels must also have played an important role in settlementshifts. Channel movement need not have been dramatic AS THE SPLITTING OF THE TIGRIS AND THE EUPHRATES in the first half of the fourth millennium; even relatively small shifts could have left communities without adequate water supplies." (p. 76. "Settlement Patterns." Susan Pollock. Ancient Mesopotamia, The Eden that Never Was. New York. Cambridge University Press. 1999, 5th printing 2004. ISBN 0-521-57568-0 paperback)
Leick on Sippar's being founded in the fourth millennium at a time when the Euphrates and Tigris were joined in the Uruk period, circa 3500 to 3200 B.C. (Emphasis mine):
"Sippar lies some 20 kilometres south of Baghdad, where the courses of the Euphrates and Tigris come closest together. Like so many other Mesopotamian cities, its fate depended on the often erratic behaviour of these rivers, and the close proximity and interaction of the two flows resulted in particular hydraulic effects. ACCORDING TO GEO-ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS _THE RIVERS WERE ACTUALLY CONNECTED_ WHEN THE SITE WAS FIRST INHABITED DURING THE URUK PERIOD. Deposits of silt left by the Euphrates formed levees to make a habitable elevation above the flood plains. The city itself was situated along the Euphrates. The high content of sediment carried by this river had the gradual effect of burying the older Tigris channels, pushing that river further to the east. At the same time, the rising of the river bed caused a shift of the Euphrates further westwards, which resulted in a steady separation of the twin rivers, leaving an area of land which could be cultivated...Sippar had access to both major streams and their side-arms, though, during the historical periods, the Euphrates was far more important than the Tigris as a navigable waterway." (p. 167. "Sippar, A Tale of Two Cities." Gwendolyn Leick. Mesopotamia, The Invention of the City. London. Penguin Books. 2001)
Leick cites the work of de Meyer, Gasche and Paepe (1971), pp. 25-26 on the joining of the Euphrates and Tigris in antiquity (p. 299. Leick); cf. L. de Meyer, H. Gashe and R. Paepe (1971), Tell ed-Der I. Rapport preliminaire sur la premiere compagne, fevrier 1970, Leuven. (p. 323. Leick)
Crawford on the possibility that the Tigris and Euphrates united in the 6th-5th millennium B.C. from which arose several streams, stating that Adab, Umma and Larsa were fed by the Tigris. I note that after leaving Larsa the Tigris MERGES with the Euphrates just west of Ur, and eventually a COMBINED AND MERGED TIGRIS/EUPHRATES empties into the sea that Ur and Eridu lay next to in 3rd millennium B.C. texts. The fabled island of Dilmun, believed to ba a prototype of the Garden of Eden by some scholars was said to "lie at the mouth of the rivers," and the mouth of the Combined and Merged Tigris and Euphrates is near Ur/Eridu, suggesting for me Dilmun is Tall al-Lahm 20 miles east of Ur/Eridu.
Crawford (Emphasis mine):
"Here, in the southern plain, we can provide better evidence for the changes which have taken place in the environment over the six or seven thousand years since the plain was first permanently settled. The most important of these changes is in the course of the rivers. A combination of aerial and ground surveys indicates that the Tigris and Euphrates may at one time have formed ONE STREAM in the vicinity of modern Baghdad. A number of streams then ran out into the alluvium. Adams (1981) suggests that this may have been the position at the time of the earliest settlement on the plain in the fifth or early sixth millennium. Gradually some of the smaller streams dried up, leaving a forerunner of the modern Euphrates running approximately in the middle of the alluvium, while the Tigris lay slightly to the east of it, flowing through Adab, Umma and Larsa. The latter river was not edged eastwards into its modern bed until after the Kassite period in the later second millennium (Steinkeller 2001). The westward movement of the Euphrates can be traced on the ground, and by the progressive abandonment of ancient sites, such as the old religious capital of Nippur, which were founded on the old course of the river. The two rivers come together again at the southern end of the alluvium to form the Shatt-el-Arab, which winds its way through the great reed beds described so vividly by Wilfred Thesiger (1964), among others, out into the Arabian Gulf." (p. 9. Harriet Crawford. Sumer and the Sumerians. Cambridge, England. The Cambridge University Press. 1991, 2004)
The late Professor Andrew Sherratt (Oxford and Sheffield Universities, United Kingdom) on the Tigris and Euphrates "uniting" with each other from the fourth to the start of second millenniums B.C.:
"In the fourth millennium B.C., the UNIFIED TIGRIS AND EUPHRATES RIVERS ran down the spine of the elongated fan; by the beginning of the second millennium the two rivers appear to have split into separate channels, displaced outward from the central axis; in later historical times the two main watercourses have been further displaced, now running along the margins of the basin before being forced back together by the Batin and Karun-Karkeh fans, to flow through Basra to the present head of the Gulf. In consequence the central axis, once the best-watered and most fertile region, is now relatively arid and saline; in almost complete contrast to the landscapes which surrounded the earliest cities." (Map commentary #17. "Evolution of the Tigris-Euphrates Fan System." Andrew Sherratt. 'Environmental Change: The Evolution of Mesopotamia', ArchAtlas, October 2006, 2nd Edition, http://www.archatlas.org/EnvironmentalChange/EnvironmentalChange.php, Accessed: 15 April 2007)
Below, Professor Sherratt's map showing the Tigris _merging_ with the Euphrates in the vicinity of ancient Sippar south of modern Baghdad.
The Bible's chronology suggests for some scholars that Abraham was born at or near Ur of the Chaldees, modern Tell al Muqayyar (according to some), circa 2100 B.C. That's within the 3rd millennium B.C. portrayed on the above map showing this area circa 3000-2400 B.C. Could Abraham of Ur be "the source" of the Hebrew notion that Eden's river divided into four other rivers or "heads"? He would have received this tradition from the citizens of Ur. This city does possess cuneiform records that could have kept alive the memory of a river dividing into four parts as it crossed the floodplain of Lower Mesoptamia.
Of interest here is an observation made by Martin who made a survey in 1973 at nearby Shuruppak (Arabic: Tell Fara) that in this millennium the Euphrates subdivided into four heads or streams, which recalls for me Genesis' notion the river of Eden divides into four heads (Hebrew: rasim):
Leick on Martin's observations about Shuruppak (emphasis mine):
"As Martin has observed, 'undoubtedly its [Shuruppak's] position on the Euphrates near THE HEADS OF FOUR WATERCOURSES flowing down the eastern Euphrates was at least responsible for this boom. Similarly she sees the decline of Shuruppak in the later peiods as a result of a weakened economy caused by the shifting of the Euphrates to its western branch." (p. 64. "Shuruppak." Gwendolyn Leick. Mesopotamia, The Invention of the City. London. Penquin Books. 2001. Paperback. Citing H. P. Martin. Fara: A Reconstruction of the Ancient Mesopotamian City of Shuruppak. Birmingham, England. 1988)
This event may have occured about 3000 B.C. :
"The city of Kish...had a particularly favoured position on the upper Euphrates after the major shifting of the river to its western branch at around 3000." (p. 81. Gwendolyn Leick. Mesopotamia, The Invention of the City. London. Penquin Books. 2001. Paperback)
Leick on the Shuruppak flood:
"That flood stories should be popular in the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia is not surprising. Rivers are liable to sudden shifts of course since there are no natural obstacles to stop them meandering. Archaeologists have found deposits of silt in several places, including one at Shuruppak, where Schmidt identified an 'inundation level' composed solely of alluvial silt between the Jemdat-Nasr and the Early Dynastic I level. The city was rebuilt a little bit further away and life reasserted itself. It appears that floods were local phenomena rather than the whole-scale destructions of the myths since none of the archaeologically documented layers of silt are from the same period. Nevertheless, for the affected region the effects of a sudden flooding would have been devastating enough to leave a lasting impression. The flood level also speaks for the authenticity of the association with Shuruppak as the last antediluvian kingdom, since it is likely that the transition from the Jemdet-Nasr to the Early Dynastic period also marked the relative leading importance of Shuruppak at this time in Mesopotamian history.
The wise man of Shuruppak, his knowledge of 'words' and his devotion to his god, epitomize the specific values much admired in Mesopotamian culture. The message of the flood heroes and the eponymous sage Shuruppak is that the most lasting achievements of urban civilization are not buildings and walls, since they can be swept away and turned into ruins and fields; and not power, since the gods control all destiny, but knowledge and humility." (pp. 83-84. "Shuruppak." Gwendolyn Leick. Mesopotamia, The Invention of the City. London. Penguin Books. 2001. Paperback)
Professor Pritchard (emphasis mine) on Shuruppak being where the "Mesopotamian Noah" (Here called Utnapishtim, but in other texts, Atrahasis and Ziusudra) is warned by his god of a universal flood to be sent by the gods to destroy all of mankind, and build a boat of reeds from his reed-hut to save self, family and animals:
"Utnapishtim said to him, to Gilgamesh:
"I will reveal to thee, Gilgamesh, a hidden matter
And a secret of the gods will I tell thee:
SHURUPPAK -a city which thou knowest,
[(And) which is on Euphrate's [banks] is situate-
That city was ancient, (as were) the gods within it,
When their heart led the great gods to produce the flood...
MAN OF SHURUPPAK, son of Ubar-Tutu,
Tear down (this) house, build a ship !
Give up possessions, seek thou life.
Forswear worldy goods and keep the soul alive !
Aboard the ship take thou the seed of all living things."
(p. 66. The Epic of Gilgamesh." James B. Pritchard. Editor. The Ancient Near East, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton University Press. 1958. paperback)
How did a "local" flood at Shuruppak become in later ages a worldwide flood? Perhaps the "mechanism" is the Sumerian word KUR which can mean "land," "country," "underworld," and "mountain." Perhaps at some later point in time someone either "playfully, deliberately, or mistakenly" understood a flooded KUR (land) to be a flooded KUR (mountain) ? Via this misunderstanding, it would be logically concluded that if a KUR (mountain) is being engulfed by a flood, ergo the whole world and its mountains (KUR) are also being flooded? The Hebrew word for mountain is HAR, pronounced CHAR/KHAR. THe country called by the Assyrians Urartu is rendered Ararat by the Hebrews, could the u/a interchange account for kur becoming Hebrew har (pronounced khar/char)?
Please click here for a photo of a 3rd millennium B.C. bas-relief found at Shuruppak perhaps showing "Noah's Ark."
All proposals on Eden's one river becoming four are in the end only "speculations." I recall some scholars suggesting Wadi Batin from Saudi Arabia being the Pishon connecting with the Euphrates near the Shatt al Arab and then the Euphrates itself along with the Tigris empty into the Shatt al Arab, then the Karkun (Gihon according to some) from Iran's Zagros mountains also connects with the Shat al Arab. However these "four" rivers are not coming _out of one river_, they are flowing _into it_ just the "opposite" of Genesis' scenario.
As regards Noah's Flood destroying the Edenic river courses- this is a pretty common understanding since the late 17th century A.D. among some scholars.
Delumeau:
"The conviction that the earthly paradise had been destroyed was almost universal among Protestant commentators on Genesis...Catholic commentators in increasing numbers agreed with their Protestant adversaries on this subject. At the end of the seventeenth century the most widely accepted view was that the earthly paradise had indeed existed as a historical reality, but that it had been erased from the surface of the planet." (p. 154. Jean Delumeau. A History of Paradise, The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition. New York. Continuum Publishing Company. 1995)
The problem? A Mesopotamian text of the 2d millennium B.C. has the flood at a city called Shuruppak in Sumer, its king, called Ziusudra (also called Atrahasis and Utnapishtim) is warned by his god Enki to build a boat and save himself, family and animals. He does.
Shuruppak has been identified as present day Tell Fara. When excavated a "flood layer" of two feet of clay was found and dated to circa 2900 B.C. It was the _only_ flood deposit found at the city. It appears at the end of Jemdat-Nasr phase and above it lies a new era called Early Dynastic I. The residents of Shuruppak rebuilt their city after the flood but "nearby" rather than directly over the flooded site. Microscopic analysis of the alluvial sediment overlying "Jemdat-Nasr" Shuruppak was determined to be caused by a flooding Euphrates, not a world wide flood. While many Protestant King James Version Bibles calculate Noah's Flood as ca. 2345 B.C., the Roman Catholic Bible, descended from the Septuaginta and Latin Vulgate, calculates the Flood as occurring circa 2958 B.C., a scant 58 years "off" from the circa 2900 B.C. Shuruppak alluvial flood deposit ! The Jewish Seder Olam Rabbah, dates the Flood to circa 2522 B.C. Which _CONTRADICTING_ BIBLE DATE FOR THE FLOOD IS CORRECT? It would appear that the Roman Catholic Flood date of 2958 B.C. is "closest" to Shuruppak's 2900 B.C. Flood. Please click here for the "many" CONFLICTING DATES for the Flood found in various Bibles, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Samaritan, Aramaic, and Greek Orthodox.
Many scholars who study the Mesopotamian account are struck by the "parallels" between the Shuruppak flood and the Genesis' flood. Both heroes are warned by a god to save themselves by building a boat. The flood occurs at the "end" of a _600_ year cycle for Ziusudra; Noah is _600_ years old (Ge 7:11) when the flood occurs. Both heroes are given seven days notice before the flood's arrival; After the flood both send out birds to find evidence of land appearing above receding waters; both offer a burnt offerings sacrifice after the flood. The god (Enlil) who sent the flood gives the survivors of the flood (on the boat) a blessing; Yahweh gives a blessing to Noah after the flood too. A god (Enlil) swears he will never send another flood to destroy all of mankind; so too Yahweh.
The biblical chronology for the Flood suggests for some Conservative scholars a date circa 2348 B.C., in the 3rd millennium BC. Archaeologists dated Shuruppak's flood layer to the 3rd millennium BC, circa 2900/2800 B.C. Other flood layers have been found at other cities in Sumer, but they are of different periods of time. Not finding any evidence of a flood destroying _all_ the cities of 3rd millennium B.C. Sumer, some scholars, understandably, have reservations about the biblical account of a 3rd millennium B.C. Flood.
Some scholars understand the biblical flood is recalling the Shuruppak flood event because of above noted similiarities in the two accounts, Mesopotamian and Biblical. Because they also understand the Shuruppak flood did not encompass the world, they therefore seek the river of Eden and its four "heads" (Hebrew: rasim) somewhere in the confines of a 5th through 3rd millennium B.C. Mesopotamia (The world being created by Yahweh ca. 4004 B.C. according to the biblical chronology worked out by a 17th century A.D. Christian scholar, Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh, Ireland).
To date, archaeologists have failed to find evidence of world wide flood in the 5th-3rd millenniums B.C. in Mesopotamia, Syria or Canaan. They date some settlements in Sumer to the Ubaid period of circa 4900 B.C., specifically the ancient city of Eridu (modern Abu Shahrein near Ur of the Chaldees), which in Mesopotamian myths was the very first city built by the god Enki. This myth has the world covered in water, then a freshwater stream eurpts from the depths of the ocean, land forms about it and Enki builds the first city Eridu. Of course in the Bible the first city is built by Cain and called Enoch after his son (Ge 4:17). So, it is clear that Genesis' author understands at least _one city_ built by Cain sometime in the course of the 4th millennium was engulfed by Noah's 3rd millennium B.C. flood, but the archaeological evidence does not support this notion.
Bright (1961) on a world encompassing flood's absence in the 3rd millennium B.C.:
"Has Archaeology Found Traces of the Flood?
...For excavations in Palestine and Syria the answer is an unqualified "No." In these two countries some of the oldest towns in the world have been excavated. We know now that Jericho was founded near the beginning of the Late Stone Age. While we cannot be certain that the town was first settled in such an early period, we can be sure that the town was first settled between about 5000 and 4500 B.C. This city and others in Palestine established after it show no evidence whatever of a flood...
1. The evidence from Ur...At Ur Wooley found a continuous occupation from the Early Dynastic back to the Obeid Period. In the middle of the Obeid level he found a stratum of river mud or deposit some ten feet thick -conclusive proof that a deluge had interrupted the occupation of the place, at least temporarily, during the fourth millennium. Wooley is confident that he has here the evidence of Noah's flood (see, for example, his Ur of the Chaldees [1929] p. 29) and his assurance is enthusiastically shared by most popular handbooks which deal with the subject.
2. The evidence from Kish. The excavations conducted at this site between 1923 and 1932 also yielded evidence of inundation. But the flood level here lies well within the Early Dynastic Period l that is, considerably later than 3000 B.C. and many centuries after the Ur flood deposit, The two cannot refer, therefore, to the same catastrophe (see Watelin and Langdon, Excavations at Kish, Vol, IV, pp. 40 ff.).
3. The evidence from Fara [ancient Shuruppak]. During the excavations at this site in 1931 a sterile, alluvial layer some two feet thick was found between the Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic layers -thus indicating an inundation at the site which was earlier than the one at Kish and yet much later than the one at Ur (see Schmidt, Museum Journal, XXII, 193 ff.). (pp. 34-35. John Bright. "Has Archaeology Found Any Evidence of the Flood?" pp. 32-40. G. Ernest Wright & David Noel Freedman, editors. The Biblical Archaeologist Reader. Chicago. Quadrangle Books. 1961)
"This concludes the actual archaeological evidence bearing on the flood...Archaeology has given us no trace of it..." (p. 37. John Bright. "Has Archaeology Found Any Evidence of the Flood?" pp. 32-40. G. Ernest Wright & David Noel Freedman, editors. The Biblical Archaeologist Reader. Chicago. Quadrangle Books. 1961)
I personally favor Shuruppak as the flood being recalled in Genesis, and thus "my interest" in finding a river in a 5th-3rd millennium B.C. Mesopotamian context which divides into "four heads." I noted in my above article that in the preceding eras the Euphrates did divide into four heads or streams as it fanned out over the floodplain between Sippar and Nippur (as shown on the above archaeological map).
Some conservative scholars, noting that the present-day Euphrates and Hiddekel (Tigris) do not have their origins in an Edenic river as portrayed in Genesis, claim that Noah's Flood destroyed the courses of the Edenic rivers. The problem? Geologists understand there is _no evidence_ for Noah's flood as portrayed in the Bible. The Protestant King James Bible dates the event to circa 2348 B.C., in the 3rd millennium B.C., and archaeologists have found settlements in the Near East dating back to 10,000 B.C. with no evidence of a worldwide Flood layer.
Some conservatives have countered that the Bible is _never_ in error, it being God's word, consequently the error lies with archaeologists and geologists in their dating of these settlements. The problem? Archaeologists have recovered clay tablets written in cuneiform from Mesopotamia mentioning a worldwide flood, some of whose details parallel those found in Genesis' Flood account. Some conservatives have conceded that the parallels do exist, noting however there are differences as well. Thus for these scholars a proposal is made that the Bible and the Mesopotamian accounts are recalling "the same event" but due to a monotheistic versus polytheistic background some of the details differ. They also argue _only_ the Bible as God's word gives the "correct" details, the Mesopotamian account's details -when differing- being obviously "corrupted."
The problem in this conservative paradigm is in identifying the Flood in the archaeological and geological strata of the earth. Some conservatives have rejected the dating schemas of archaeology and geology and seek the Flood in earlier strata, the world of the dinosaurs! Why? Because they understand, using the Bible's chronology, God created the world circa 4004 B.C., ergo, the dinosaurs are no earlier, and their extinction is attributed to the Flood. They accuse geologists and archaeologists of using "flawed methodologies" in dating these creatures to millions of years ago.
The Protestant King James Bible's Flood date of circa 2348 B.C. places the Flood in the 3rd millennium B.C. The Mesopotamian account of the event portrays the Mesopotamian "Noah," called Ziusudra (also called Atrahais or Utnapishtim) as living in a city called Shuruppak in Sumer in Lower Mesopotamia when his god appears there and forewarns him of the Flood, telling him to build a boat and save himself, family and animals. What is "most amazing," is that when archaeologists dug into Shuruppak (modern tel Fara) they found a Flood deposit, about two feet thick from a flooding Euphrates river, circa 2900 B.C., in the 3rd millennium B.C., _the same millennium_ the Bible dates the Flood to. This is the_only_ Flood layer found at that location. Other Mesopotamian cities did not have this Flood layer, causing the archaeologists to realize that the Shuruppak flood was a local phenomenon which had over the ages been "embellished" into a worldwide flood.
As noted above, some conservative scholars had taken the position that as there were similarities in details between the Mesopotamian and biblical accounts of the Flood that both must be recalling the _same_ event, and as the Bible dates the event to the 3rd millennium and as the Shuruppak flood is dated to the same millennium, the notion that the flood is of the time of the dinosaurs appears to be unfounded.
Garrett on 17 similarities between the Mesopotamian and biblical Flood accounts:
"When compared form-critically to other major ancient Near Eastern flood accounts (especially the account in Gilgamesh, but also the Atrahasis, Ras Shamras, and Sumerian versions), the Genesis narrative is found to have a remarkably high number of formal parallels to those versions. Wenham has isolated seventeen features the Genesis and Gilgamesh accounts have in common, and these usually occur in the same sequence. There are, to be sure, significant theological differences between Genesis and the other versions, but formally they are of the same category." (p. 27. Duane Garrett. Rethinking Genesis, The Sources of Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Books. 1991)
Wenham on the biblical flood account's parallels with the Mesopotamian flood myth:
"The relationship between the biblical flood story and the Mesopotamian parallels, it was pointed out above, can be explained on the assumption that both go back to a common tradition (the minimalist view) or that the Genesis account is a deliberate rewriting of the Mesopotamian versions of the flood story (the maximalist view)." (p. 168. Gordon J. Wenham. Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis 1-15. Waco, Texas. Word Inc. 1987)
Another problem is Genesis' description of some the rivers of paradise. We are told that the Hiddekel (Tigris) lies to the "east of" Assyria (Hebrew: Asshur). Archaeologists have determined that Assyria's borders were to the east of the Tigris, that is to say, the Tigris was NOT the eastern border of Assyria as portrayed in the Bible. Another problem is that according to Genesis Asshur was born _after_ the Flood (Ge 10:1, 22). Genesis also has Nimrod going "to Assyria" to build Nineveh and Calah. It appears to me that in describing the Hiddekel as "east of Assyria," the narrator is describing a postflood geography, NOT a pre-flood world. Of course some Conservatives argue that the region was called Asshur before the Flood and the name remained afterwards.
Another anomaly is the Pishon river encircling the land of Havilah (Ge 2:11). Genesis has Havilah being born after the Flood just like Asshur (Ge 10:1, 29). So we have two of the Edenic rivers being described as encircling lands whose names are associated with individuals who were born _after_ the Flood. Of course some Conservatives argue that these regions "must have" bore their names before the Flood and that the individuals appearing in Genesis got their names from the pre-flood regions !
My research into archaeological anomalies appearing in Genesis has caused me to conclude it was written in the Exile circa 560 B.C. Please click here for my article and all the anomalies noted. In other words, I understand that Genesis' anonymous author is describing Eden in a 6th century B.C. world and his audience is an Exilic one. However, Genesis does contain transformed motifs which date back as far as Sumerian times, the 4th and 3rd millenniums B.C.
I find "most remarkable" the below map of modern Iraq (1990) showing _four streams_ crossing what was in Sumerian times the floodplain of Lower Mesopotamia. The Euphrates today breaks up into three streams as it crosses the floodplain and a branch of the Tigris "wanders westward" across the same plain of what was once ancient Sumer. That is to say, some 5,000 years later, Lower Mesopotamia is crossed again by four streams (Note on the below map"the recently built" canal northwest of Baghdad linking the Euphrates and Tigris) ! (for the below map cf. p.12. Michael Roaf. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York. Facts on File. 1990. ISBN 0-8160-2218-6).
