Thursday, September 11, 2008
Paradise Lost
“Genesis 2 describes a verdant paradise-like garden in which Adam and Eve lived and worked. There has been a tendency to regard the Eden episode as legend or myth, that is, not as a historical account, and to view Eden as a symbolic place rather than a real location. Archaeology cannot settle this question, but Genesis 2:10-14 surely offers a specific location for the garden by naming the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The English name Tigris is actually the Greek vocalization of the ancient Sumerian name id-dikaltu, which means River Diklatu. The Hebrew preserves the Sumerian as Hiddekel. Euphrates echoes the Akkadian name of the river—purattu. These are real rivers whose names were known in ancient cuneiform texts, and whose names survive to this day. Little is known of the other two rives, the Pishon and the Gihon (Genesis 2:10-13). The former is said to flow through the land of Havilah, a Hebrew term for northern Arabia. The idea that a river once flowed across the deserts of Arabia, and somehow connected with the Tigris and/or Euphrates River, seems far-fetched. But this all changed when evidence for such a river came from satellite radar images taken during the 1994 mission of the Space Shuttle Endeavor. Boston University geologist Farouk el-Baz, who studied the images, noticed that traces of a defunct river that crossed northern Arabia from west to east were visible beneath the sands, thanks to the ground-penetrating capabilities of the radar technologies. He called it the ‘Kuwait River,” for that is where it apparently connected with the Euphrates or emptied into the Persian Gulf. Some scholars have proposed that this is the Pishon River of Genesis 2. Environmental studies in the region suggest that this river probably dried up sometime between 3500 and 2000 BC when an arid period was experienced. This new evidence suggests that the Bible has preserved a very ancient memory that predates the era of Moses. By the mid-second millennium BC, this river had already turned to desert 1,000 years or more earlier,” J. Hoffmeier, The Archaeology of the Bible (Lion Book 2008), 34-35.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
At the risk of stating the obvious, wouldn't a worldwide Flood eradicate all traces of these four antediluvian rivers? Such a catastrophe would've utterly rearranged the topology of the earth, I think.
ReplyDeleteI understand that there is some disagreement among scholars regarding whether the Noahic flood was global or local, but it seems ridiculous to have Noah spend 120 years building an ark to avoid a flood he could simply walk away from.
With regard to tracing the ancient names, isn't it reasonable to assume that Noah's descendants may have named features of the post-Flood landscape after those destroyed by the Flood?
In Christ,
Shepherd Boy
Hi Kurt,
ReplyDeleteGood questions. The explanation is somewhat complicated since how we answer one question affects how we answer another. They all have different assumptions built into them.
So I'll probably do a separate post tomorrow.
If you're using secular scholarship, yes the location of the Garden of Eden is veiled. It's veiled because secular scholars start with the presupposition that Eden is a myth. However, this doesn't mean that Eden's location is completely veiled.
ReplyDeleteYou say that little is known of the Gihon. That's not quite correct. Little is known readily only to western scholars. Since antiquity the Jayhoun (or in Arabic جيحون) was the name born by The Amu Darya which flows westward out of the Pamir plateau and through the mountains. Afghani tribesmen still refer to the Amu Darya as the Jihon.
The Syr Darya (or to the Greeks the Jaxartes) flows northwards out of the Pamir mountains then west. It compasses Uzbekistan, a land that lay north east of the Biblical Persia known at one time as Havilah (east of Assyria [Gen 2:14]).
Southwards out the Pamir Plateau is the Indus which traverses Hindu Kush (or the land of Cush) into Pakistan.
Westward flows the Tarim river into the Tarim basin.
Of course it needs not be pointed out that the Pamir Mountains out of which these four rivers flow are amongst the highest in the world and that habitation in the Pamirs is all but impossible. If you do any type of geological study of the flood you'll find evidence that the Tarim basin flooded in the earth Geological history and destroyed a now forgotten cradle of civilization that sprouted in the Tarim basin. If you look closely however, you can still find signs of this cradle of Tarim civilization in the Tarim basis (Google: "Tarim Mummies").
Notice from [Gen 3:24] that they were driven eastward out of the Garden of Eden. This means Eden lies directly to the west of Adam's civilization. That the Pamir plateau is directly west of the Tarim Basin should provide additional points to ponder. Examining the Tarim civilization would help explain from whence the Akkadians came when during their influx into the land of Sumer. Migrating in from the east they established the Akkadian dominance in the land of Sumer by establishing the Kish (Kush?) Dynasty, amongst others.
Here is a map what the region:
http://davidderrick.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/central-asia-mountains.jpg
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteYour response is confused at several levels.
i) I’m not using “secular” scholarship. I quoted from a book on Biblical archeology by a professor of OT, ANE history, and archeology at Trinity Divinity School.
ii) He doesn’t start with the presupposition that Eden is mythical. In fact, he was opposing that presupposition.
iii) He doesn’t take the position that the location of Eden is “veiled.” Rather, he locates it somewhere in Mesopotamia.
iv) *I* didn’t say anything about the Gihon. He did.
v) Do you deny that Gen 2:10-14 situates Eden somewhere in Mesopotamia?
vi) What do you mean by “secular” sources? The fact that he relies on ancient sources to determine the usage of ancient place names? Or his use of satellite radar technology?
vii) Hoffmeier is, himself, a field archeologist and native of the Mideast.
The comments were general and were not levelled at you or your choice of reference material.
ReplyDeleteIn general, many who study the location of Eden start with presuppositions. What was being pointed out was that that secular scholarship starts with more. Even Christian scholarship is influenced by these.
Take for example the one that we must start our search in Mesopotamia. We must in fact, start in the Bible.
Of course, I deny that Eden was anywhere near Mesopotamia since it doesn't follow from the Genesis description, and secular history does not bear it out. Mesopotamia was also not a region destroyed or protected [Gen 3:24], a region that people were immigrating from, rather that region was a region people migrated too. Mesopotamia is exactly the wrong place to look.
Mesopotamian history was significantly influenced by the Akkadian migration into the region. This migration resulted in original regional names being lost or replaced through Akkadian infuence.
People bring with them, memories, names, stories. Consider, if Great Britain were to sink into the sea in some disastrous event and all literary evidence of its existence lost in the disaster, where would you locate the Thames River, or London, assuming you came upon a reference to it somewhere? How about Halifax? You would likely look to Canada or the US where the names survived.
York and New York would make identifying the history of York difficult without literary evidence but at least New York implies Old York. Looking for Old York might lead you again to a region where the name migrated to rather than the point of origin. Toronto was also known as York.
Similarly Kish in Mesopotamia was not originally known as Kish but became Kish (derived from Kush) with the influence and influx of Akkadian culture. Kish was merely a derivative of Kush and not representative of the original. The same is true of the Mesopotamian rivers.
Even so, and contrary to your referenced author, Gihon is a name that lives on today and still carries with it a most ancient origin. It has been preserved since antiquity by Arabic scholars who comment on its most ancient origin. Gihon is known only to foreigners as Amu Darya. Gihon is known, though perhaps not to European scholars.
Assuming Mesopotamia was the place people migrated to, any expertise in ancient middle eastern history will likely not shed light on Eden's location if Eden did not exist there.
[Gen 2:14] makes it clear Eden was east of Assyria does it not? East of Assyria was Persia. Further east still is the Pamir plateau.
[Gen 3:24] makes it clear that the Adamic couple were driven east out of the Garden since guards were established in the East of Eden (to stop them from returning)
This means that the civilization that arose from the Adamic couple existed East of Eden. East of Pamir is the Tarim Basin.
It was clearly suggested that the Pamir Plateau, the most inhospitable place on earth, the region with the highest mountains, was the actual location of Eden.
It happens that Amu Darya known in antiquity as Gihon, flows west out of this location. It also happens that the Akkadians who migrated into Mesopotamia, did so from the east, after their civilization perish in a flood. They did so from the Tarim Basin, the region exactly west of the Pamir Plateau. It also so happens the land of Kush lies exactly south of this proposed Eden.
Identifying the four rivers (Syr Darya, Indus, Tarim and Amu Darya) which run north, south east and west out of the Pamir Plateau respectively with the Biblical rivers (Gihon, Pishon, Tigris and Euphrates) may be an exercise in mythological reconstruction to some, but they fit the Genesis account far more accurately than attempts that start with Mesopotamia.
Finally, secular geological history recognizes that Tarim Basin is a region that suffered a massive flooding from its sedimentary evidence.
ANDREW SAID:
ReplyDelete“The comments were general and were not levelled at you or your choice of reference material.__In general, many who study the location of Eden start with presuppositions. What was being pointed out was that that secular scholarship starts with more. Even Christian scholarship is influenced by these.”
The location of Eden is not a secular v. non-secular issue. A secularist doesn’t believe in the Garden of Eden regardless of where he happens to think the Bible situates the Garden.
Secular presuppositions aren’t concerned with the putative location of the Garden, but with the factuality (or lack thereof) of the Garden.
“Take for example the one that we must start our search in Mesopotamia. We must in fact, start in the Bible.”
The Bible doesn’t generally define its place names. It takes for granted the common knowledge of the original audience.
“Of course, I deny that Eden was anywhere near Mesopotamia since it doesn't follow from the Genesis description, and secular history does not bear it out. Mesopotamia was also not a region destroyed or protected [Gen 3:24], a region that people were immigrating from, rather that region was a region people migrated too. Mesopotamia is exactly the wrong place to look.”
You’ve oversimplified the interpretive options for Gen 2:8, as a consultation of the standard literature will quickly disclose.
“Mesopotamian history was significantly influenced by the Akkadian migration into the region. This migration resulted in original regional names being lost or replaced through Akkadian infuence.”
Even if your assertion were true, which you don’t bother to document, changing place names doesn’t change the location of the place so named.
“People bring with them, memories, names, stories. Consider, if Great Britain were to sink into the sea in some disastrous event and all literary evidence of its existence lost in the disaster, where would you locate the Thames River, or London, assuming you came upon a reference to it somewhere? How about Halifax? You would likely look to Canada or the US where the names survived.”
Now you’re giving us a just-so story in lieu of real evidence.
“Similarly Kish in Mesopotamia was not originally known as Kish but became Kish (derived from Kush) with the influence and influx of Akkadian culture. Kish was merely a derivative of Kush and not representative of the original. The same is true of the Mesopotamian rivers.”
Scholars who debate the location of Eden are conversant with the linguistic issues (e.g. John Currid, Victor Hamilton, James Hoffmeier, Kenneth Kitchen, T. C. Mitchell, John Walton, &c.). You’re breaking no new ground here.
“Even so, and contrary to your referenced author, Gihon is a name that lives on today and still carries with it a most ancient origin. It has been preserved since antiquity by Arabic scholars who comment on its most ancient origin. Gihon is known only to foreigners as Amu Darya. Gihon is known, though perhaps not to European scholars.”
i) The identify of Gihon is also discussed by scholars like Kitchen, who offers two candidates.
ii) I notice that you have a habit of retreating into unnamed, undated sources. *What* Arabic scholars writing *at* what time?
iii) And how would Arabic scholars be in a position to know about the Akkadian influence?
How many (medieval?) Arabic scholars knew Sumerian or Akkadian?
“Assuming Mesopotamia was the place people migrated to, any expertise in ancient middle eastern history will likely not shed light on Eden's location if Eden did not exist there.”
You don’t get to conceal your profile and then claim to be an expert.
“[Gen 2:14] makes it clear Eden was east of Assyria does it not? East of Assyria was Persia. Further east still is the Pamir plateau.”
No, it makes it clear that the Tigris was east of Assyria.
“[Gen 3:24] makes it clear that the Adamic couple were driven east out of the Garden since guards were established in the East of Eden (to stop them from returning)__This means that the civilization that arose from the Adamic couple existed East of Eden. East of Pamir is the Tarim Basin.”
You’re shifting gears from the setting of the garden to the postlapsarian setting of Adam and Eve.
“Finally, secular geological history recognizes that Tarim Basin is a region that suffered a massive flooding from its sedimentary evidence.”
Why are you suddenly invoking secular sources when you disallowed that (alleged) dependence on the part of Hoffmeier?
I tend to agree with David Rohl on this, who identified it with the Uizhun (nowadys Sepid) River, based on linguistical/etymological evidence: the "P" from the one language turns as a rule into an ``U" in the other one.
ReplyDeleteClearly my comments antagonized you. This was not my intent and so I'm sorry. I hope you can forgive. I was going to let it drop, however you have asked for additional detail, which I think is fair.
ReplyDeleteTo find out about Arabic writers ancient geography (in English), please check out William C. Brice's Historical Atlas of Islam (ISBN 90-04-06116-9) or visit Afghanistan and query the locals.
To verify [Gen 2:14] has the river eastern further east than Assyria itself feel free to consult any ancient map of the Assyrian Empire such as this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Map_of_Assyria.png
Notice that the Tigris was actually central Assyria and flowed south (not east). Or if you believe the Genesis reference in [Gen 2:14] refers instead to the more ancient "Assur" the same map will show you that Assur was on the Tigris, and the river still flowed south.
Perhaps even consult the original Hebrew which has:
הלך - halak - proceeds
קדמה - qidmah - on the east of
אשור - Ashshuwr - Assyria
Translated in NLT, ESV, NASB, RSV, ASV, Youngs Literal, HNV and the Vulgate as .. eastward of, further east than .. Assyria.
Those who read it incorrectly tend to be KJV-only proponents because the KJV English used was ambitious:
"..which goeth toward the east of Assyria" ..
.. could mean flows eastwards towards Eastern Assyria (internally) OR could mean flows westward towards eastern Assyria (externally).
The latter corresponds to the correct translation and to nearly all other English Bibles.
Regardless, a deep admiration of Hoffmeier's theory suggests that any idea that contradicts his will be met with scepticism regardless if the name جيحون is still used today and known, or the Hebrew in Genesis correctly understood.
With that - please continue your search in peace without further interruption from me.
ANDREW SAID:
ReplyDelete“Clearly my comments antagonized you.”
When you distort the opposing position, it can have that effect.
“To find out about Arabic writers ancient geography (in English), please check out William C. Brice's Historical Atlas of Islam (ISBN 90-04-06116-9) or visit Afghanistan and query the locals.”
Why do you think Muslim sources are better than secular sources. Are Muslim presuppositions better than secular presuppositions?
And, of course, you’re using very late sources in relation to Gen 2.
“To verify [Gen 2:14] has the river eastern further east than Assyria itself feel free to consult any ancient map of the Assyrian Empire such as this one:_http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Map_of_Assyria.png__Notice that the Tigris was actually central Assyria and flowed south (not east).”
You’re assuming that the reference is to the land of Assyria rather than the capital city. Scholars like Currid, Hamilton opt for the latter identification.
BTW, rivers shift course over the millennia.
“Those who read it incorrectly tend to be KJV-only proponents because the KJV English used was ambitious.”
When I refer to scholars like Currid, Hamilton, Hoffmeier, Kitchen, Mitchell, Sarna, and Walton, I’m obviously not dependent on the KJV, now am I?
“Regardless, a deep admiration of Hoffmeier's theory suggests that any idea that contradicts his will be met with scepticism regardless if the name _____ is still used today and known, or the Hebrew in Genesis correctly understood.”
Once again, when I refer to other scholars like Currid, Hamilton, Kitchen, Mitchell, Sarna, and Walton, it’s obvious that my resources aren’t limited to Hoffmeier.
Oh, and all these scholars know their way around the Hebrew language, too. They also know Mesopotamian geography.
Are you a Hebraist? What are your credentials?
Any credentials, or lack of credentials I might possess have no bearing on the truth or substance of the argument being put forth. It is a fallacy of course, to shift focus away from the argument being presented onto, the authority of person making it.
ReplyDeleteHere again is are the premises what were being disputed:
Argument: “Little is known of the other two rives, the Pishon and the Gihon (Genesis 2:10-13)”
Counter Argument: The name Gihon is known to locals of a particular region (Afganastan) and to ancient Arabic Scholars. The name preserved is essentially Jihon/Jayhon/Djihon/جيحون), This does not imply that Muslim sources are any better than western sources as Muslim's themselves credit the ancient origin of the name. It also does not place Muslim sources above that of the Bible, but it does show that the name has had continuous usage since antiquity. Proof that ancient Muslim sources denote the Amu Darya river Jihon has been referenced in Brice's Historical Atlas of Islam.
What is implied then, is that any lack of knowledge about Gihon is specific to European Scholars as Gihon is and has been known since antiquity to Arabic scholars who themselves recognize predates them. I note that you appeal to authority frequently in your arguments, so I wonder if you could show me specifically where Currid, Hamilton, Kitchen, Mitchell, Sarna, and Walton refute this ancient claim that Amu Darya is Gihon? This point will be conceded if you can do that.
Argument: That Genesis 2:10-14 surely offers a specific location for the garden by naming the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
Counter Argument: Part of why Eden is hidden today is exactly because there is a presupposition that that the river Dikaltu (Hiddekel) and the river Purattu mentioned in the Genesis account are the same Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia today. This presupposition further assumes that between Eden and the Flood there was no migration of peoples, and unlikely assumption. If we DON'T assume that the Tigris and Euphrates River names mentioned in the Bible need necessarily be the original ones, it frees us up from having to force Eden where it may not have existed.
Going back to the river that still bears the name Gihon, the head waters of this river originate in a land East of Assyria (Pamir Plateau), a land that has four rivers that run out of it north, south east and west (Syr Darya, Indus, Tarim and Amu Darya), and a land that borders the original Kush. Pamir plateau matches the Biblical description of Eden far better than any location in Mesopotamia though it is inhospitable today. There is no need to find missing rivers or to rename rivers as at least one of the rivers still bears the ancient name. This land also matches the geographical description of being East of Assyria and suggests that the migration out Eden eastward into the Tarim Basic explains nicely the accepted Tarim Basin flood and the destroyed cradle of civilization that existed there.
There is little doubt Currid, Hamilton, Kitchen, Mitchell, Sarna, and Walton may all have the finest knowledge of Mesopotamian geography, but if their presupposition that we MUST start our search in Mesopotamia is false, that knowledge won't do any one a speck of good.
ANDREW SAID:
ReplyDelete“What is implied then, is that any lack of knowledge about Gihon is specific to European Scholars as Gihon.”
I quoted Hoffmeier on the identity of the Pishon, not the Gihon.
For the identity of the Gihon, see Kitchen.
Genesis was written in the 2nd millennium BC. You are quoting medieval Muslim sources. Quite a gap.
“Part of why Eden is hidden today…”
You’re assuming that Eden is hidden today. That’s your presupposition.
“This presupposition further assumes that between Eden and the Flood there was no migration of peoples, and unlikely assumption. If we DON'T assume that the Tigris and Euphrates River names mentioned in the Bible need necessarily be the original ones, it frees us up from having to force Eden where it may not have existed.”
But now you’re contradicting yourself. You initially said “We must in fact, start in the Bible.”
And the Bible situates Eden in Mesopotamia. You contradict that identification, not based on the Bible, but by going outside the Bible, appealing to migration, and postulating that old place names were transferred to a different locality. That isn’t starting “in the Bible.” That’s sheer speculation on your part.
“Going back to the river that still bears the name Gihon…”
Your disregard alternative identifications.
“There is no need to find missing rivers or to rename rivers as at least one of the rivers still bears the ancient name.”
Your own theory is based on renaming:
“People bring with them, memories, names, stories. Consider, if Great Britain were to sink into the sea in some disastrous event and all literary evidence of its existence lost in the disaster, where would you locate the Thames River, or London, assuming you came upon a reference to it somewhere? How about Halifax? You would likely look to Canada or the US where the names survived.__York and New York would make identifying the history of York difficult without literary evidence but at least New York implies Old York. Looking for Old York might lead you again to a region where the name migrated to rather than the point of origin. Toronto was also known as York.”
Steve,
ReplyDelete.. as you know John Currid's focus is Palestine and Egypt? Kitchen's and Hoffmeier's focus is primarily Egypt while Victor Hamilton's focus is literary and Walton's focus is on ancient texts for the purpose of theological exegesis. None of these guys are experts on Mesopotamia (with the possible exception of T. C. Mitchell).
The discussion is not about your experts, but about how applicable they are to the discussion at hand. Your experts may be experts on Biblical cultures or exegesis, but that doesn't mean they are correct with respect to their theories of the location of Eden.
You are correct in your accusation that I presuppose the actual location of Eden is hidden. But so what? If Eden's location were known, we'd obviously be in agreement. You also have presuppositions of your own and and your presupposition insists that Eden lies in Mesopotamia. I'm giving you ample evidence that this likely isn't the case.
Let's look again at the Biblical clues and go from there:
CLUES IN THE BIBLE
The Bible makes it clear there were four rivers that ran north, south, east, west out of the Garden of Eden [Gen 2:10]. The identification of the location of these rivers starts with the one that still bears its original name – Gihon as named in the Bible. Gihon is a river still known today.
These four rivers are Syr Darya (Jaxartes), Amu Darya (Gihon), Indus, and Tarim and Amu Darya. From the description of the rivers and their locations we can see other clues from the Bible.
KUSH
The Indus bounds the land of Cush (or Hindu Kush) on the east as it flows south. You can see that from this map. The Amu Darya (Gihon) bounds it on the north.
LAPIS LAZULI
Quoting Hamilton, quoting the Bible:
The gold of that land is choice; bdellium and lapis lazuli (onyx) are there. - [Gen 2:12]
From Hamilton's Biblical quote [Genesis 2:11-12], we know that the land of Havilah produced gold, bdellium and Lapis Lazuli. This reference to Lapis Lazuli is another HUGE clue. The single largest source of Lapis Lazuli in the ancient world was the mines of Badakhshan (Afghanistan) west of the Pamirs. The dominance of this source lasted almost 6500 years. Badakhshan is of course, bounded by both Syr Darya and Amu Darya (Gihon) two of the rivers believed to flow from Eden.
To put this in perspective, here is a nice shot of the region where the region of the four rivers (Eden), the land of Kush, the land of Havilah are east of Assyria, but west of the worlds largest basin.
It was already shown how [Gen 2:14] places the Hiddekel east of Assyria. We also know that the land of the flood must have been further east of Eden still [Gen 3:24] where God places Cherubims and a flaming sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning (additional evidence from the Bible is presented below).
Interestingly, the reference to Cheriubims and the flaming sword is reminiscent of the Flaming Mountains found within the Tarim basin at the world's second lowest point (the Turfan Depression). (Of course this is merely speculation) The Tian Shan mountain range, in which they appear, is said, by the Chinese, to have appeared after the Deluge according to myth. Its interesting that we have a convergence between Biblical flood myth and Chinese flood myth.
With Eden located in the Pamir plateau as suggested by the location of the Gihon, Kush and Havilah, Adam and Eve's departure east out of the garden of Eden finds the flaming mounting as barriers, exactly where you'd expect them to be considering they block access to the Pamirs from the Tarim.
The world's largest natural basin, the Tarim Basin, lies east of the Pamir Plateau. Here is a nice shot of the Tarim Basin that shows how completely devastating the flood would have been:
After God flooded this basin with water, and saved Noah and family, we again direct our attention into the Bible for additional evidence to see how Mesopotamia fits into the picture.
And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there - [Gen 11:2]
We notice from [Genesis 11:2] that when Noah's descendants did finally come to Mesopotamia they journeyed in from the East (in from a previously flooded Tarim Basin to be exact).
This is also consistent with Eden being located at the head waters of the River still known as Gihon, and a Tarim basin flood.
Placing Eden in Mesopotamia not only fails to convince given the Biblical evidence, but requires that we completely ignore the location naturally suggested.
I think we should, in humility, consider the evidence being presented and not be blinded by our pride.