Chronology of the Biblical Record in Conjunction with Ancient Myths
INTRODUCTION
I picked this topic simply because of the charges that have been laid against the Bible and the Biblical writers. There are two main charges that re-occur in most discussions with atheists, first is the charge that the Bible was written in about the fourth or fifth centuries B.C.
“The early books of the Bible (written down centuries after the events they describe) recount the story of God’s chosen people…in the Promised Land after their escape from captivity in Egypt”(1)
The bolding is mine highlighting the prevailing view of many scholars and archaeologists and is underscored by the following:
“according to many scholars, the Deuteronomistic History (DH) appeared in substantially its present form in the late seventh century BCE, during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (639-09), approx. 300 years after the time of David and Solomon. But that is not to say that the DH was an entirely new or completely imaginative composition when it reached recognizable form. …It is clearly the result of the editing together of various earlier sources—not a single original work written by an individual or group of authors at one time…”(2)
The most common charge is the one where Christological ideas are found in secular cultic writings:
“There is much speculation that Christian beliefs were influenced by Mithraic belief. Ernest Renan, in The Origins of Christianity, promoted the idea that Mithraism was the prime competitor to Christianity in the second through the fourth century AD”,(3)
These are not the only charges as they extend back to the stories of creation and the flood as well. What will be done here in this paper in the following pages is trace the origins of a few ancient civilizations, space limits the amount, and see when they arose, and how they came to be.
Then a look at the chronology of Noah, his place in time, and the details surrounding his life and death. Next this paper will turn to the origins of the ancient myths, the dates they were written, the age of their oldest surviving manuscripts and records and compare it with Biblical stories and their place on the timeline.
Finally this paper will take a look at one last common charge leveled against the Biblical authors and that is the accusation that the Israelites copied from other peoples. Some scholars feel when the Israelites were in their different captivities, their scribes were given access to the records and myths of their captors and then to cover their shame, invented a glorious past which elevated them higher than their neighbors as ‘the chosen people’ in order to give their descendents something to be proud of and rally around.(4)
The reason these charges are so easily laid, is that there is so little physical evidence to support the Biblical claims but if one looks closely, they will see that there is next to nothing to support the charges and claims made by the opposing scholars.
But these charges provide an escape route for those who do not want to believe and who want to dismiss the Biblical record for whatever reason. We shall see through this study how flimsy the argument against the Biblical originality truly is for the dissenting scholars do not rely on much except their interpretation of what they have found.
Unfortunately for them, interpretation is just a fancy word for ‘opinion’ and that is what we are facing when we are dealing with these accusations—the scholar’s or archaeologist’s opinion. We are also encountering the arrogance of the unbelieving scholar and archaeologist:
“ In the tombs, pottery forms, and architecture of the Bronze and Iron age societies of the eastern Mediterranean are the raw materials with which archaeologists can reconstruct the economic, social, and political forces of which the Bible speaks so eloquently”(5)
Again the highlighted words, this time by underlining, are mine and is used to demonstrate the attitude of arrogance that exists in the archaeological and biblical scholarship world. It is presumptuous of these people to think that they can reconstruct much when so little information has been recovered.(6) Most of what they claim to be factual is actually a result of the imagination of the modern day researcher looking back over thousands of years and steeped in conjecture, hypothesis and wishful thinking.
The rarely know if they have it right for they are dealing with fragments of the past, lodged in the dirt sans explanation for why the artifact was left in such a position. Without ancient contemporary verification the modern day archaeologist and scholar is left to their own devices as to how they will ‘interpret’ their discovery. Problem is they are not mind readers and have no clue why things are as they are.
Even the written records discovered shed little light on the past and only seem to reflect an earlier version of the modern world except without the modern technological tools to help. This is the framework we have to work with as we look at the chronology of the Biblical stories and their secular counterparts.
When we take a closer look at the evidence we will see a surprising outcome, one that is often overlooked by secular scholars, and others, simply because they do not want to prove the Bible true.(7) Chronology is important, as we shall see.
ORIGINATION OF ANCIENT SOCIETIES
In this section, we will explore the origin of some of the ancient original civilizations but the story is a murky one for there is very little information and much speculation. As we shall see each scholar or archaeologist have their own ideas and theories, as exampled by the following:
“Civilization in its first really large scale forms came into being at roughly the same time in Mesopotamia and Egypt, in the fourth millennium. By about a thousand years later…civilizations had appeared on the distant banks of the Indus and probably in China as well. The phenomenon did not happen everywhere at exactly the same moment in world history: it was not as if civilizations was somehow ‘in the air’ for all to experience. Rather, history started more or less from scratch, in one place after another.”(8)
And by :
“Perhaps man originated somewhere in Africa; though research has been canvassing the possibility that there was an even earlier form of ancestral humanity on the northern confines of the Indian peninsula.”(9)
In dealing with the past, we do not have the luxury of the use of the western calendar by the ancient societies nor do we have any written record that states, Egypt was founded in such and such a year. It is all guess work with the aid of comparing what little physical evidence we have. In modern times we have signs and records which state the exact date a city or town was founded but for now, no such record has been discovered and even if it was it would not or could not say ‘established 3500 B.C.’ Such terminology was not put into use until long after Christ was resurrected.
Colin Renfrew in his contribution to the Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations says that ‘there can only be a single earliest civilization in any area…’(10) But why just one when earlier we read that Mesopotamia and Egypt arose about the same time and he does not explain why there can only be one. Where would the other competing societies come form if there is only one original people?
Is he saying that the Sumerians fought themselves and then changed their names as time went on? Dr. Renfrew does not explain where these other groups arise from nor why would they settle near a dominate civilization if they wanted to survive.
In the same volume Thorkild Jacobson says this about the Sumerians, ‘ Who they were, and where they came from are questions that cannot be answered with any certainty.(11) But the murkiness does not stop here as:
“During the 4th millennium BC, the Uruk culture of southern Mesopotamia marked the emergence of cities, writing, sophisticated administration, massive public buildings and social complexity- the foundation of Mesopotamian tradition of civilization..The Mesopotamian tradition developed significantly during the 3rd millennium BC of Sumerian city states…”(12)
Then we have A. Mazar’s words:
The peculiar nature of the Ghassulian culture is characterized by its extraordinary settlement pattern, pottery, stone tools, advanced copper technology…All of these have no precedent in the previous period and are only to a limited extent continued in the succeeding one…Furthermore its significance in the overall scheme of ancient Near Eastern cultures of the fifth and fourth millennia BCE and its exact times span must be ascertained….If the Ghassulian culture indeed did continue over such a long time it would have overlapped most of what is known as the Ubeid and the beginning of the Uruk periods in Mesopotamia. During the latter period the crystallization of the Sumerian culture began…”(13)
Then finally we have John Bright’s words:
“The creators of civilization in lower Mesopotamia were the Sumerians, who constitute one of the great mysteries of all history. Of what race they were and whence they came we can only guess”(14)
As one can see, the origins of early civilization varies and goes according to the historian who is recording them. But there is a consensus that the Sumerians were the first civilization, and if that is so then is it possible that the Ghassulians and the Ubeids were part of the pre-flood world?
In all of these quotes, there is a consistent theme that is common to all of the different scholars and archaeologists—there were an early group or groups of people who lived in different types of homes and did different types of farming, hunting, gathering etc. prior to the rise of the Sumerians and the Egyptians and the rest of the ancient societies.
One of the problems with this theme is that none of these scholars can explain nor attempt to explain where these pre-civilized people came from. Colin Renfrew does try to say that it was evolution but none of the others have any credible explanation as to the source of these people or how they came into existence to begin with.(15)
According to Dr. Bright, there are early inscriptions both in Egypt and Mesopotamia dating back to only the early centuries of the third millennium BC or approx. one thousand years before Abraham.(16). The early centuries of the third millennium places the rise of the Egyptians and Sumerians to a time that dates after the accepted date for Noah’s flood, which is usually placed at about 2500 B.C.
This fact helps us understand the ‘Sumerian problem’ as related by Charles Aling in the Bible and Spade article called, Cultural Change and the Confusion of Language in Ancient Sumer,
The series questions that all this raises is what scholars call the “Sumerian Problem”. Simply put, the problem comprises questions such as: Who were the Sumerians? Where did they come from? What role did they play in the creation of Mesopotamian civilization? And for our purposes, perhaps the most important question, when did they enter Mesopotamia?(17)
And his summary states:
“To summarize: professional archaeologists say that the earliest major people in southern Mesopotamia were the Sumerians; there is no archaeological evidence that there was anyone else. Thus, the Ubaid people were Sumerians. On the other hand, experts on the Sumerian language say that the Ubaid people must have been of some other ethnic and/or linguistic group, whose language is mainly lost today, and that the Uruk people must have been Sumerian speaking newcomers. Thus, Sumerian history starts not with the Ubaid period but with the Uruk Culture”
So after all this, what we have is a confusion as to where the original civilizations originated. No one really knows and their sudden appearance on the scene actually puts them AFTER Noah and his family not before, if we look at the evidence closely and honestly.
But Dr. Aling’s conclusions assume that the Sumerians always were and according to his logic, that Noah and His ancestors could be considered Sumerian. It is a possibility considering we do not know which people Noah belonged to but not probable because we do not know if the pre-flood world held to nationalities like the post-flood does. The post-flood world also defines its national identity by its language, something the pre-flood world did not have to do for they spoke in one tongue (at least by the evidence of the Bible).
Since the Disporia at Babel took place after the Flood then we can conclude that the rise of the ancient civilizations started after the flood as well, providing a clear point in determining the chronology of the Biblical accounts and the myths of the ancient societies. But more on that later.
NOAH’S TIME
To present a chronology of Noah and how he and his family fit into the timeline of history is not easy. The scholarly world takes a dim view of the Bible, both secular and Christian, when it comes to the area of history.
“To be blunt, there is nothing new here. The present debate is merely the tired old stuff of nineteenth century liberalism wrapped in a new package…Another reason for the lack of study of the relationship between Egypt and the Bible is that a majority of scholars appear to be convinced that the Bible borrowed much of its material , especially for Genesis, from Mesopotamian literature…A final reason that scholars have distrusted the Biblical accounts that relate to Egypt, particularly the exodus story, is the lack of written evidence from Egypt that would support their historicity.’(18)
This quote may refer to Egypt and the biblical stories which relate to that country but this is just an example of the prevailing thought for all of the Biblical accounts that physical evidence is lacking. Dr. William Dever states:
“Gradually the skepticism…of scholars has trickled down to the general public. And in the past few years, readers who value the biblical traditions have become puzzled and even alarmed by what they perceive as a concerted, hostile attack on the Bible—much of it coming from reputable biblical scholars themselves…Largely as a result of these and a few other similar books, the public is becoming aware that long cherished notions about the Bible as history are being questioned, undermined and often rejected not only by a generation of younger, disaffected, postmodern scholars but even by the religious and institutional establishment. In seminaries the Bible and biblical history are being rewritten by deconstructionist literary critics, etc…(19)
The acceptance of the Bible and its record is becoming less and less as people think they are intelligent, using reason by opting for archaeology and science over the words of the Bible. They have this notion that the Bible is just another book, subject to modern processes and filled with problems:
“The richest source of information about the biblical Israelites is, of course, the Bible. There are a number of problems, however, in using the Bible as a history text. The Bible was not written all at once by trained historians with access to reliable documents. Rather, it was written by a number of people over a long period of time, and large sections of the Bible were rewritten or re-edited at a still later time (often for propagandistic reasons).”(20)
So here we have not only the secular world doubting the words of God but also the religious one as well. They feel that the lack of physical evidence disproves the Bible but as John Currid goes on to say ‘ We need to be careful of this line of reasoning because it is an argument from silence.” (21)
Which is quite correct as scholars have found it easy to make the accusations, yet not one of them has provided proof to support such criticism. They assume much based upon the actions and reputations of other societies but have failed to produce one solid, credible piece or pieces of physical evidence to prove themselves correct.
But is the Bible alone in this issue? Not really for Dr. William Shea has produced a paper which looks at possible physical evidence for Noah and his family:
“Identification of this first carved stone led to a search for others in the same area. A total of seven carved stones were found within an area of about 25 feet (8 m.) from the first stone. Four of these depict outlines of the heads of various members of Noah’s family—Shem, Ham, Japheth. The men are named in the inscriptions (which must be read right to left) but the women are simply labeled as “wife (ashat) of….”(22)
The descriptions of what Dr. Shea found continues and he provides much detail. In a discussion with Mr. Stephen Caesar, he dismissed these inscriptions and carvings based upon the idea that the location was too inhospitable to be manmade and that no one would spend their time recording such events on rock because it was too difficult. When it was pointed out that there was a modern example of this in Mt. Rushmore, he ended the discussion. When faced with the reality many people just will not accept the facts and want their own ideas.
These rocks are well documented and can be found in several different sources but how does this help with dating Noah and placing him in the correct spot in the chronological timeline? Dr. Shea continues:
“I first noted the script used here on the other side of the border while visiting the Durupinar formation near Dougbayazit, Turkey, in the summer of 1998. It came as a complete surprise to find a couple of brief alphabetic inscriptions there, since I had previously assumed that any writing found in this area near the landing of Noah’s Ark would be cuneiform. But here it was in an alphabetic script related to Proto-Sinaitic, the earliest written alphabet of mankind, known originally from turquoise mines in Sinai from the mid-second millennium B.C. and more recently from the early second millennium B.C. found in Egypt. Here was an earlier form of that Semitic alphabet found first in Eastern Turkey and now in Armenia.”(23)
So here is a written language earlier than the known oldest but related to it, which means we can push the dating of these tombs and inscriptions back further in time possibly to Sumerian days if not sooner. With the inscribing of the names on these rocks and tombs, the question is raised, why would someone do this if Noah and the flood was a copy of ancient Mesopotamian myths? They wouldn’t. Especially to such detail and exactness:
“This collection of inscriptions indicates that this promontory was not paved just for the use of modern tourists, but in ancient times it served as the site of the burial of Japheth and his wife. To emphasize the connections of this site with the family of Noah, there are carvings of his three sons on top of the columnar rocks just across the road from this lookout. In that location, Shem and his wife were carved on the right, Ham and his wife in the middle, and Japheth and his wife on the left.”(24)
What helps us further in setting the chronology and which supports the Biblical account is the Sumerian Kings list, which puts the or a flood right in the middle of their chronological history:
“…Beginning with the lowering of kingships from the heavens, the list begins with a series of kings, first at Eridu and then at other cities, who ruled for tens of thousands of years; this series ends with a flood. Afterwards, kingship was once again lowered…”(25)
Not only does this list correspond to the Biblical record, both pre and post flood, there is NO reason for the Sumerians to include a flood, especially if it was a minor local one, in their records if it did NOT happen prior to their rise to power and organization.
The flood had to be devastating enough to interrupt their ‘kings’ rule which indicates that a catastrophe took place that was devastating enough to disrupt human life on earth, if it wasn’t or if it did not take place, then there is no reason to include it or even place it in such a prominent position in the list.
These little tidbits of physical evidence help us place Noah prior to any ancient civilization save for his own pre-flood one. These are not absolute proof but supply the believer with enough physical evidence to support their faith in the Bible, not ruin it. Accepting Noah and the flood in its proper place in history still requires faith, for that is what pleases God and He will not destroy what pleases Him thus we will not be given all the physical evidence required or demanded by the secular scholar or archaeologist, but we will get enough to keep our faith strong and know that the Biblical record is true and accurate.
We can only use faith when it comes to the Biblical record because we are not eye-witnesses to the events transcribed within its pages and we must rely on the word of the One who was. Now some say eye-witness accounts are useless as different people see things differently.
Well that idea may work for human crime as people are often traumatized or shocked by the violence they witness but God is not and these events are under is control thus His accounts would not be affected by human fear or other emotions. We can be assured that what is written in the Bible is accurate, and free from undermining influences that would distort the actual event.
Here we have seen how Noah can be properly placed in the timeline prior to the ancient societies that Israel is accused of copying but there is more to support the idea that the biblical accounts were original and were not taken from other sources. Such evidence will be looked at in the following section.
DATES OF SECULAR MYTHS, RECORDS AND MSS.
It is a common charge one hears when the scholars and archaeologists complain or state that the secular myths were written down long before the Bible was written:
“What many of these people do not realize…is that there are several even earlier versions of the same story, all from ancient Mesopotamia. The oldest known version of the flood account comes form the Sumerians, a civilization that flourished in…the late fourth and third millennia BC. In that story which dates to some time during the third, millennium BC, … A later copy of this original Sumerian flood story was found on a clay tablet in the city of Nippur in Mesopotamia and dates to about 1740 BC…”(26)
Note two things contained in this quote. The first is, Dr. Cline, (the author of the above quote) calls the early Sumerian version- The Original, yet provides not evidence or proof such is so and the second item to take note are the dates of these versions; the first he states as originating ‘sometime during the 3rd millennium and the second as to being written in 1740 BC.
Both dates can and are easily placed to after Noah’s time making the earlier Sumerian version not an original but a variation of the truth and the second, more of the same as the account had approx. 500 to 800 years to develop before being recorded in its present form. In other words, sinful man had enough time to distort the truth and wrote down what they wanted the past to be not what it was.
Dr. Cline doesn’t stop with just those two examples, he goes on to say:
“ Around the beginning of the second millennium BC, a new version of the story emerged, with the name of the hero changed to Atrahasis. Then around 1800 BC or maybe a bit later, someone took a group of separate earlier stories and wove them together to form one great work, the Epic of Gilgamesh.”(27)
Now this is all plausible but none of the dating reflects that the stories are the original account and Dr. Cline, and others, do not present any proof that these works pre-date the actual account as told by Moses in Genesis 6-9. They cannot even prove that these accounts were first written, even though they are older than the Bible in its written form. In fact other scholars do not agree that the Atrahasis was a copy but the source for all other accounts:
“The word ‘Atrahasis’ means ‘extra wise’ and is the name for the earliest known version of Noah or Ut-napishtim, who built an ark and saved mankind from destruction. This is that story, which many scholars believe was the original from which all known flood stories came from.” (28)
So what all these accounts suggest is that because their works were produced on stone, they were able to survive longer than anything that Noah or his sons possibly wrote down, nothing here makes them the original account and in a deeper study of these accounts one would be able to see the vast differences between their contents from the Biblical one. Two things need to be looked at here, the first is the double standard that exist when scholars look at the Biblical documents and ancient secular ones; and second, the life of Noah and his sons.
The first problem we have is that the secular sources are readily accepted by secular scholars and archaeologists, even though these works have little to no evidence to support their authorship or date.
As we have seen by the above quotes, the early flood accounts have no proof of authorship, no evidence of when or how they were written, nor even supporting records to show any factual basis for the accounts in any aspect. YET, they are accepted without pause as being original or authentic, cases in point:
Manethos: Manetho, also known as Manethon of Sebennytos, was an Egyptian historian and priest from Sebennytos who lived during the Ptolematic era, circa 3rd century BC… Although no sources for the dates of his life and death remain…The earliest surviving attestation to Manethos is that of Josephus' Contra Apionem, "Against Apion." Even here, it is clear that Josephus did not have the originals…The king-list that Manethos had access to is unknown to us(29)
Tacitus: the roman historian who wrote his annals of imperial Rome in about A.D. 116…His first 6 books exist today in only one mss. and it was copied about A.D. 850. Books 11-16 are in another mss. dating form the 11th century. Books 7-10 are lost(30)
Josephus: we have 9 Greek mss. of his work The Jewish war, and these copies were written in the 10th, 11th & 12th centuries. There is a Latin translation from the 4th and Russian materials from the 11th or 12th.(31)
Homer: There are fewer than 650 Greek mss of it (Illiad) today. Some are quite fragmentary. They come down to us from the 2nd & 3rd century A.D. and following When you consider that Homer composed his epic about 800 B.C….(32)
Caesar: The Gallic Wars, composed between 58 to 50 BC, there are several extant mss, but only 9 or 10 are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day.(33)
Livy: Of the 142 books of his Roman History (59BC –AD 17) only 35 survive; these are known tous from not more than 20 mss of any consequence, one from the 4th century.(34)
Thucydides: His history was written about 460 to 400 BC and is known to us from 8 mss, the earliest belonging to about AD 900 with the same true for Herodotus.(35)
These are but an example of the many ancient authors who are accepted without passing the same strict criteria secular scholars place upon the Bible. As F.F. Bruce said;
“Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest mss of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the original.” (36)
So we can see how the secular academic world views ancient authors and how they treat the Biblical passages are quite different. Even William Dever sides with those who hold to this double standard. He writes:
“ First, all the Biblical texts in their present written form were produced relatively late in Israel’s history. Most were composed no earlier than the 8th century…The late date of composition and editing assumed here (bold mine) is not in debate among mainstream scholars…Despite the evidence the current biblical revisionists reject out of hand an early date for any of the Biblical literature…That leads me to the second limitation of the Biblical texts. Its writers and editors were historians of a sort, but they were highly selective in what they chose to include…The other biblical writers, principally those who produced the Deuteronomistic history, were elitists…The perspective of all the biblical writers is a factor that limits their usefulness in another regard. It is no exaggeration to say that all the Biblical literature constitutes what is essentially propaganda. The writers make no pretense to objectivity.”(37)
That last line is ridiculous as Dever demands of the biblical writers that which he does not practice himself, as he writes in his introduction of the same book,
“This is a book that, although it hopes to be true to the facts we, does not attempt objectivity; for that is impossible and perhaps undesirable.”(38)
So the standard placed upon the Biblical authors is an idealistic one and not even attempted by its secular critics, which makes their arguments hypocritical and moot.
Turning now to the second part we need to look at is the influence of Noah and his family. Since we have established their place in the chronological timeline existing prior to the rise of nations. (As has been pointed out previously secular scholars admit to people being alive prior to the organization of the Sumerians, the Egyptians and other first nations but cannot explain their source). We see the potential for the Biblical account being the original and first recorded story of the flood.
Genesis 9:28 says that Noah lived 350 years AFTER the flood and in Genesis 11:10 & 11 we read that Shem lived 502 years after the event. This information gives us credible evidence that Noah and his family told and re-told their experience over and over to their descendents, who in turn most likely told their children and so on. Then as men, once again, strayed further and further from God the story became distorted as people did not want to remember the truth but told the legends or mythic versions to their offspring.
Dr. Cline says “…someone took a group of separate earlier stories and wove them together to form one great work…’ and he also states:
“ The Epic of Gilgamesh became a favorite tale, and was told and retold, copied and recopied over the centuries.’(40)
So if it is possible for the unbelievers to do so, and without any proof, as Dr. Cline does not provide any nor footnote his point, then so could Noah and his family. The latter makes more sense because they actually lived the event and the former does not simply because if the Flood did not happen, what was the point of creating such a story in the first place or using a flood to base a myth upon? Surely there were other great acts of destruction that could have been used.
We this we see that for at least 500 years, the original account being told was the Biblical one and it would pre-date any secular myth, Sumerian or otherwise. The reason of oldest discovered is the original just does not fit, for the reason stated above, there is no reason to have a myth if there was no real original event to draw from.
Another reason the idea of the oldest is the original does not work is that we have no idea if Noah or his sons copied down their experiences on materials not suited for longevity and preservation was not an option for too long. We have no proof that the Sumerian or other Mesopotamian versions are the oldest versions, they are simply the oldest preserved to date.
Which brings this paper to its final point, in the chronological examination, whom copied whom. These accusations abound and they are usually placed against the Israelites for whatever reason.
WHO IS COPYING WHOM
Throughout the history of archaeology, the Biblical authors have come under immense scrutiny and two of the results of this over-intensified analysis are the accusations that they copied their words from other sources and the other is that they wrote their works well after the events described, embellishing them for whatever purpose. A few quotes to illustrate this point:
“The Biblical texts were heavily edited right from the beginning and they have undergone continual reinterpretation by Synagogue and Church for 2,000 years and more.” (41)
Then we have these words by Jeffery Sheler;
“Moreover, many scholars note that the biblical story seems to borrow directly from the flood myths of other civilizations in the ancient Near East…There are significant differences in the accounts as well. But the fact that the biblical story tracks these others so closely, says professor Michael D. Coogan of the Harvard Semitic Museum, suggests that the Genesis flood is the clearest example of direct dependence on other ancient myths.” (42)
For the later view point we have Dr. Brueggemann’s, ‘…the Old Testament in its final form is a product and a response to the Babylonian exile.”(43) And Finally;
“Since evidence of extensive literacy is lacking in Judah before the end of the eight century BCE, The History of David’s rise is unlikely to have been put into writing less than two hundred years after David’s time.” (44)
What each of these people are lacking, Dever, Coogan not Sheler, Brueggemann & Finkelstein, is proof. Not one offers any credible, concrete, legitimate evidence that the Israelites or the Biblical authors copied the Bible from other sources. They talk a good game but in the end they are the ones left with embarrassment because their theories do not hold up under scrutiny.
In fact, throughout all of the ancient history, Israel nor its biblical writers ever had the reputation of being copyists. That distinction fell to the ancient Babylonians of the Old Babylonian period:
“ The scribes of the Old Babylonian period were very zealous copyists and went to great lengths to preserve the literature that came down to them from the past, especially the archives of the Third Dynasty at Ur.”(45)
In spite of this known reputation, the secular scholars and archaeologists immediately charge the Israelites with ‘crimes’ they did not commit nor can be proven that they committed. One reason is that most scholars become literal when it suits them. The Bible was compiled throughout history and at an later date than the discovered tablets were written , so they think, much earlier thus the biblical writers must have copied from these other sources when they were in exile in Babylon.
There is one major problem with that type of thinking. Why were the older secular myths buried and broken for thousands of years only to be discovered within the past couple of hundred years, while the Biblical version thrived and survived and were read (and still are read) into the present? Israel was NOT that influential to be able to preserve its books, to have them spread across the nations from ancient times to modern, to have them read by people from all nationalities, so we must conclude that the original and true works are contained in the Bible and the copies are the broken, fragmented pieces of stone that came to light only recently.
There is no other explanation for such a fact, regardless of what scholars and archaeologists think or claim, God had promised to keep His word intact for ever and we see that via the archaeological record. William Dever makes the claim,
‘But what we call the archaeological record has not been edited by anyone. The artifacts are, therefore, more objective than texts, at least until the modern interpretive process begins. Surely such an unbiased source provides a more comprehensive picture of what life was really like in ancient Israel than do the biblical texts.”(46)
There are several problems with this claim. First, the ‘artifacts’ do not speak. Finding a tablet or fragment of one does not prove that it was written prior to the Biblical account nor does it show that the Israelites copied from it. The fragment is simply a stone tablet in the sand, fallen house or temple or a piece of rock on a cliff edge.
Second, to place the artifact in its ‘proper’ place in the archaeological record, one must use some sort of bias or interpretation, depending upon their belief or lack of it and some sort of text to inform us where it belongs. If it comes with a King’s name or a year of a king’s rule, then that is text which helps us place the item in the record. It doesn’t just magically place itself in the proper place.
Third, the archaeological record is edited all the time. We all have the same evidence, the same texts, the same artifacts but we all do not have the same opinion, the same bias and the same interpretation thus daily we argue where something belongs in the record based upon our perspective and position. If things were as smooth as Dr. Dever claims, we would not have competing books, archaeological or scholarly papers debunking or fighting each other nor would we have to have continuous research and investigation.
Fourth, this appeal to something that is fallible, limited, open to corruption, etc., over the Bible shows that the bias is against the biblical record in favor of a theory or hypothesis the scholar or archaeologist agrees with. Dr. Dever, as quoted earlier, claims not to be objective, nor should anyone be, though he demands the biblical authors should be, thus no matter what he or others do, there will always be bias in the archaeological record because no one is being objective. Such thinking undermines his point when he says ‘the record has not been edited’.
He cannot have it both ways, like he and so many other scholars try to do and it is clear that they cannot prove their position that the biblical writers copied, wrote propaganda, or wrote centuries after the fact. In fact, not even Israel Finkelstein can provide any evidence showing that the books of the Old Testament were written centuries after the events described.
The proof that the Israelites did not copy is found in the chronology of the time line , in the preservation and exposure of their words for all to see and in the fact if they did copy how could anyone explain the acceptance of those words, millennia after the fact? We have a whole nation of modern people who accept that history plus millions of adherents from other nations. If these books were copies, then such would NOT take place and upon discovery of being forgeries and fakes, dismissed in haste, without guilt.
CONCLUSION
In the space allotted for this topic, we have only been given a brief glimpse into the discussion of chronology and how it affects Noah’s Flood, yet a few words are yet to be spoken and are needed at this time.
As we have seen, scholars and archaeologists do not know where the initial civilizations arose from. They all agree that there were people in existence prior to the rise of the Sumerians, Egyptians and other nations but they do not know who they were or how they came to be.
Some, like Renfrew, decide to go with the evolution perspective, giving credit to the existence of humans to an unknown, unthinking, etc., process but such does not make sense. If the Sumerians were, according to Cline, capable of writing stories of events that never took place and then were able to pass such stories on to their children and grandchildren, then why would their ancestors be incapable of such things or neglect to inform their offspring of their origins via the evolutionary process?
It does not make sense for every child has questions about where they came from and the ancients would be no different in this case. Surely they had tales to tell long before they invented the Gilgamesh Epic. It is said that the Australian aborigines have oral traditions going back 40,000 years,(47) yet no such claim is made for the Near Eastern civilizations. What we do have are creation and flood ‘myths’ being told and re-told but nothing for evolution, which tells us that evolution is a non-starter and has no ancient support nor foundation.
There is not one ancient text which refers to an evolutionary process and the argument that they were not sophisticated enough to figure it out is pure arrogance on the part of the modern evolutionist. They are saying that the ancient civilizations were smart enough to figure out how to grow crops, breed animals, build huge buildings but were not capable of knowing their origin? That is just ridiculous as it implies only modern man is able to determine what took place thousands, possibly millions, of years ago. It is also an insult to the ancient people.
The lack of historical writings does present a problem:
“Regarding ancient historiography, historians of Sumer and Akkad find themselves in a situation radically different from that of colleagues studying the ‘classical’ world, in that they have no historical narratives at their disposal.”(48)
This does not mean there weren’t or aren’t any, it just means that either they have been destroyed or they are waiting discovery still. But one thing we do know, there are no myths incorporating anything that would be considered an alternative to the Biblical record, in general. The stories told follow the Biblical record and because we have this lack of secular works to research, we must turn, and rightly so, to the Bible to see where the original post-flood people came from.
That would be Noah and his family. Even the Sumerian king’s list provides some circumstantial evidence for this fact, as we saw in the section on Noah’s time. There is no point in including a catastrophic event in one’s historical regent’s list if one did not take place. It would serve no purpose and would distort the reality, undermining the objective of making the list in the first place.
There is no reason, as well, to place Noah at any other time than prior to the rise of the Sumerians and the Egyptians. He just does not fit for the societies would be well formed and there would be, again, no reason to have a family re-populating the world when it did not need re-populating. No matter how you look at it, the Biblical placing of Noah is perfect providing the scenario that would place his and his family’s retelling of the event prior to the writing of the ancient myths the Israelites are accused of copying.
Now we must address the question of ‘if Noah did not exist, and the Israelites copied from other civilizations, where did these nations derive their myths?’ As Kenneth Davis wrote, ‘Legends are really an early form of history-stories about historical figures, usually humans, not gods, that are handed down from earlier times.’(49).
So if Noah’s flood did not happen, what would the Near Eastern societies use to base their myths upon? It does not matter if the names in the myths are different than Noah’s for that would be changed depending upon the attitude and nature of the story teller. If they are far from God, then they would obviously pick names and details that would fit their pagan beliefs not the Biblical ones.
No, to be consistent and accurate, the Sumerians and other nations would have known about the real flood from Noah and his family but over time, as they turned away from God, the details would be changed until someone decided to permanently record it on whatever material was available. The reason would be as varied as the people in existence at the time. It could even have been done to combat the truth which God had promised to preserve till the end of time.
Finally, the empty charges of copying need not be addressed in detailed here as it was clearly shown that the advocates of such thinking cannot and do not have any proof nor physical evidence to substantiate their charges. As was shown in the very first quote for this paper, these advocates just make the empty declaration and then leave it at that, forgetting that they need to clearly prove such allegations.
Their own writings expose their failure to make a case as they rely on conjecture or theory not hard facts when making these claims. They have nothing of substance to point to which discredits the claims of the Bible and biblical writers and shows them to be correct.
Thus no matter how you look at it, the chronology does not support the secular version of events and the non-believing scholars and archaeologists must invent, processes, people, events, and other aspects of life to make their alternatives seem credible and real. What ancient records we have do not support their position and point to the validity of the Bible regardless of the name changes, the different details and so on.
The mere fact that the ancients were aware of creation and the flood shows that these events were real plus they asked questions about their origins;
“The ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, and Minoans…,asking where they and the world had come from, placed humankind at the center of creation and tracking back as far as their new sciences would allow, placed the beginning of all things just barely ahead of the earliest events reported in their written and oral history- about a thousand years before their own time.”(50)
It is not hard to see that the modern secular scholars and others do what they can to hide the truth and make it seem that the Bible is wrong because it does not have physical evidence to support its words. Problem for them is, the Bible is a book of faith and we will not be given so much physical evidence that faith is destroyed. We will be given enough to strengthen our faith in God for that is what is important, because faith is all we have at this time.
The secular scholars and archaeologists have decided to place their belief in what they can see, read or touch. For them, it is the physical that counts not the words from one book that is hard to prove via their scientific methods. For them faith in the Bible is being blind and submitting to some ancient hoax ignoring the fact that this ‘hoax’ has lived intact for millennia and crossed all national and cultural borders and forgetting that not one archaeological discovery has proven the Bible false. It is the conjecture, the theorizing, the conclusions that attempt to prove the Bible untrue, without realizing that they have nothing to base such upon; it all supports the Biblical chronology and accounts.
