Biblical & Theological Issues

by Eugene H. Merrill –

The European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries spawned a spirit of rationalism that challenged age-old beliefs relative to science, history, theology, and knowledge itself (epistemology). The certainties of the past yielded to equivocation or outright denial in the face of a scientific method alleging that nothing could be known or believed without scientific proof. The implications for the Bible and its authority and credibility are obvious. Whereas the Bible was once almost universally believed to teach truth in all areas of which it spoke, it now was forced to be on the defensive and its adherents were challenged to back up their beliefs with empirical evidence.

Nowhere was this more the case than in the dismissive rejection of the reliability of the Bible’s testimony to the past, especially those parts that speak of the supernatural and “unbelievable,” that is, events outside the scope of modern experience. What could not and did not happen in the present could not and therefore did not happen in the past regardless of what Scripture alleges. Skepticism about the Bible that arose in Enlightenment times has hardly abated; in fact, the historical critical method has never been more widely and vigorously practiced than in the present day, most particularly in the area of the concern of this paper—the historicity of Genesis. The following discussion will focus on (1) data, (2) historical sources, (3) determining historicity, and (4) selected comparisons between the history and traditions of the ancient Near East and the accounts of the Old Testament.

The Data

1. The Ancient Near East
   Modern archaeology had its birth by the mid19th century, and within 50 years had laid bare the ruins of the great Mesopotamian and Nile River civilizations. Along with destroyed walls and buildings, other artifactual remains including weapons, tools, jewelry, and, most notably, pottery came to light, illustrating in brilliant detail the life and times of cultures thriving as early as 8000-7500 B. C. Written artifacts—inscriptions on clay, papyrus, and other media—were of greatest interest and importance. The earliest of these were rather crudely inscribed pictograms, those in Mesopotamia dated to +- 3200 B. C. and the Egyptian perhaps 200 years later. Within a few decades the cuneiform syllabic inscriptions of Sumer and the hieroglyphic texts of Egypt began to yield manifold genres of literature that provided insight into the commerce, politics, arts and sciences, and religious thought of these ancient peoples. They also began to describe their understanding of the past as well as to recount the events of their times. Heavily overlayered by mythic motifs, these earliest records nonetheless may be considered historiographic, at least in an originary sense. With the passing of time a more objective self-reflection set in providing modern historians with data that may truly be called historiography.
2. The Old Testament
   Careful readers of the Old Testament are aware that it is essentially one massive narrative punctuated throughout by genealogies, addresses, prophetic oracles, poetry, wisdom texts, and the like. Moreover, it clearly professes to be history with the expectation that its readers should take it seriously as such. And this presentation does not begin with the Monarchy or some other period whose historicity is less challenged, but with Genesis, the first book of Torah. Though its author (Moses) was not eye-witness to the events he records, he refers to pre-existent texts or traditions upon which he drew, never suggesting for a moment that they are anything but historical in nature and content. Thus, he alludes eleven times (Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1, 32; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 13, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2) to the term toledoth, commonly translated “generations” but more accurately to be understood as referring to records or “histories.”1 As for the rest of the Pentateuch, Moses observed for himself the events it describes except for the narratives surrounding his own birth (Exod 1:1-2:9) and death (Deut 34:5-12). His authorship of this great block of material is abundantly attested in both the Old Testament (Exod 24:4; 34:28; 39:30; Num 33:2; Deut 4:13; 31:9, 22) and the New (Mark 12:19; John 1:45; 5:46) as well as in rabbinic tradition (TB Baba Bathra 14b-15a). The burden of proof clearly lies with opponents to Mosaic authorship, a matter to be addressed more fully below.

Authorship of the remaining books of the Old Testament cannot always be determined with certainty, but this in no ways affects the historicity of the persons and events they describe. Many of them attest to their own authorship whereas others are given attribution by the New Testament and later Jewish writings. That their authorship and hence their historical credibility were tacitly embraced by both Second Temple Judaism and the early Church is evidenced by the imprimatur of their canonicity. It goes without saying that texts that betrayed a lack of historical reliability would hardly be embraced as the Word of God.

Discovering Historical Data

The Ancient Near East

The recovery of ancient cuneiform and hieroglyphic texts was in itself not sufficient to cast light on the world from which they originated. The languages they represented had long since been forgotten so the laborious task of deciphering, translating, editing, and publishing them had to be undertaken. The key to unlocking the mysteries of the Egyptian language and literature was the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, a trilingual monument found in 1799. Besides the ancient hieratic script were renditions in Greek and Coptic, both of which were well known and were therefore the means of breaking the hieroglyphic code. A similar trilingual, one carved high on a cliff at Behistun in Persia, contained a message in Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian, the latter being the long-lost language of the Babylonians and Assyrians. Acquaintance with Persian enabled scholars to ferret out the mysteries of the Akkadian by 1846, along with painstaking work by other scholars on the innumerable clay tablets found by the mid-19^th century all over Mesopotamia. Before long the hitherto secrets of the ancient world began to be laid bare and moderns finally had access to the long-ago cultures of the Nile and Tigris-Euphrates valleys.

The Old Testament
Information on the history of early national Israel, to say nothing of the thousands of years of primeval, patriarchal, and pre-exodus times, depends almost entirely on the Old Testament account. In fact, the first reference to Israel by name appears in the Egyptian Mernepthah Stele of ca. 1210 B. C. where Israel is described as already living in Canaan. Not a word of Israel’s previous Egyptian sojourn, its exodus from Egypt, or the subsequent conquest of Canaan is to be found in Egyptian or any other contemporary texts, nor are any of the patriarchal ancestors named in such records. The Jewish historian Josephus in the first century A. D. provided his own version of his nation’s history, most of which is clearly based on the Old Testament texts themselves. Where he departs from his principal source or adds additional material, the sources he employs are usually not cited nor have they been recovered to this point. Therefore, his reliability may be somewhat suspect.

However, beginning with the 9^th century, Israel’s history as recorded in the Bible has become remarkably validated by the recovery of dozens of extra-biblical documents—primarily from Assyrian and Babylonian locales—that clarify, supplement, and otherwise bear upon the Old Testament while never contradicting its testimony when that testimony is grounded in proper exegetical and hermeneutical method. Examples will be adduced presently.

The Ancient Near East
Proper historical research demands that the historian look somewhat askance at the sources upon which he depends because writers of history—whether ancient or modern—inevitably undertake their task with certain agendas and biases. For example, the Assyrians seem never to have lost a battle though their opponents, alluding to the same encounters, had quite different impressions. Moreover, the past becomes idealized and romanticized, always larger than life and embellished with tales of heroism and conquest that may or may not have actually taken place. Thus, in the ancient world at least, reality merges into legend and myth, the line between the two often being blurred. This is easily demonstrated in the historical traditions of both the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations.

The checks against such historical distortion are of two major kinds: (1) the counter-testimony of contemporary witnesses and (2) archaeological data of a physical, material nature that can either verify or undercut claims made in texts. For example, if records of Tiglath-Pileser III boast of the utter destruction of a certain place at a certain time but the archaeological evidence suggests otherwise, there can be serious question as to the integrity of the Assyrian claim. The point is that texts that purport to recount history as it actually occurred must be counter-balanced by a healthy skepticism that guards against deliberate or unconscious twisting of the facts.

The Old Testament

A. As a Literary (Narrative) Historical Work
The fact that the Old Testament claims to be the inspired Word of God and that the Church confesses this to be true does not negate the fact that it is the product of mere men, made inerrant to be sure, but nevertheless ordinary individuals who undertook their work as historians according to well-understood conventions of historiography. They doubtless did careful research of pre-existing texts, checked with available witnesses to events, and otherwise hewed to acceptable standards of eliciting the past. The whole and final result, as noted above, is a massive narrative whose sources are integrated in such a manner as to result in a fully self-consistent witness to the plan and purpose of God. Because of this human dimension, the Old Testament account must be probed and subjected to the same exacting standards of historical scholarship as any other work that purports to be history. The believer will, of course, come to his analysis with a certain framework of presupposition concerning the reliability of the Bible’s testimony that will govern his attitude toward the nature of the book itself as well as a predisposition as to the outcome of his investigation. However, this is no more a deficit than the approach of the skeptic who has made up his mind a priori that the Bible, because it is a ‘religious” book, disqualifies itself as “normal” or acceptable historiography. The argument is that literature with an ideological agenda cannot be taken seriously when it purports to be recounting the past.

B. As a Theological Work

The Bible is unique in that it is both a work of “ordinary” history, a record of ancient events as they are believed to have actually occurred, and also one of so-called sacred history, an interpretation of those events that forms the stuff of theology. The German term Heilsgeschichte is commonly employed to capture this concept. The distinction is thus drawn between history as a bare-bones account of the past, usually without overt interpretation (certainly without theological interpretation) or attempt at meaning, and history as the disclosure of God at work in human affairs, a work leading to ultimate salvation. While the notion of “salvation history” is commonly used in critical circles to salvage some credibility for the Old Testament as history, it is still an entirely appropriate way to distinguish between history as a recovery of “brute facts” and the theological interpretation of those same facts.

What must be stressed here is that sacred history can hardly be based on a record of events that cannot be trusted as to their historical veracity. That is, theological interpretation of things that did not in fact occur is specious interpretation that falls far short of being theology in any commonly accepted understanding of the term. Unless and until the Old Testament can be validated as an infallible record of actual historical occurrences, no pious platitudes about its theological worth can change the fact that it lacks genuine theological content. In short, the “ordinary” historical testimony of the Old Testament cannot be divorced from its theological testimony.

Selected Comparisons

Creation Stories

A. The Ancient Near East Nearly every culture in the world possesses accounts of origins—how the world and they themselves came to be. The Sumerians, followed by the Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia, conceived of the creation of the gods themselves from primeval forces associated with the watery depths that apparently had existed forever. These earliest deities reproduced and formed communities with hierarchical structures of governance in which the principal gods held sway over the assembly as a whole. In time the heavens and earth were created as well as humankind, whose purpose was to serve the gods. In Egyptian tradition the gods created themselves and then all other things including man, the latter, as in Mesopotamia, to serve the deities.

B. Genesis The biblical view is starkly different. It knows of only one God who was eternally existent until at a given moment he spoke and brought into existence all things that are. He created mankind as (not in) his image to represent him and to exercise lordship over all other aspects of his creation.

C. Comparisons/Contrasts Whereas creation in pagan mythologies knows nothing of the concept of ex nihilo (out of nothing), the Bible makes clear that God pre-existed all other entities and made them all by the mere speaking of them. He is presented as the only God, pure and perfect in all his ways as opposed to the carnal, self-serving deities of pagan polytheism. The biblical view of man is that he was created to be the image of God and as such to rule over all things God created (Gen 1:26-28). His fall into sin corrupted him and the creation but the prospect of a full restoration by a merciful God (Gen 3:15) made possible man’s continuing role as God’s vice-regent. Nothing of this glorious concept of God and man exists in ancient Near Eastern tradition.

 Flood Stories

A. The Ancient Near East No clear example of a flood account exists in Egyptian literature to this point, but the situation in Mesopotamia is altogether different. The most important flood story found there is the Atrahasis Epic. According to it, the occasion for the flood is the boisterous noisiness of humankind that prompts the irritated gods to wipe them out in the deluge. After a hiatus of some time, another document, the Sumerian King List, says that kingship was once more lowered from heaven and came to rest in the city-state of Kish. It then goes on to list the names of the ten kings who ruled the land before the flood and the ten who followed.

B. Genesis The reason for the biblical flood is the increasing sinfulness and non-repentance of mankind except for Noah and his immediate family. They are spared from the deluge which the Bible says covered the highest mountains, thus presupposing its universality. After more than a year in the ark, the family emerged and from them sprang the world’s nations (Gen 10).

C. Comparisons/Contrasts The reasons for the great flood differ greatly in the Mesopotamian and biblical versions. In the former, the impatience of the gods results in an arbitrary decision to destroy the human race whereas in the Genesis narrative it is the sinfulness of man that must be punished by a holy God. Likewise, man is restored by the gods in the first instance because they knew they had made a mistake in ridding themselves of their slaves. In the biblical version Noah and his family are spared to give humankind another opportunity to live out their mandate as God’s image. In common is the building of a great vessel which came to rest on a high mountain in the Caucasus Range.

Genealogies

A. The Ancient Near East The most famous genealogy from ancient Mesopotamia is the afore-mentioned Sumerian King List which purports to list all the kings of Sumer and Assyria/Babylonia from creation until the early part of the third millennium B. C. The list is interrupted by the flood (see above) but resumes thereafter. Later, the Assyrians and Babylonians continued the practice of listing kings but such lists were limited to royalty. The same is true in Egypt, where records of dynasties exist from Dynasty I (ca. 3000 B. C.) ultimately throughout Egyptian history until the Christian era. Again, these are pretty much confined to royal figures.

B. Genesis The genealogies of the Old Testament occur primarily in Genesis and 1 Chronicles. They trace the lineage of Adam through Abraham to David, where the focus then is on David’s dynastic succession. The names included are not just of kings but members of the seed of Adam through Abraham through whom the promised restoration of mankind to God would be possible. Thus, they are “ordinary” people made extraordinary merely by their being listed.

C. Comparisons/Contrasts The Mesopotamian and Egyptian lists are not so much genealogies as king lists, some of which, it is true, are dynastic and therefore genealogical insofar as the dynasty was (1) passed from father to son and (2) lasted for more than two generations. The biblical examples, on the other hand, while featuring names critical to the transmission of the covenant promises, consisted primarily of ordinary family members whose line could be traced in some way back to Noah and thence to Adam. The secular lists were designed to glorify human royalty whereas the biblical were to glorify the King of kings through his covenant people.

Tower of Babel

A. Ancient Near East A story exists in Sumerian literature (The Epic of Enmerkar) concerning the confusion of speech and thus the creation of the languages of the earth. This was done not as a punishment but as a communication aid. The epic makes clear that at one time there was a universal speech which later diversified. As for the tower, archaeology has uncovered numerous examples of these, including a large one at Babylon. Known as ziggurats, these towers served the purpose of marking holy places.   

B. Genesis The narrative of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9) serves two purposes: (1) to illustrate the hubris of humanity who refused to “multiply and fill the earth” as the command to Adam and Noah had dictated and (2) to show what happened when the command of the Lord was disobeyed. The punishment consisted of the confusion of human speech and the subsequent dispersion of the human race that it occassioned.

C. Comparisons/Contrasts The fact that Sumerian tradition (but so far not Egyptian) agrees with the Bible about monolinguism in the ancient world is significant. But the differences are even more so. In the case of Genesis the confusion of speech was not salutary but punitive. Yet it accomplished God’s purpose in scattering humankind throughout the earth in order to fulfill the mandate to exercise dominion over all things. The common existence of towers is also of interest but again there are differences. The ziggurats served as holy “mountains” upon which miniature temples were placed whereas the Tower of Babel was nothing more or less then a futile attempt by man to provide a rallying site around which he could declare his independence of God.

The Patriarchs

A. The Ancient Near East An abundance of inscriptions testify to the lifestyle of ordinary people all over the Near Eastern world by the turn of the third millennium (ca. 2000 B. C.). Besides royalty and upper classes well known from earlier texts, the lives and fortunes of farmers, craftsmen, shepherds, and nomads now become the subject of interest and description. Tribalism and all the customs associated with it appear more clearly as do the habits of everyday life. What emerges of relevance here is a clear patriarchal society in which polygamy, transfer of the rights of first-born sons, concubinage, and slavery are well attested.

B. Genesis Glimpses of patriarchal life-style emerge as early as the stories of Cain and Abel (Gen 4:1-16) but become more fully elaborated with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Here all the major features of tribalism and (semi-)nomadism are exhibited in both their positive and negative aspects. The picture that issues from these Genesis texts is consonant with all that has been discovered in secular sources.

C. Comparisons/Contrasts While much similarity exists between the lives and fortunes of the biblical patriarchs and the cultures and customs of their Near Eastern background, the differences are noteworthy. Obviously, one difference is the monotheistic picture that is at least strongly implicit in the biblical texts. Abraham, it must be remembered, was not always a nomad living off the land. He had come from the bustling metropolis of Ur in response to the call of his God, adopting his wandering lifestyle only as a means of moving to Canaan and subsisting there as best he could. At the same time, the details of everyday patriarchal life as seen in the Bible, its negative aspects included, are so remarkably similar to what is now known from the early 3^rd millennium there can be no doubt as to the authenticity of the patriarchal stories.

The differences between the customs and traditions of the Bible and those of the ancient Near East can best be summed up by one word: election.

Conclusions

1. Explanations for the Similarities
   At this point the question of dependence with regard to the Bible and the ancient Near East must be brought to the fore. Genesis alone yields evidence of a great deal of similarity between the two, if not some kind of dependence. If the latter, it must be dependence of the Bible on its larger environment rather than the reverse, a point even most conservative scholars concede. Similarity is not synonymous with dependence and yet must be explained. First, one must remember that biblical history was not lived in a vacuum but as part of the warp and woof of civilization in general. Second, biblical characters were anything but plaster saints. Like many believers today they were captivated by their culture and more often than not fell prey to prevailing modes of thought and life. Third, all cultures observe certain common modes of thought and behavior, most having no moral or ethical implications whatsoever. If the patriarchs lived like patriarchs, where is the dependence?
2. Explanations for the Differences     The differences between the customs and traditions of the Bible and those of the ancient Near East can best be summed up by one word: election. God had created a people to be his image in carrying out his regal purposes for creation. Man’s sin, while painful to the purpose, could not forestall it. This was demonstrated by God’s calling out a man and his clan to undertake the great privilege and responsibility of living out and transmitting the covenant whereby the world could find ultimate redemption. Abraham and his descendants were thus chosen to be different from the nations around them in virtually every aspect of life. They must worship the only God, they must render sacrificial service to him, they must be holy and righteous before him and the world, and they must by doing all this demonstrate their marked differences from their neighbors. This largely explains the uniqueness of the biblical presentation.

One can also account for similarities by supposing that what little was right about the nations was their vestigial remembrance of creation, the fall, and subsequent judgments like the flood and Babel. These memories had become corrupted and eventually mythologized, leaving the nations to worship the creation rather than the Creator.

3. Implications     The similarities and differences between the historical accounts of the Old Testament and the civilizations of the ancient Near East have little or nothing to do with the matter of the historicity of the Old Testament. It stands alone amongst the histories of the nations precisely because it is the Word of God and therefore not subject to the critiques and assessments common and proper to analyses of ordinary history. Let God speak and every man be silent.

Eugene H. Merrill (Ph.D.) is Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, and Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of numerous articles and books, including the commentary on Deuteronomy in the New American Commentary Series, and Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Baker).

Notes
¹ See The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1700.

(First published in the Areopagus Journal Vol. 9 No. 6 –  Are Biblical Doctrines Stolen from Pagan Myths?)