For example, in ancient Egypt, the phrase
“he died aged 110” referred to someone who lived life to the full and who
offered an important contribution to society. In the same way,
the extremely long periods of reign of the early kings may represent how
incredibly important they were perceived as being in the eyes of the people.
This doesn’t explain, however, why the periods of tenure later switched to
realistic time periods.[i]
العهد
القديم يذكر أعمار كبيرة جدا للبشر (رسل وملوك)[ii]
ونفس
الشئ في قائمة الزعماء السومرية[iii].
وقد
تناول العديد من الباحثين هذه القضايا[iv].
Figure 3. Number
symbols used during the Akkadian Period (2334–2154 BC).
Figure 4. Number
symbols used during the Sumerian Period (2112–2004 BC).
Figure 5. Number symbols used
during the Babylonian Period (2004 BC–75 AD).
Figure 6. List of the
duration of the Antediluvian Sumerian reigns
Figure 7. List of the
Ages of the Antediluvian biblical Patriarchs.
[i] https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-asia/sumerian-king-list-still-puzzles-historians-after-more-century-research-001287
30 JANUARY, 2014 - 07:07 APRILHOLLOWAY
The Sumerian King List still puzzles historians after
more than a century of research
READ LATER PRINT
Out of the many incredible artefacts that have been
recovered from sites in Iraq where flourishing Sumerian cities once stood, few
have been more intriguing than the Sumerian King List, an ancient manuscript
originally recorded in the Sumerian language, listing kings of Sumer (ancient
southern Iraq) from Sumerian and neighbouring dynasties, their supposed reign
lengths, and the locations of "official" kingship. What makes this
artefact so unique is the fact that the list blends apparently mythical
pre-dynastic rulers with historical rulers who are known to have existed.
The first fragment of this rare and unique text, a
4,000-year-old cuneiform tablet, was found in the early 1900s by
German-American scholar Hermann Hilprecht at the site of ancient Nippur and
published in 1906. Since Hilprecht’s
discovery, at least 18 other exemplars of the king’s list have been found, most
of them dating from the second half of the Isin dynasty (c. 2017-1794
BCE.). No two of these documents are
identical. However, there is enough common material in all versions of the list
to make it clear that they are derived from a single, "ideal" account
of Sumerian history.
Sumerian king listAmong all the examples of the
Sumerian King List, the Weld-Blundell prism in the Ashmolean Museum cuneiform
collection in Oxford represents the most extensive version as well as the most
complete copy of the King List. The 8-inch-high prism contains four sides with
two columns on each side. It is believed that it originally had a wooden
spindle going through its centre so that it could be rotated and read on all
four sides. It lists rulers from the antediluvian (“before the flood”)
dynasties to the fourteenth ruler of the Isin dynasty (ca. 1763–1753 BC).
The list is of immense value because it reflects very
old traditions while at the same time providing an important chronological
framework relating to the different periods of kingship in Sumeria, and even
demonstrates remarkable parallels to accounts in Genesis.
The ancient civilisation of Sumer
Sumer (sometimes called Sumeria), is the site of the
earliest known civilization, located in the southernmost part of Mesopotamia
between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, in the area that later became
Babylonia and is now southern Iraq from around Baghdad to the Persian Gulf.
By the 3 rd millennium BC, Sumer was the site of at
least twelve separate city states: Kish, Erech, Ur,Sippar, Akshak, Larak,
Nippur, Adab, Umma, Lagash, Bad-tibira, and
Larsa. Each of these states comprised a walled city and its surrounding
villages and land, and each worshiped its own deity, whose temple was the
central structure of the city. Political power originally belonged to the
citizens, but, as rivalry between the various city-states increased, each
adopted the institution of kingship.
The Sumerian King List , records that eight kings
reigned before a great flood. After the Flood, various city-states and their
dynasties of kings temporarily gained power over the others.
Sumer’s mythical past
The Sumerian King List begins with the very origin of
kingship, which is seen as a divine institution: “the kingship had descended
from heaven”. The rulers in the earliest
dynasties are represented as reigning fantastically long periods:
After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship
was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alaljar
ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years.
Some of the rulers mentioned in the early list, such as
Etana, Lugal-banda and Gilgamesh, are mythical or legendary figures whose heroic
feats are subjects of a series of Sumerian and Babylonian narrative
compositions.
The early list names eight kings with a total of
241,200 years from the time when kingship “descended from heaven” to the time
when "the Flood" swept over the land and once more "the kingship
was lowered from heaven" after the Flood.
Interpretation of long reigns
The amazingly long tenure of the early kings has
provoked many attempts at interpretation. At one extreme is the complete
dismissal of the astronomically large figures as “completely artificial” and
the view that they are unworthy of serious consideration. At the other extreme, is the belief that the
numbers have a basis in reality and that the early kings were indeed gods who
were capable of living much longer than humans.
In between the two extremes is the hypothesis that the
figures represent relative power, triumph or importance. For example, in ancient Egypt, the phrase “he
died aged 110” referred to someone who lived life to the full and who offered
an important contribution to society. In
the same way, the extremely long periods of reign of the early kings may
represent how incredibly important they were perceived as being in the eyes of
the people. This doesn’t explain, however, why the periods of tenure later
switched to realistic time periods.
Related to this perspective is the belief that although
the early kings are historically unattested, this does not preclude their
possible correspondence with historical rulers who were later mythicised.
Finally, some scholars have sought to explain the
figures through a mathematical investigation and interpretation (e.g. Harrison,
1993).
Relation to Genesis
Some scholars (e.g. Wood, 2003) have drawn attention to
the fact that there are remarkable similarities between the Sumerian King List
and accounts in Genesis. For example,
Genesis tells the story of ‘the great flood’ and Noah’s efforts to save all the
species of animals on Earth from destruction.
Likewise, in the Sumerian King List, there is discussion of a great
deluge: “the flood swept over the earth.”
The Sumerian King List provides a list of eight kings
(some versions have 10) who reigned for long periods of time before the flood,
ranging from 18,600 to 43,200 years.
This is similar to Genesis 5, where the generations from Creation to the
Flood are recorded. Interestingly, between Adam and Noah there are eight
generations, just as there are eight kings between the beginning of kingship
and the flood in the Sumerian King List.
After the flood, the King List records kings who ruled
for much shorter periods of time. Thus, the Sumerian King List not only
documents a great flood early in man’s history, but it also reflects the same
pattern of decreasing longevity as found in the Bible - men had extremely long
life spans before the flood and much shorter life spans following the flood
(Wood, 2003).
The Sumerian King List truly is a perplexing mystery.
Why would the Sumerians combine mythical rulers with actual historical rulers
in one document? Why are there so many similarities with Genesis? Why were
ancient kings described as ruling for thousands of years? These are just some
of the questions that still remain unanswered after more than a century of
research.
By April Holloway
[ii] https://sites.google.com/site/drgeorgefisham/publications/genesis-1-11/chronology-a-proposed-harmony-between-genesis-and-the-sumerian-king-list
CHRONOLOGY:
A PROPOSED HARMONY BETWEEN GENESIS AND THE SUMERIAN KING LIST
The Chronology of Genesis 5 | A New Chronology of the
Bible | The Sumerian King List
Prologue
Back to Erech I | Kish | The Possibilities for Pre-adamism
Back to Erech I | Kish | The Possibilities for Pre-adamism
I. THE CHRONOLOGY OF
GENESIS 5
It is frequently alleged that the Biblical account of human origins
cannot be harmonized with modern anthropology. The Bible is said to
depict mankind as the product of a special creation occurring about 4000 B.C.E.
(1). Anthropology, on the other hand, has supposedly demonstrated that
humanity evolved from primitive apes over a period that may be as long as
twenty-five million years. Some observers thus believe that they are
faced with a dichotomous choice: either reject the Bible as unscientific or
ridicule anthropology for reaching unscriptural conclusions. On the other
hand, we maintain that both of these extreme positions are unnecessary.
When the Bible is placed within the context of other ancient near-eastern
traditions, a harmony between the Scriptures and anthropology becomes
possible. Thus, the purpose of the present chapter is to place Biblical
chronology within the context of its major near-eastern parallel, namely the
Sumerian King List. Then the next chapter will, among other things, show
how these two sources can be harmonized with modern anthropology. The
highly tentative and speculative nature of this harmony cannot be over
emphasized, but we still believe that our conclusions represent a movement in
the proper direction.
One of the first discoveries that an examiner in this field makes
is the fact that the Scriptures themselves give no definite date for the
creation of mankind. The first known person to undertake such a
calculation was James Ussher (1581-1656), Bishop of Armagh, in Ireland.
Using various Scriptural references (Gen. 5, 11, Ex. 12:40-41, I Ki. 6:1,
etc.), he deduced that creation must have occurred in 4004 B.C.E. The
famous Cambridge scholar, John Lightfoot (1602-1676), carried this conclusion a
step further. Supposedly on the basis of Scriptural allusions, he
calculated that Adam was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E., at precisely nine
o'clock in the morning, forty-fifth meridian time. Commenting
sarcastically on Lightfoot's reasoning, E. T. Brewster declared, "Closer
than this, as a cautious scholar, the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University
did not venture to commit himself." (2)
Perhaps the claims of former generations seem presumptuous in the
light of modern evolutionary science. Nonetheless, Ussher's chronology is
still printed in the marginal notes of several Bible versions, and more than
one unsuspecting Christian has been tempted to regard the margin as possessing
equal inspiration with the main text. In fact, the position on creation known
as hyper-orthodoxy seems to derive from confusing seventeenth-century pedagogy
with the Biblical document.
Insofar
as the Scriptures themselves present any chronology of ancient humanity, it is
recorded in Genesis 5. A novice examiner of this text, however, is
immediately confronted with three major problems. First, the extant
versions of this chapter all allot a different amount of time for the span
between Adam's creation and Noah's flood (see Appendix Chart A).
The Hebrew texts, especially as preserved by Masoretic monks, give 1656 years
for this period. The Greek or Septuagint
version allots 2242 years for the same time while the Samaritan text has only
1307 years. Most Biblical scholars agree
that, although the Masoretic texts were written rather late (ca. 900 C.E.),
they present the purest form of the ancient Hebrew tradition.(3) We will accordingly regard the time span of
Genesis 5 to be 1656 years, and the variations given by other versions will be
treated as corruptions from this more-original calculation.
A
second problem facing the novice examiner concerns the interpretation of names
in Genesis 5. From Ussher's and
Lightfoot's time, it has been customary to regard these names as designating
literal individuals. Their increased
life spans were explained by reference to the (supposed) radically different
environment that existed before Noah's flood.
With the advent of uniformitarian assumptions in geology, however, such
explanations were rendered highly questionable.
A more plausible theory would regard these names as referring to whole
families, races, or tribes. In some
cases, the family has received its name from an outstanding individual within
the group. Thus, the Bible preserves
some personal information about these individuals (Enoch, Noah, etc.). In other cases, the family name does not seem
to be derived from any individual. The
term "Jared," for example, simply means "descent."(4)
A
third problem relates to the often-heard claim that the genealogies in Genesis
contain many gaps. This position can be
traced back to William Henry Green, who supposedly proved as early as 1890 that
the Genesis genealogies cannot be used for chronological purposes.(5) Green and his many followers, however, fail
to draw a necessary distinction between numerical and non-numerical
genealogies. Obviously non-numerical
genealogies are often arranged in symmetrical patterns that result in the
exclusion of some names. The genealogy
of Jesus presented in Matthew 1:2-17, for example, can readily be seen to
contain three divisions with fourteen names per group. In order to achieve this symmetry, Ahaziah,
Joash and Amaziah have been eliminated from the second division, thereby
creating an obvious gap. Such omissions
often occur in non-numerical genealogies.
In
the case of numerical genealogies, the time spans should be taken more
seriously than Green and his followers have allowed. We believe that it is improper to turn these
numbers into years for "the beginning of strength," as does John
Urquhart.(6) This is true because the
text explicitly states that the named offspring were born at the end of the
specified time span. If the names in
Genesis 5 refer to families rather than individuals, then there can be many
gaps between personal names while the accompanying numbers record the proper
time spans for the groups as a whole.
Certainly the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 demonstrate symmetrical
patterns. In the case of such numerical
listings, however, symmetry is used for enhancing the memorization of time
spans, rather than abrogating them altogether.
Henry
Morris and John Whitcomb have cited the case of a numerical genealogy that
would seem to disprove our thesis. In
Exodus 6:16-20 the descent of Moses from Levi is presented with specific years
being assigned for the life of each patriarch.
According to this numerical genealogy, the maximum amount of time
between Kohath and Moses was 270 years.
In Numbers 3:27-28, however, we learn that there were 8,600 male
Kohathites in the time of Moses.
Concerning Amram (the Biblical father of Moses), Morris and Whitcomb
conclude: "Unless we are willing to grant that the first cousins of Moses
and Aaron had over 8,500 living male offspring, we must admit that Amram was an
ancestor of Moses and Aaron, separated from them by a span of 300
years!"(7). We thus would seem to
have an example of a numerical genealogy with at least one obvious gap.
A
proper response to Morris and Whitcomb would take several points into
consideration. First, Amram may well
have been the literal father of Moses and Aaron. As the outstanding member of his clan,
however, Amram had his name affixed to this branch of the Kohath family. A maximum of 133 years elapsed between the
time that the Amram clan became a separate branch of the Kohathites and the
time of Moses' birth.
Second,
the problem of whether the Kohathites numbered 8,600 males in Moses' time is a
part of the broader question concerning how many Israelites came out of
Egypt. Morris and Whitcomb assume a very
literal interpretation for the figures in the Book of Numbers. This would produce a total Israelite band of
over two million people, a marching host that would extend from Egypt to Sinai
and back!(8) Liberal scholars suggest
that these figures may have been compiled during the Davidic monarchy and were
"read back" into this earlier period.(9) Conservative scholars must reject this possibility,
since it introduces unnecessary errors into the Scriptures.
We
believe that two points must be considered when analyzing the calculations in
the Book of Numbers. First, Exodus 12:38
declares that “a mixed multitude” followed Moses from the land of Egypt. In other words, the Israelites were joined by
other exodus sympathizers who also wished to seek their future and freedom in
the desert lands beyond Egyptian tyranny.
We believe that these non-Israelite sympathizers may have numbered as
much as one-third of the total population.
At Sinai they were assimulated into the twelve-tribe system and
considered as an integral part of the new nation. Second, George E. Mendenhall has suggested
that the Hebrew elef, meaning
“thousand,” originally designated a tribal subunit used for military
conscription. By David's time it did
contain a thousand men, but in earlier ages the elef was both smaller and more
variable.(10) In order to make the
calculations in Numbers come out correct, we believe that the Hebrew me’ah,
meaning “hundred,“ would also have to be a military conscription unit during
the Exodus period. Perhaps a lad with
some leadership potentials would persuade his followers to join him in
enlistment. Such a group of young men
was probably called a me’ah. Although this unit was standardized at one-hundred
males during the monarchial period, it may have originally comprised no more
than two to five people. If ten me’ah
made an elef, then the average elef may have been about thirty-five warriors,
rather than a thousand.
Given these reductions, the calculations in Numbers would produce a
total fighting force of approximately 21,000, as well as an entire population
of about 70,000. If ancient Israel
followed the modern Israeli practice of recruiting both men and women, then the
total population might be reduced to less than 40,000. Women recruits were probably eliminated by
monarchial times, when standing armies became the norm, rather than temporary
recruitments. However, we do not know whether earlier ages of Israelite history
followed the same practices as the monarchial age. With respect to the Kohathites, Moses’ 8600
male “cousins” now become less than three-hundred. Accounting for the mixed multitude and female
enlistment, Kohath may have produced between five and six hundred
descendants in approximately 300 years. This is entirely possible from a
genealogical standpoint.
From the foregoing discussion, we draw the following
conclusions. First, the names in Genesis 5, rather than designating
actual persons, must be interpreted as referring to whole families, races, or
tribes. While some of these group names may have been derived from
literal individuals, this is not always the case. To properly
transliterate the language of Genesis, we envision something like the
following: "The family called Adam existed for 130 years, at which time
the Seth family came into existence as a separate branch. The other,
undesignated branches of the Adam family continued to exist for 800 years.
Thus, the total existence of the Adam family (excluding specifically designated
branches like the Seth family) was 930 years. Now the Seth family existed
for 105 years, at which time the Enos family arose as a separate
branch." We have added the terms "designated" and
"undesignated" in consideration of the Cain family. Most likely
they survived beyond the 930 years of Adam and had the last of their direct
descendants perish in the great flood of Noah. Given the chronology of
Genesis 5, the same would be true for "undesignated" branches of the
Methuselah family.
Second, by this type of transliteration, we can see that gaps may
exist with respect to individual names, but there are no breaks with respect to
the numbers assigned to these names. In contrast to Green and his many
followers, we conclude that the genealogies of Genesis (as well as other
numerical genealogies in the Bible) can be used for chronological
purposes. The time spans can be added together, even if the recorded
names do not include every individual within a family or tribal unit.
Finally, since the Masoretic texts preserve the purest extant form
of the ancient Hebrew tradition, the total time span for the period between
Adam's creation and Noah's flood would seem to be 1656 years. At least,
this is the sum that we will add to the dates for other Biblical events, as
derived in the following section.
In his Complete Works of Josephus, William Whiston made a
suggestion whose time may have come for reconsideration.(11) Whiston
believed that many events in Israelite history could be dated to years of
Sabbatical or Jubilee. Every seventh year was a "sabbatical"
for the ancient Israelites, a time when debts were cancelled, slaves released,
fields left fallow, and the whole nation remembered its heritage of living as
free, nomadic tribes. After a cycle of seven Sabbaticals, every fiftieth
year was a "jubilee," during which these practices were intensified
and special horns of Jobel (plural Jobelim) were blown throughout the land to
proclaim liberty, equality, and praise to the Lord. Whiston maintained
that Jubilee years did not break the basic Sabbatical cycle, since the fiftieth
year also corresponded to the first year of a new Sabbatical period.
When we calculate Jubilees and Sabbaticals in the manner prescribed
by Whiston, it is amazing how many Biblical events can be dated with some
measure of credibility. A major problem, however, arises with the
question of how we can break into these Sabbatical cycles to begin our
calculations in the first place. Whiston believed that he found a clear
instance of a Sabbatical and Jubilee during the reign of King Hezekiah (715-686
B.C.E.). When Sennacherib, King of Assyria, invaded Judah, the prophet
Isaiah proclaimed that the Assyrians would be defeated. Thus, the
Sabbatical scheduled for that year, as well as the following Jubilee, would be
observed on time (II Ki. 19:29; Is. 37:30; compare Lev. 25:1-7, 14). Both
Assyrian and Israelite records fix the date of Sennacherib's invasion at 701
B.C.E., although John Bright argues that the Scriptures present a
"telescoped" account where some of the events may occur during a
later incursion about 688 B. C.E. (12). However, even Bright finds no
reason to relate the crucial prophecy of Isaiah to anything other than the
invasion of 701. Thus, we seem to have a fairly clear example of a
Sabbatical in 701 B.C.E., and the subsequent year of 700 B.C.E.. must have been
a Jubilee.
Another problem involves the question of when Sabbatical cycles
began in Israelite history. Whiston maintained that the first Jubilee
occurred in the same year as the fall of Jericho, since the horns or trumpets
used in this siege (Josh. 4:4-6, 8, 13) and employed elsewhere during that year
(Num. 31:6) can be identified with the horns of Jobel (Lev. 25:10-12, 15, 28,
30-31, 33, 40, 52, 54; 27:17-18, 21, 23-24; Num. 29:1, 36:4). Calculating
Sabbatical cycles in the manner prescribed by Whiston, we can place this first
Jubilee in the Hebrew year that began in September of 1240 B.C.E. Thus, the
death of Moses and Joshua's subsequent invasion of Canaan probably occurred
during the next spring. We are aware that a 1239 B.C.E. date for Joshua’s
conquest of Jericho contradicts the archeological findings of both John
Garstang and Kathleen Kenyon. Jericho continues to be an ongoing problem
for Biblical chronology. However, we agree with Kenyon that the great
erosion forces that all researchers encountered at Jericho may have simply
removed the remains of Joshua’s time.(13)
The
children of Israel wandered forty years in the wilderness before invading
Canaan (Ex. 16:35, Num. 14:33, Dt. 1:3).
Thus, the events of the Exodus can be placed about 1279-8 B.C.E., which
is very near the time calculated for this event by the famous British
archeologist, William Foxwell Albright. He cites both Scriptural and
archeological evidence for his conclusion.
In Exodus 1:11, for example, we learn that Israelite slaves worked on
building the Egyptian cities of Rameses and Pithom. From Egyptian inscriptions we know these
cities were repaired and expanded during the reigns of Seti I (1294-1279
B.C.E.) and Rameses II (1279-1213 B.C.E.).
Also, research conducted by Nelson Glueck in the Transjordan region of
Palestine indicates that the Israelites would have encountered no organized
resistance in this area before the thirteenth century. Because Moses fought several battles in the
Transjordan (Num. 21:21-35: 31:1-12; Dt. 2:26-3:7), the Exodus could not have
occurred before 1300 B.C.E. (14)
The
conclusions of Albright and Glueck would seem to contradict I Kings 6:1, where
the Scriptures declare that 480 years elapsed between the Exodus and the
beginning of work on the Jerusalem Temple during the fourth year of King
Solomon's reign. Because we accept Edwin
Thiele's chronology for the divided kingdom period, the fourth year of Solomon
can be placed at 967 B.C.E., which would also be a Sabbatical. (15) This
calculation, when combined with I Kings 6:1, would seem to locate the Exodus at
1447 B.C.E., over 150 years earlier than the placement by Albright and
Glueck. We must remember, however, that
the Old Testament frequently uses "forty years" as a round number to
stand for the period of time occupied by a single generation. Thus, Moses' lifetime spanned three
generations while most of the judges and early kings presided over Israel for
periods of forty years (Dt. 34:7, Ju. 3:11, 30-31; 5:31; 8:28; I Sam. 4:18; II
Sam. 5:4; I Ki. 11:42). Applying this
observation to I Kings 6:1, we might suspect that 480 years really designates
the passing of twelve generations.
Appendix Chart B shows how twelve generations between the Exodus and
Temple could be calculated by counting either major Israelite leaders or the
men who served as high priests. If the
Exodus actually occurred in 1278 B.C.E., then the average span between
generations would be approximately twenty-six years, a number quite acceptable
to modern genealogists.
The
Old Testament use of forty years as a generation marker might be detected in
other passages of the Bible. In Exodus
12:40, for example, we learn that 430 years elapsed between the Exodus and
Israel's descent into Egypt during the time of Joseph. If the Exodus occurred in 1278 B.C.E., Moses
and some contemporaries may have known that ten generations had passed from the
time that Joseph served under the Great Hyksos pharaohs, also that he served
for about thirty years after the Israelite descent into Egypt. Appendix Chart Cdemonstrates how the 430 years could have been calculated by
knowing the generation of Pharaohs
between the time of Joseph and the Exodus.
This line of reasoning would place Israel's descent into Egypt about
1625 B.C.E., during the reign of Seshti (1635-1617 B.C.E.). Since the time of Josephus, many scholars
have argued that the most propitious time for Israel's descent into Egypt would
be during the tolerant reigns of these Hyksos "shepherd kings."(16)
After the Hyksos expulsion (about 1537 B.C.E.), the Egyptians grew increasingly
intolerant toward foreigners within their borders. Those scholars who argue an early date for
the Exodus are probably correct in identifying Thutmose III (1479-1425 B.C.E.)
as the original "pharaoh of the oppression," given his imperialistic
attempts to conquer and enslave non-Egyptian people. However, the pharaoh who sought to
exterminate Hebrew slaves at the time of Moses’ birth was probably Horemhab
(1323-1295 B.C.E.).
Appendix
Chart D summarizes our calculations for the so-called "Ancestral
Age," from the birth of Abraham to the descent of Israel into Egypt. A skeptic might question how these patriarchs
and matriarchs could live for such extended periods of time. In line with our interpretation of Genesis 5,
however, we suspect that the names for some of these ancestors might actually
function as titles for positions of tribal leadership. Perhaps several individuals occupied these
roles in a succession of tribal rulers.
Thus, Abram means "Exalted Father," Abraham "Father of a
Multitude," Sarah "Princess", and Israel (possibly) "Prince
of God." Perhaps Isaac (laughter)
was originally Ezek (the Strong One) and Jacob (supplanter) may have been Jakab
(the Lord's vessel). Could these names
designate titles for the heads of a tribe with several successive individuals
serving as "the Exalted Father," "the Princess," "the
Strong One," etc.? Might not this
situation be similar to declaring that "the President" has existed in
America for more than two hundred years?
At
this point, we may also have a way to check our calculations, since Genesis 14
constitutes a possible correlation between the Biblical and Mesopotamian
chronologies. In this chapter, Abraham
is drawn into a battle between five Transjordanian kings and four rulers of
Mesopotamia. The names given for the
Mesopotamian leaders are: (1) Chedorlaomer, King of Elam, (2) Arioch, King of
Ellasar, (3) Amraphael, King of Shinar, and (4) Tidal, King of Nations. Older scholarship used to equate Amraphael
with Hammurabi (the great king of Babylon who reigned circa 1792-1750 B.C.E.),
but this identification proved to be neither linguistically nor historically
sound. (17)
We
believe that Amraphael may equate to Amurru-Apil-Sin (the Amorite, Apil-Sin),
Hammurabi's grandfather, who reigned circa 1830-1812 B.C.E.). During the time of Apil-Sin, an Elamite king,
known in Babylonian records as Kudur-mabug, gained enough power in Mesopotamia
to place his “son“, Warad-Sin (reigned circa 1834-1822 B.C.E.), on the throne
of Larsa. The actual name of this
powerful monarch may have been Kudur-lagamar (meaning "Servant of
Lagamar," an Elamite deity), but Babylonian redactors substituted their
god Marduk (then corrupted to Mabug) in the place of Lagamar. Babylonian records also refer to Warad-Sin as
Waraku or Ariaku. Thus, we have explanations
for Amraphael, Chedorlaomer, and Arioch.
Besides
Larsa, the other major city in Mesopotamia during Apil-Sin's time was
Isin. The Sumerian King List mentions a
king of Isin named Ur-dul-kuga (reigned circa 1830-1827 B.C.E.). His name may have corrupted to
Tu-dul-gaga. In Hebrew two
"gas" could become "gaim" or "goim" (meaning
"nations"). Thus, Ur-dul-kuga
of Isin gets transformed into "Tidal, King of Nations." Given the few years of overlap between
Ur-dul-kuga and the other Mesopotamian kings, the events of Genesis 14 probably
transpired about 1830 B.C.E. Our
chronology would place these occurrences at precisely the right place in the
lifetime of Abraham, ten years after the entrance into Canaan and shortly
before the birth of Ishmael (Gen. 15:16).
Appendix
Charts A and E summarize intervals for the period between Noah's flood and the
birth of Abraham. Chart A gives numbers
for the three major Bible translations: Hebrew (Masoretic texts), Samaritan,
and Greek (LXX). Our calculations come
from the Masoretic texts since, as stated above, we regard them as the purest
version of the original manuscripts. In order to correlate these numbers with
the Mesopotamian chronology, we find it necessary to make two assumptions:
1. Some older commentators wondered
why Genesis 5 presents added summaries of the patriarch’s lives, whereas the
Hebrew and Greek versions do not for Genesis 11. These scholars believed that the phenomena
was somehow significant but were never able to explain it in a satisfactory manner. We believe that the original autographs for
Genesis 11 do not give added summations because the numbers should be read
consecutively. For example, the proper
way to interpret Gen. 11:10-12 is as follows: “…Shem was 100 years old when
Arphaxad was born, two years after the flood.
Shem lived 500 years after Arphaxad’s birth and begot other sons and
daughters. Then (after this 500-year
period of Shem’s life) Arphaxad lived 34 years and begot Salah.”
2. We believe that the figures in Gen.
11:10-25 have, at some time in their transmission, passed through the classical
Sumerian system and been retranslated into our base-ten numbers. This possibility is clearly seen in the
lifetime of Eber after the birth of Peleg.
While the Masoretic Hebrew has 430 for this period, both the Samaritan
and Greek versions have 270 years. This
constitutes the largest discrepancy between the various translations of Gen.
11. Also, the major column affected by
the assumption of a Sumerian redaction would be the hundred’s place, which in
Sumerian would actually be a column for sixties. Thus, for example, the 500 years of Shem
would really be 5(60) = 300 years. In
the case of Eber, 430 would be 4(60)+30=270 years. Appendix Chart E gives conversions to the
Sumerian system.
Note that our two assumptions solve another problem that has
puzzled Bible chronologists for many centuries.
How could Terah be 70 years old at the time of Abraham’s birth (Gen.
11:26) and yet be dead at the time of Abraham’s call (Ac. 7:4; Gen. 12:4), if he
lived to be 205 years old (Gen. 11:32)?
In the past, chronologists have either made Terah 130 years at Abraham’s
birth, or shortened the life of this patriarch to 145 years. However, neither of these ploys receives any
direct support from the Masoretic texts.
By our assumptions, Terah was actually 70 + 1(60)+19 = 149 years at the
time of Abraham’s birth. Fifty-six years later he died, and nineteen
years after that, Abraham moved to Canaan. In order to make these figures
work, we assume that the number 70 was already retranslated into our ten-base
system, since the Sumerian equivalent would be 110.
The question of patriarchal longevity also arises in the time
period before Abraham. From ancient Greek records, however, we know that
Arphaxad was a region in the Zagros Mountains northeast of Nineveh. It
supposedly was the original homeland of the Chaldeans, as well as the
Israelites. From Assyrian records we also learn that Peleg, Reu, Serug,
Nahor, and Terah were names for small villages in northwestern Mesopotamia near
Haran.(18) Even "Ur of the Chaldeans" (as opposed to the
more famous "Ur of the Sumerians" in southern Mesopotamia) may have
been a village in this region. (19) "Salah" is a Hebrew
term meaning sprout, branch, or offshoot. Also, "Heber"
(Mesopotamian "Habiru" or Egyptian "Apiru") seems to have
originally designated a social class of persons who lived a semi-nomadic,
wandering lifestyle in the wilderness areas between more settled
villages. Thus, the names in Genesis 11 present the picture of a people
who originally lived in the Zagros Mountains northeast of Nineveh. A
branch of these people adopted the Habiru lifestyle and wandered into the
northwest region of Mesopotamia. Eventually they settled in a succession
of small villages, but one of their descendants (Abraham) was called to readopt
a semi-nomadic existence and journey into the land of Canaan.
Adding the various intervals derived for the Biblical eras
discussed so far in this chapter, we produce the following dates for major
events in the Book of Genesis:
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2-3)
|
5375 B.C.E.
|
Cain kills Abel (Gen. 4)
|
circa 5255 B.C.E.
|
Enoch (Gen. 5)
|
4753-4388 B.C.E.
|
Noah's Flood (Gen. 6-9)
|
3719-3718 B.C.E.
|
Tower of Babel (see Chapter Six, sections I and VI)
|
circa 2750 B.C.E.
|
Life of Abraham
|
1915-1740 B.C.E.
|
Migration of Abraham to Canaan
|
1840 B.C.E.
|
Battle of the Kings (Gen. 14)
|
1830 B.C.E.
|
Life of Isaac
|
1815-1635 B.C.E.
|
Life of Jacob
|
1755-1608 B.C.E.
|
Life of Joseph
|
1664-1554 B.C.E.
|
Migration of the Israelites to Egypt
|
1625 B.C.E.
|
Perhaps the examination of parallel Mesopotamian chronologies, as
conducted in the next sections, will help us to clarify and expand these
conclusions even further.
During the reign of Utu-hegel, King of Erech (ca. 2130-2113
B.C.E.), a Sumerian scribe sought to demonstrate the ancient nature of his
people by compiling a list of all the "kings" in Mesopotamian from
the dawn of human memory down to his own time. This original list went
through many editions and expansions until it probably reached its final form
about 1795 B.C.E., during the reign of Damiq-Ilishu, the last king of Isin
(1816-1794 B.C.E.).(20) Some time during the editing process, an unknown
redactor added a prologue that may have originally had an independent
existence. Perhaps the redactor copied this "preamble" from the
names and numbers of an old "creation epic" that was first written
down at Eridu during the third millennium B.C.E. The prologue lists the
names and reigns of several long-lived "kings," then concludes with a
terse statement: "…the Flood swept over the earth." (21) When the
main body of the text resumes, it informs us that kingship had once again
descended from heaven, to be found at the ancient city of Kish. After
millenniums of rule, however, Kish was overthrown by the equally ancient city
of Erech. Both the prologue and main body of this amazing text are what
scholars collectively call the Sumerian King List. In this section
we will be concerned exclusively with the prologue, while the next parts of the
chapter will treat the early dynasties of Erech and Kish. After years of
study, it is our opinion that the Sumerian King List relates to the
chronologies of Genesis in a more direct manner than scholars have previously
supposed.
Both liberal and conservative writers have generally ignored the
Sumerian King List. Liberals tend to cite its contents only to conclude
that Genesis 1-11, like other Ancient Near Eastern writings, can be regarded as
a collection of myths. Thus, the Bible is presumed to be "guilty by
association." Insofar as conservative scholars have taken notice of
the King List, it has usually been to construct another fallacious form of
reasoning called "two wrongs make a right." Critics of the
Bible doubt that a human individual could live for 900 years, but according to
the traditional interpretation of Genesis 5, most antediluvian patriarchs lived
for even longer life spans. Some conservative scholars have sought to
justify "primeval longevity" by pointing to the Sumerian King
List. In that document single monarchs are said to have lived "from
10,000 to 60,000 years." The numbers in Genesis 5 are thus justified
by the supposed fact that the King List is guilty "of exaggerating to vast
dimensions" the chronology of the primeval world. (22)
Having rejected the liberal, mythological view of Genesis 1-11 in
the first chapter of this volume, we will here respond only to the conservative
argument. Several objections can and must be raised. First, the
argument merely represents a logical fallacy. The large life spans in
Genesis 5 cannot be justified by pointing to even bigger exaggerations in the
King List. An exaggeration is still an exaggeration, no matter how small
or large the size. Second, the King List can be interpreted in the same
manner as we previously treated Genesis 5. The names may not refer to
literal individuals but rather designate whole tribes, races, or families.
Finally, it is possible to reduce the numbers in the King List Preamble by a
considerable margin.
Anyone who investigates the preamble portion of the King List will
discover that the original measure used for time was not the year. Instead, the
ancient Sumerians utilized a time-unit called the sar (pronounced “shar,” given
a diacritical “v” placed over the “s,” which we are unable to symbolize). In a
numerical sense, sar designated the largest number in the Sumerian counting
order. Unlike our system that rests on the base 10, the Sumerians
alternated their bases between 10 and 6. So rather than counting from 1
to 10 to100, etc., they calculated from 1 to 10 to 60 to 600 to 3600.
This last number (3600) was known as a sar, and because their mathematical
columns went no higher, “sar” was also their word for “all, everything, entire,
whole,” etc. By Babylonian times, however, “sar” began adding new
astronomical meanings to its original numeric value. In an astronomical
sense, sar referred to a cycle, at the expiration of which the lunar and solar
eclipses were repeated in the same order, but at 120 degrees west of those in
the previous period. This cycle lasted for 6,585 days, or approximately 18
years. The astronomical and numerical meanings of sar passed into
Greek culture, where the term for both became saros. Although very rare,
“saros” is also an English term, which continues to preserve both
connotations. For convenience sake, we will refer to the word as “saros”
and designate its plural as “sar.” Throughout this article we hope to
preserve the distinction between the numerical and astronomical meanings for
this term.
Returning to the above argument, we can see that the so-called
exaggerated figures of the King List result from assuming a numerical interpretation
for the saros. If an astronomical translation is substituted, then these
huge figures can be reduced by a division factor of 3600/18 or 200. A
supposed reign of 3,600 years, for example, would reduce to 10 sar, or only 180
years by the astronomical interpretation. For purposes of this article,
we will refer to the conversion ratio of 3600/18 as the sar factor.(23)
The honor of producing the most authoritative translation and
analysis of the Sumerian King List belongs to Thorkild Jacobsen. Appendix Chart F summarizes
his treatment of several versions of the antediluvian chronology.
Jacobsen argues that Weld-Blundell tablet number 444 constitutes the purest
form of the preamble text. Much has been written, however, about the
so-called Larsa redactor who wrote Weld-Blundell tablet number 62. It is
not our intention to join this scholarly debate, but we believe its conclusions
can be summarized as follows. The additions of the Larsa redactor are
"spurious" in the sense that they were not a part of the preamble as
originally written. The information preserved by the Larsa scribe,
however, may be as historically accurate as the data in the original
text. Jacobsen even suggests that one name added by the Larsa editor may
be read as Lal-ur-alimmuk, who is known from independent sources to be a very
ancient king of Nippur. Thus, the original preamble contained only eight
names, but it was later modified by the addition of two more
"kings." Perhaps these changes brought it in line with the
widespread belief that there were ten antediluvian patriarchs. (24) Berosus was
a Babylonian priest that, about 275 B.C.E., wrote a record of ancient
Mesopotamian traditions as known in his time. He preserved another
version of the old names and numbers recorded by the various King List scribes.
From the foregoing discussion, we believe that three conclusions
can be drawn about possible sources for the preamble section of the King
List. First, the various extant versions of Berosus and the King List all
seem to derive from a single ancient Mesopotamian tradition. Second,
although the original preamble enumerated only eight antediluvian kings, later
variations added two more names. These additions probably brought the
King List in line with the widespread belief that there were ten rulers before
the flood. It is thus entirely possible that the ancient Mesopotamian
tradition contained ten names and that the original preamble represents a
variant reading from this source. Third, the time span of the
antediluvian period was somewhere between 67 and 124 sar, according to the
various redactors. If Weld-Blundell tablet 444 represents the purest
extant version of the Eridu creation epic, then perhaps the original number in
the Mesopotamian tradition was closer to 67 than to 124.
From
the dawn of recorded time, Sumerians and Semites shared the Mesopotamian
valley. Generally speaking, Semitic
tribes settled in the northern uplands while Sumerians occupied the southern
alluvial plains. Commerce between the
two cultures, however, existed from a very early age. With the trading of material goods usually
goes the exchange of customs and ideas.
We must, therefore, envision the cultural intermingling of Sumerian and
Semitic beliefs from most ancient times within the Mesopotamian valley. In fact, two centuries before the writing of
the King List, a Semitic ruler, Sargon of Agade, was able to establish his
dominion over most of the Mesopotamian region.
One result of Sargon's reign must have been the acceleration of adopting
Semitic ways within the Sumerian world.
By 2000 B.C.E. (the time to which most Sumerian literary texts seem to
be assigned), it would be difficult to tell whether the traditions preserved by
these writings were actually Sumerian or Semitic in their origins. Also, as demonstrated in the previous section
of this chapter, the ancestors of Abraham lived in northwestern Mesopotamia, a
region known in ancient times to be a trading and cultural crossroads between
Sumeria and Semitic lands west of the Euphrates.
These
ancient trading relations between Sumerian, Semitic, and proto-Israelite
cultures, raise some very interesting possibilities. Could the material recorded in Genesis 5 and
in the King List preamble be derived from a common source? If so, then we might expect different
versions of the King List material to appear among Semitic groups, including
the Israelites. The main text of the
King List was supposedly compiled during a time when Sumerian patriotism stood
at a very high tide. (25) Could the document of ca. 2130 B.C.E. have lacked a
preamble because these antediluvian traditions were known to be Semitic, rather
than Sumerian, in origin? Even if the
sources for the original tradition were Sumerian, it could still be argued that
Semites living in northwestern Mesopotamia might preserve a version of these
calculations, given the cultural exchange that existed between their region and
Sumeria. It is entirely possible that
contact between Semites and Sumerians resulted in the production of Genesis 5
and the King List preamble as variations of a single ancient tradition. Of course this conclusion depends upon
demonstrating that more similarities exist between the two documents than has
previously been suspected.
Appendix
Chart G represents a highly speculative comparison between Genesis 5 and the
King List preamble. Column one lists the
names in Genesis 5, and column two gives the time spans between the
"births" of the various patriarchs. The third column reduces these
time spans to sar, assuming an astronomical interpretation. Column four adds the sar of column three
into major divisions. Columns five and
six give a hypothetical reconstruction based on variant readings of the King
List. If this reconstruction does not
represent the original form of the Mesopotamian tradition, we still might argue
that it was a variant reading known to the Israelites.
When
the data is set forth in the manner of Appendix Chart G, similarities between
Genesis 5 and the King List become readily apparent. Ninety-two astronomical sar equal exactly
1656 years. Genesis and the King List
have preserved different time spans, but the major divisions seem to match
approximately. The differences can be
explained by the fact that both lists are recording family chronologies while
preserving different individual names within the overall groups. Genesis remembers more individuals toward the
beginning of the period while the King List preserves more names toward the
end. Both settle on the symmetry of ten,
probably for easy counting and memorization.
In
some cases, even the names themselves are a bit similar. Could Mah-alal-eel and Alal-gar be the same
title? Can we connect A-lul-im and
A-da-m, or Methu-sal-ah and Enmen-gal-ann-a?
Lamech means "strong young man," which constitutes a good
description for the Sumerian shepherd god Dumuzi. (26) However, Abel was also a
shepherd similar to Dumuzi, as we will see in a later section of this article.
Our work specifically devoted to Eden further argues that the names from Alulim
through Enmen-duranna are all reminiscent of elements in Gen. 2-4, when
properly translated from the Sumerian. Can we detect the name Noe or Noah in
the third syllable of Uta-na-pishtim, the Babylonian hero of a flood
tradition? The Sumerians knew this man
as Ziusudra (he who laid hold on life of distant days, or as we translate from
the proto-Euphratian: all souls drown). Others
called him Atrahasis (the exceedingly wise), or dumu Sukerlam (the man from
Shuruppak). (27) All of these titles appear in editions of the King List. Since Uta-napishtim was a member of the
Ubar-Tutu family, his "reign" should be properly included within the
number for that "dynasty."
Most likely he was the leader of that small party that survived the
catastrophic flood recorded in both Hebrew and Mesopotamian traditions.
From
the foregoing discussion, the following conclusions can be drawn. First, both the Scriptures and archeology
agree that ample contact existed between the ancient Hebrews and
Mesopotamians. Second, this contact
raises the interesting possibility that both Genesis 5 and the King List preamble
were ultimately derived from a common source.
Third, such a possibility seems to be supported by the number
of similarities between Genesis 5 and a hypothetical "original" for
the Mesopotamian tradition. This
original contains 92 sar which, in accordance with the conclusions previously deduced,
is a number between 67 and 124 with an amount closer to the former than the
latter. Ninety-two sar, when interpreted
astronomically, is also equivalent to the 1656 years of the Hebrew text. The hypothetical original contains ten names,
which is in accordance with the widespread belief in ten antediluvian
patriarchs. When the names are lined up
with those in Genesis 5, some similarities can be observed. The two lists record different time spans for
their cited names, but the major divisions seem to match approximately. Perhaps differences can be explained by the
fact that both lists are recording family chronologies while preserving
different individual names within the overall groups. Finally, therefore, it seems entirely
possible that Genesis 5 and the King List preamble both go back to a common
source. If not a written or oral
account, could this original "source" have been the historical events
themselves?
The
Chronology of Genesis 5 | A New Chronology of the Bible | The Sumerian King List
Prologue
Back
to Erech I | Kish | The Possibilities for Pre-adamism
IV.
BACK TO ERECH I
The
tentative nature of dating events this early in human history cannot be
over-emphasized. However, we believe
that an adequate chronology for events in ancient Mesopotamia can be reached by
employing several creative methods.
Generally, we follow the Middle Chronology for ancient Mesopotamia. This system sets the reign of Hammurabi at
ca. 1792-1750 B.C.E., whereas the time for his dynasty (Babylon I) becomes 1894-1595
B.C.E. During the previous age of Larsa
and Isin, the Middle Chronology reaches a stasis that merely adds 100 years to
the dates originally proposed by Jacobsen.
Thus, Larsa I becomes 2025-1763 B.C.E. while Isin I dates 2017-1794
B.C.E. Moving even further back, we find the revival of all things Sumerian
under Utu-hegel and the third dynasty of Ur.
Utu-hegel began his rise to power as the ensi (governor) of Erech ca.
2130 B.C.E. In 2119 B.C.E. he defeated
Tiriqan, the last king of Gutium, thereby becoming the most powerful ruler in
Sumeria. However, six years later
Utu-hegel lost his throne to Ur-Nammu, the first king of Ur III. This dynasty lasted 2113-2004 B.C.E.(28)
Moving further back, we encounter a problem with the rulers of
Gutium. Rohl proposes that Elulu, an usurper in Agade, can be identified
with Elul-Mesh, an early king of Gutium. We find this equation highly
questionable, since Elul and Elulu seem to be common names during this
period. There is even an early king of Ur named Elulu, but Rohl seeks no
correlation with him. Furthermore, the most reliable texts of the King
List are unfamiliar with any suffix for the Akkadian usurper. We thus
follow the intervals of Jacobsen for Gutium I, placing its length at 2243-2119
B.C.E.(29) The age previous to Gutium I is the time of Agade I, when
Akkadian culture triumphed over the classical Sumerian rule. At this
point we endorse the suggestion of Swain who apparently adds six years to Agade
I. Adjusting for the Middle Chronology, the rise of Lugal-Zagesi to power
thus begins ca. 2400 B.C.E., when he became the ensi (governor) of Umma.
In 2389 B.C.E. he overthrew Ur-Utuk of Erech and Uruk-Kagina of Lagash.
Making Erech his new capitol, he defeated Ur-Zababa of Kish in 2377
B.C.E., the same year that Sargon I first became the ensi (governor) of
Agade. Thirteen years later, Sargon overthrew Lugal-Zagesi, thereby
becoming the most powerful king in Sumeria. By ca. 2350 B.C.E. Akkadian
culture also reigned supreme throughout Mesopotamia. We set the total
reign of Sargon I at 2377-2321 B.C.E., while his dynasty (Agade I) lasted
2377-2195 B.C.E.(30)
Pressing even further back, we encounter the classical age of
Sumerian culture known as the Early Dynastic period (abbreviated ED).
During this time-period, Jacobsen employs a controversial method called
“approximate reign.” Wherever he finds the regnal numbers for kings too
large for credibility, Jacobsen assigns these rulers approximate reigns of
twenty or thirty years. Actually, this procedure has some basis in
genealogy, where it can be shown that the average span between generations is
about thirty years. When dealing with an eldest child, however, the gap
becomes closer to twenty. Thus, we believe that the method of “approximate
reign” will suffice to transport us back to Ur-Nungal, the “son” of Gilgamesh,
an ancient king of Erech, whose reign we date ca. 2619-2589 B.C.E.(31)
As a firm supporter of the Late Chronology, Jacobsen places the
reign of Ur-Nungal at 2513-2483 B.C.E. He continues to use the method of
approximate reign to date the legendary kings before this time. Their
reigns are thus calculated as follows:
Gilgamesh
|
2543-2413 B.C.E.
|
Dumuzi
|
2563-2543
|
Lugal-banda
|
2583-2563
|
Enmerkar
|
2603-2583
|
Meskiag-kasher
|
2633-2603
|
By Jacobsen’s estimates for the ages of Mesopotamian history, these
calculations would place Ur-Nungal and Gilgamesh in ED III, while the rest of
the above monarchs go to ED II.(32) However, Jacobsen’s conclusions can
be the subject for much scholarly debate.
Let us begin by examining the case of Gilgamesh.
Sumerian literary texts declare that he built the great walls surrounding
Erech. The Epic of Gilgamesh opens with specific mention of this
construction. However, archeologists have discovered remains of the great
wall in ED I rather than ED III. Also, glyptic art of ED II and ED III
depicts heroic figures fighting with wild animals and mythical monsters.
Generations previous to Jacobsen thought these figures represented Gilgamesh
and his hunting companion, Enkidu, slaying lions, bulls, and other legendary
beasts. After Jacobsen's work, most scholars abandoned the identification
of Gilgamesh with this artistic motif. However, it may be time for a
serious reconsideration of the older view. The names of Lugal-banda and
Gilgamesh have also been found on Shuruppak tablets that can be assigned to ED
III. Determinative signs for deity precede these names, thereby
demonstrating that the people of ED III regarded both kings as legendary figures
who had achieved divine status. From these considerations, we conclude
that Gilgamesh should be placed in ED I, rather than ED III as the Jacobsen
view maintains. (33)
A question also arises with respect to the relationship between Dumuzi and Lugal-banda. At this point, the standard text of the Sumerian King List reads: “Lugal-banda, a shepherd, reigned 1200 years. Dumuzi, a fisherman (from) the city of Kua, reigned 100 years.” Some variant texts add to the description of Dumuzi: “he captured Enmen-baragesi single-handed.”(34) From Sumerian mythology, we know that Dumuzi was a shepherd god and the patron deity of Erech. As such, he belongs more properly in the prologue section of the King List, rather than Erech I. The gigantic reign assigned to Lugal-banda is also disproportionate to any of the other numbers in this dynasty. Furthermore, Jacobsen’s translation of shu pesh as “fisherman” has been the subject of some scholarly debate.(35) We believe that most of these problems disappear if we keep one possibility in mind. The earliest redactors of the King List probably had a pro-Erech bias, since Utu-hegel reigned from that city. In order to demonstrate the great antiquity of Erech, an early editor may have added “reigned 1200 years” into the manuscript. If we remove this phrase and accept the variant text, then the Sumerian reads quite smoothly: “Lugal-banda (was) the shepherd Dumuzi’s valuable hand, (for) the city (of Kish?) being breeched, he captured Enmen-baragesi single-handed. Reigned 100 years.”(36) With this translation, we can finally catch the play on words between “valuable hand” and “single-handed,” as well as eliminate the many problems caused by the standard text.
A question also arises with respect to the relationship between Dumuzi and Lugal-banda. At this point, the standard text of the Sumerian King List reads: “Lugal-banda, a shepherd, reigned 1200 years. Dumuzi, a fisherman (from) the city of Kua, reigned 100 years.” Some variant texts add to the description of Dumuzi: “he captured Enmen-baragesi single-handed.”(34) From Sumerian mythology, we know that Dumuzi was a shepherd god and the patron deity of Erech. As such, he belongs more properly in the prologue section of the King List, rather than Erech I. The gigantic reign assigned to Lugal-banda is also disproportionate to any of the other numbers in this dynasty. Furthermore, Jacobsen’s translation of shu pesh as “fisherman” has been the subject of some scholarly debate.(35) We believe that most of these problems disappear if we keep one possibility in mind. The earliest redactors of the King List probably had a pro-Erech bias, since Utu-hegel reigned from that city. In order to demonstrate the great antiquity of Erech, an early editor may have added “reigned 1200 years” into the manuscript. If we remove this phrase and accept the variant text, then the Sumerian reads quite smoothly: “Lugal-banda (was) the shepherd Dumuzi’s valuable hand, (for) the city (of Kish?) being breeched, he captured Enmen-baragesi single-handed. Reigned 100 years.”(36) With this translation, we can finally catch the play on words between “valuable hand” and “single-handed,” as well as eliminate the many problems caused by the standard text.
Jacobsen's chronology also dates Lugal-banda's predecessors, Meskiag-kasher
and Enmerkar, during the Early Dynastic period. However, an old Sumerian
epic poem entitled "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" declares that no
one wrote on clay tablets before Enmerkar. Archeological investigations
at Erech have shown that the first clay tablets written in Sumerian script come
from the level known as Uruk IV, at least three hundred years before ED
I. Also, Uruk IV contains one of the most impressive sacred precincts
ever found in Mesopotamia. "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta"
indicates that Enmerkar built this magnificent Eanna temple complex at Erech,
as well as embellishing the sacred House of Enki at Eridu. Werner Papke
and David Rohl both see Meskiag-kasher as a "hypocoristicon" for the
Biblical Cush (Gen. 10:6-8). This would place him after the flood, but
most likely in the archeological age known as Uruk I. (37)
Considering most of the information listed above, David Rohl
concludes: “Although I myself am an advocate of using average reign-lengths to
work out approximate dates for eras where the regnal data is missing, in the
case of the earliest periods of the SKL I believe this method would produce
wholly misleading results.” (38) We agree. Clearly another method
is necessary for analyzing the monarchs before Ur-Nungal, but Rohl seems at a
loss to tell us what that procedure should be. We suggest that Jacobsen’s
method of “approximate reign” be replaced by a new procedure called
“approximate floruit.” Instead of discarding the numbers of Erech I as
too incredible, they should be seen as times when the previous king
flourished. Gilgamesh, for example, may have ruled 126 years before
Ur-Nungal, rather than having an incredibly long reign of 126 years. By
our calculations, this would place Gilgamesh's kingship about 2745 B.C.E.
In Chapter Six we will argue that Gilgamesh was the ruler who erected the
famous Tower of Babel. Note that we have previously dated this event at
about 2750 B.C.E., very close to our present calculation, and most likely at
the end of ED I.
The following list deduces reigns for the legendary kings of Erech, given the method of approximate floruit. We have also adopted Jacobsen’s procedure of giving monarchs reigns of about thirty years. The floruits are underlined, and we have attempted to place each king in his proper time-period.
The following list deduces reigns for the legendary kings of Erech, given the method of approximate floruit. We have also adopted Jacobsen’s procedure of giving monarchs reigns of about thirty years. The floruits are underlined, and we have attempted to place each king in his proper time-period.
Gilgamesh (126 yrs.)
|
2775-2745 …ED I (end)
|
Lugal-banda (100 yrs.)
|
2875-2845 …ED I (toward beginning)
|
Enmerkar (420 yrs.)
|
3300-3265 …Uruk IV (beginning)
|
Meskiag-kasher (324 yrs.)
|
3589-3559 …Uruk I (beginning)
|
In order to distinguish the city from the time-period, please note
that we have adopted the procedure of calling the city “Erech,” whereas the
culture is “Uruk.” Regardless, we now have the legendary kings of Erech I
placed in their proper time-periods.
The earliest rulers in the main body of the King List supposedly
reigned from Kish. According to Jacobsen, all monarchs before Puzur-Sin
(ca. 2316-2291) have numbers too large for credibility. Thus, by employing his
method of calculating approximate reigns, Jacobsen fixes the rule of Etanna at
2766-2736 B. C.E. The King List names twelve monarchs of Kish before
Etanna, but Jacobsen cites independent Sumerian legends that refer to Etanna as
the first king of Kish. Also, the twelve monarchs before Etanna can be
dismissed because several of their names translate into terms for animals or
farm implements. Jacobsen believes a playful, anti-Kish redactor added
these "kings" in order to populate that early city with all sorts of
zoological and barnyard specimens.
Jacobsen and his followers have also connected their dates to
definite archeological evidence. Several flood deposits in Mesopotamia
intervene between Jamdet Nasr and Early Dynastic layers (see Chapter Five,
section VII), and the Sumerian King List declares that kingship first
"descended" at Kish after the flood. Thus Jacobsen and his
followers assign Etanna tothe archeological era known as ED I (Early Dynastic,
first strata). In turn, they date ED I about 2800 B C.E., which
constitutes an approximate floruit for the reign of Etanna.(39) As we
have already seen, however, Jacobsen’s view comes replete with problems.
Generations previous to Jacobsen referred to Etanna as the
Babylonian Enoch. In Genesis 5:24 we find the cryptic statement that
Enoch "walked with God" and "was not" because "God
took him." Traditional exegesis connects this passage with II Kings
2:11, where the prophet Elijah ascends to heaven in a "chariot of fire."
Thus, Enoch and Elijah are thought to be the only men who never experienced
death, since God took them directly to heaven. The author of Hebrews also
declares: "By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not
experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away.
For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God." (Heb.
11:5, NIV).
The Sumerians remembered Etanna as a wise and righteous man who
brought to his people all the benefits that good government affords.
According to the King List, he was a shepherd who "consolidated all
countries" and "ascended into heaven." Cylinder seals from the
Old Akkadian period portray a shepherd rising to heaven on the wings of an
eagle. Glyptic art also depicts Etanna as harnessing flocks of birds
together to achieve the same purpose. An ancient legend, preserved in
both Babylonian and Assyrian accounts, tells how Etanna flew to heaven on the
back of an eagle that he had rescued from a snake. (40). Thus,
similar to Enoch, Etanna is portrayed as a wise and good man who ascended
directly to heaven. If the identification between these two gentlemen
holds, however, Etanna must have lived many years before the flood, not after
it as the Jacobsen view would require.
This present discrepancy with the Jacobsen chronology cannot be
solved by employing our method of approximate floruits. The Sumerian King
List assigns the earliest rulers of Kish reigns that stagger credibility, spans
of fantastic proportion. A second method is needed to explain the extremely
long reigns of these monarchs from Kish. Similar to Jacobsen's anti-Kish
redactor, we posit the existence of a pro-Sumerian editor who sought to
increase the antiquity of his race by moving numbers up at least a column in
the ancient counting system. The 900 years assigned to Enmen-baragesi of
Kish II, for example, would look like 1(600)5(60). When reduced by a
column, this figure becomes 1(60)5(10) or 110 years. The resultant number
can then be treated as an approximate floruit. We call this new addition
to our methodology “column reduction,” and believe that it most aptly applies
to the earliest dynasties of Kish. The only numbers in the King List that
prove problematic for our second method are 1560 and 960, since both of their
reductions produce a six in the tens column which should then move to the
sixties. Perhaps in these cases, the pro-Sumerian redactor rounded up
from a number of five or more in the one's column. We employ the
practice of ending the resultant figure with a “7“, since it is the average for
the numbers that can be rounded up (5-9). In this manner, we are able to
reduce 1560 to about 177 and 960 to about 117.
There could be a possible objection to our proposed interpretation
of the Sumerian King List based on archeological evidence for the city of
Kish. From archeology, we know that Kish did not exist until the Jamdet
Nasr period (circa 3200-2900 B.C.E., by our calculations). However, we
are now projecting kings of Kish that go back as far as 5600 B.C.E. How
is this possible? In the Sumerian language, “king of Kish” would appear
as lugal Kish. Unfortunately for purposes of clarity, Kish also
functioned as an abbreviation for Kishar, meaning “the entire world” or “all
the earth.” Thus, lugal Kish might refer to a specific monarch of
that city, or it might designate the pretentious title “king of the entire
world.” (41) We believe that some ancient scribe, either by plan or
accident, compiled a list of ancient chieftains whom he thought might claim the
title “king of all the world.“ Only the last few names were individuals
who actually reigned in Kish. Later Sumerian scribes (even if they
understood the ambiguity) probably maintained the confusion in order to
demonstrate the ancient nature of their culture.
Some of these chieftains may have actually ruled in the vicinity of
Kish. Etanna, for example, may have governed at Ras Al-Amiya at the
beginning of the Ubaid III culture (ca. 4500 B.C.E.). This would place
him at the crucial juncture when Ubaid culture broke out of southern
Mesopotamia and spread into the northern valley. If Etanna was a key
agent in this change, then we might understand how he “consolidated all
lands.” Also this position would help explain why he was regarded as such
a wise and good king, since he brought his subjects the benefits of a superior
culture. Also note that a reign of ca. 4500-4452 B.C.E. falls within the
range that we have previously calculated for the Biblical Enoch (4753-4388
B.C.E.)
Appendix Chart H summarizes
how my proposed reductions apply to the kings of proto-Kish, Kish I, and Kish
II. The reign of Enmen-baragesi is set at about 2900 B.C.E., which would
also be the approximate beginning date for ED I. If he reigned for thirty
years, then Enmen-baragesi would also be an older contemporary of Lugal-banda,
as our translation of the King List for Erech I requires. Agga (ca.
2790-2760 B.C.E.) becomes an older contemporary of Gilgamesh at the end
of ED I. However, the Jacobsen view may still have an objection to these
placements. Archeological and linguistic evidence makes Agga a
contemporary of Mesannapada, the first king of Ur I, according to the King List.
This gentleman had a son and successor named Aannapada, who supposedly built a
temple at Tell-al-Ubaid that can be dated to ED III. Thus, it would seem
that Agga, Gilgamesh, and Mesannapada should all be moved to ED III, just as
Jacobsen and his followers propose. (42)
To the contrary, we note that the King List knows nothing of
Aannapada, jumping instead from Mesannapada to Meskiag-nunna (reigned ca.
2532-2496, by our calculations). Mesannapada is given a reign of 80
years, which Jacobsen splits in half to accommodate Aannapada. We prefer
to note that the earliest redactors of the King List had an anti-Ur bias, since
that city was the major rival of Utu-hegel. Thus, the tendency with Ur
would be to shorten reigns or omit them altogether. Perhaps the real
placement of Mesannapada can be calculated as follows:
80 1(60)20
à 4(60)20 = 260
If we add 260 years to the beginning of Meskiag-nunna’s reign, then
we get 2792 B.C.E. as an approximate floruit for Mesannapada. The temple
at Ubaid can be explained by either positing two Aannapadas, or by maintaining
that the construction began under Mesannapada’s son but was not completed until
centuries later.
Some problems still remain with respect to the proto-Kish
period. First, a critic might object that all these rulers supposedly
reigned after the flood, whereas our dates place them well before the
deluge. On the other hand, we must remember that the King List Prologue
originally had a separate existence from the text of the main body. It was
the prologue that ended with “then the flood swept over the earth.”
Perhaps the beginning of the main body originally read, “When kingship was
lowered from heaven, kingship was first in Kish.“ Centuries later some
unknown redactor joined the main body and prologue together by seamlessly
weaving these two statements together. However, the original main body
mentioned nothing about a flood, and we are thus free to date some of its
rulers to an antediluvian period. Also, given the antiquity of
these records, the second name in proto-Kish was illegible even to the ancient
redactors. Even if several of the remaining names have been extensively
effaced by the puns of Jacobsen's anti-Kish redactor, we believe these terms
still refer to something of substance in ancient times. Most Sumerian
terms are capable of multiple translations. Thus, even an animal or farm
animal may have more suitable renditions. Mashda, for example, can mean
either “gazelle” or “a commoner.“(43) So we choose to believe that a commoner
came to power in Mesopotamia, while Jacobsen seems more inclined to turn this
man into a gazelle.
A problem also arises from the fact that regnal numbers have not
been preserved for Bahina and Nangish-lishma. We have restored their
intervals by the following line of reason:
- Adding up the numbers for the known reigns of
Kish rulers, we reach a sum of 17,554 years.
- The total for all reigns at Kish is 24,510 years,
according to the Sumerian King List.
- Subtracting (1) from (2), we have a remainder of
7,956 years.
- But this number (7,956) is far too large, since
each of the two remaining kings would have to reign several thousand
years, whereas the other monarchs ruled individually for only hundreds of
years.
- The number 24,510 would be written in the original
Sumerian as: 6(3600) 4(600) 8(60) 3(10).
- Perhaps this figure was a corruption of 4(3600)
6(600) 8(60) 3(10), which equals 18,100 years.
- Subtracting (1) from (6), we have a more
reasonable remainder of 1,056 years for the combined reigns of Nangish-lishma
and Bahina.
- Reigns of 840 years seem to be interspersed
throughout the proto-Kish dynasty every 1-3 kings.
- Therefore, we reconstruct the two unknown reigns
as: Nangish-lishma 840 years and Bahina 216 years, for the total of 1,056
years.
By employing the creative methods of approximate floruit and column
reduction, we thus are able to reconstruct the ancient chronologies of Kish and
Erech.
Appendix Chart I presents
our proposed harmony between Biblical chronology and the earliest dates for
Mesopotamian history. Some references to Zarin, Rohl, Unger, etc. must
wait until later chapters for complete explanation and documentation.
Although these dates should be regarded as extreme approximations, we believe
they somewhat reflect the actualities of Mesopotamian history, as well as
Biblical events.
Our attention is drawn to the third name in the proto-Kish dynasty:
Palakin-atum. His computed reign of 5365 B.C.E. is only ten years from
the date that we have previously calculated for Adam and Eve in the Garden of
Eden. The term “palakin” has a curious Sumerian derivation: (1) “pala,” a
noun meaning “vestments” or “clothing;” (2) “kin,” from the verb “kig,” meaning
“to seek or fetch.” Thus, “palakin” may mean “he who seeks clothes,”
which is reminiscent of Gen. 3:17, 21. Can we detect in the suffix
"atum" a sound-alike for Adam? The term "atum" also
reminds us of the ancient Egyptian creation story discovered at Memphis.
According to this account, creation begins with a great god, named Ptah, who is
able to speak things into existence by the sheer power of his words. Ptah
starts the creative process by causing the original earth mound to rise above
the oceans of chaos. On this primeval plot of land, Ptah next creates the
great god Atum, who is the father of all the other gods and goddesses.
The Egyptians identified Atum with the setting sun, since this phase of the
daily solar rotation was also connected to all things old, dying, and
ancient. Could the primordial earth mound be a dim recollection of Eden,
while Atum is again a sound-alike for Adam?
If Adam is actually the third name listed in the proto-Kish
dynasty, this raises the question of why two other "kings" precede
him. Is not Adam supposed to be the first human being? If so, how
could there be at least two human beings before him? David Rohl finds a
similar situation with the Assyrian King List and the ancient genealogy of
Hammurabi. (44) In the Assyrian King List, Adamu appears as the second name,
preceded by Tudiya. Rohl explains Tudiya as a title meaning
"the beloved" or "the favorite." Thus, the original
phrase of "the beloved Adam" was erroneously changed into two
separate individuals. In the ancient genealogy of Hammurabi, Tudiya Adamu
appears as a single individual (Tu-ub-ti-ya-a-mu-ta), but this name also
follows another (A-ra-am-ma-da-ra). Rohl attempts to explain
A-ra-am-ma-da-ra as a corruption for "Eridu" (the name of the most
ancient Sumerian city), but this derivation appears highly questionable.
At this point, it seems sufficient to conclude that other names precede Adam in
the Sumerian King List, the Assyrian King List, and the Hammurabi genealogy.
Although some of these names can possibly be explained as titles for Adam,
other ancient "kings" remain a mystery. Given this puzzling
situation, could there have been human beings on earth before Adam?
Words like "man" and "human being" are
frequently used in ambiguous ways. Perhaps the Bible and modern
anthropology are perceived as being in conflict because (among other things)
they offer different definitions for these terms and then assume they are
talking about the same thing. For an anthropologist, the term
"human" designates a set of physiological characteristics, i. e.,
being in possession of a specific body type and especially having a certain
measurable brain capacity. In the Scriptures, however, the term
"human" refers to a being, capable of certain mental or spiritual
attributes (self-reflection, meditation, moral or temporal consciousness,
religious awareness, communion with God, etc.). The anthropological
definition of "human" would accordingly be broader than the
Scriptural view, since it may be possible to posses a hominoid body-type while
lacking spiritual capacities.
The difference between Scriptural and anthropological definitions
of humanity also raises the questions posed above. Could there have been
"pre-Adamic races" that anthropology would classify as human while
the Bible would exclude them from this category? Even given the narrower
Scriptural definition of mankind, could there have been human beings before
Adam? The “no overlap” view discussed in the previous chapter might lead
us to answer this last question in the affirmative (see Chapter Two, Section
III, objection 6). Bernard Ramm finds that theories of
"pre-Adamism" have been set forth and defended since 1655. (45) Of
course the earlier versions of this position were based on internal Bible
evidence rather than external anthropological discoveries.
Perhaps the most crucial verse cited by proponents of pre-Adamism
is Genesis 6:4. We hope to make a more extensive examination of this
passage in the next chapter, but for now it may be sufficient to observe that
the term nephilim (usually translated as "giants") has always been a
problematic word for Bible scholars. According to Genesis 6:4, the
offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of man"
were like the nephilim by being "mighty men of old, men of
renown." John Davis states that the word nephilim can only be
translated as "giants" with a large degree of uncertainty. He
suggests that the term may have originally referred to "largeness of
stature or fierceness of disposition or debased character or illegitimacy of
birth." (46) Any one of these possibilities might describe pre-Adamic
races with some measure of accuracy. Thus, the term nephilim may represent
some ancient Hebrew recollection of human-like (or human?) creatures that
predated even Adam and Eve.
Foot notes:
1. This is now the official position of a group called Young Earth
or Fiat Creationists. See Norman
Geisler, Systematic Theology, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003, Vol. 2: God and
Creation, p. 468-473, 637-651. For a
less sympathetic treatment, consult Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Evolution
From Creation to New Creation, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003, p. 75-86,
89-92.
2. E. T. Brewster, Creation:
A History of Non-Evolutionary Theories (1927), p. 109. See also Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of
Science and Scripture, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1954), p. 174.
3. For a brief discussion of
this problem, see John D. Davis, A Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1962), p. 133.
4. Consult Ramm, ibid., p.
341-342; Davis, ibid., p. 133-134, 355.
In a similar manner, the bulk of English history could be reduced to the
following chronology: "Norman lived 88 years and begot Plantagenet, who
lived 335 years and begot Tudor, who lived 114 years and begot Stuart, who
lived 85 years and begot Hanover, who lived 149 years and begot
Windsor.…" A study of these
dynastic names would reveal that they originally referred to a wide variety of
persons, places, and things.
5. William Henry Green,
"Primeval Chronology," Bibliotheca Sacra, XLVII, no. 186 (April
1890), p. 285-303. For a brief
discussion of those scholars who accept Green's position, see Ramm, ibid., p.
313-314.
6. John Urquhart, How Old Is
Man? (London: James Nisbet and Company, 1904), p. 101 ff.
7. Henry M. Morris and John
C. Whitcomb Jr., The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific
Implications, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1965), p. 481.
8. John Bright, A History of
Israel, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1952), p. 120-121.
9. Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger, ed., The Oxford Annotated
Bible With the Apocrypha: Revised Standard Version, (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1965), p. 161 (ftnt. Num. 1:17-46). Also consult Bright, loc. cit.
10. George E. Mendenhall,
"The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26," Journal of Biblical
Literature, LXXVII (1958), p. 52-66.
11. William Whiston,
"Dissertation V: Upon the Chronology of Josephus," Josephus: Complete
Works, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1963), p. 700-703.
12. Bright, ibid., p. 282-287.
13. For a summary of the
archeological excavations at Jericho, consult Werner Kelly, The Bible As
History, (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995), pp. 160-163; also Frank S. Frick,
A Journey Through the Hebrew Scriptures (Belmont, California:
Thomson/Wadsworth, 2003), pp. 250-251.
Recently Bryant Wood of the University of Toronto has disputed Kenyon’s
conclusions. See
http://www.answersingenesis.org; also http://elvis.rowan.edu. For an answer to Wood (although we do not
endorse Aardsma’s chronological “solutions”), please also consult
www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php. Kenyon’s suggestion may be
found at Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, (London: Ernest Benn Ltd., 1957),
pp. 262-263.
14. William Foxwell Albright, The Old Testament and Modern Study,
p. 11; cited and discussed in Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967), p. 141,
148-150. For Glueck's research, consult
Nelson Glueck, The Other Side of Jordan (New Haven, 1940), p.125-147. A detailed discussion and bibliography
appears in H. H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua, London: Oxford University
Press, 1950.
15. Edwin R. Thiele, The
Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1951.
16. Whiston, ibid., p.
611-612. The original argument is from
"Flavius Josephus Against Apion," Book I, sections 14-16. For more recent conclusions, see Bernard W.
Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall Incorporated, 1957), p. 29 and Samuel J. Schultz, The Old
Testament Speaks, (San Francisco: Harper and Rowe Publishers, 1990), p.
49. There may be a way of checking our
date for the descent into Egypt. One of
the most disastrous events in ancient times was the explosion of a giant
volcano on the island of Santorini (ancient Thera). This huge catastrophe not only wiped out the
local population, but also devastated the Minoan civilization on Crete. Fallout
from volcanic ash spread around the Mediterranean, resulting in severe
environmental changes throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Radiocarbon dating, coupled with tree-ring
analysis, has placed this event in 1628 B.C.E.
We believe that Thera’s disaster constitutes a natural cause for the
seven years of famine described in Gen. 41-47.
Our dates for the drought are 1627-1620 B.C.E. See Manning, Stuart W., et. al., “Chronology
of the Aegean Late Bronze Age 1700-1400 B.C.,” Science (American Association
for the Advancement of Science), vol. 312 (2006), no. 5773, pp. 565-569. Also consult Baillie, MGL, “Irish Tree Rings
and an Event in 1628 B.C.,” The Thera Foundation, 1989, and Grudd, H., et. al.,
“Swedish tree rings provide new evidence in support of a major, widespread
environmental disruption in 1628 B.C.,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 27,
no. 18, pp. 2957-2960.
17. Wayne A. Meeks, gen. ed., The Harper Collins Study Bible: New
Revised Standard Version, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1989), p. 22
(ftnt. Gen. 14:1). Also consult Bright,
ibid., p. 75. The Mesopotamian
chronology of these paragraphs comes from http://www.hostkingdom.net/ancmesop.html. This data is the same as
http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/ancmesop.html. The site
http://www.ancienthistory.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/enter/kng.html/ presents very
similar information. See also ftnt. 28.
18. Unger, ibid., p. 97,
107-113; Davis, ibid., p. 56. See also
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter VI, pt. 4.
19. Cyrus H. Gordon, The
World of the Old Testament, (Garden City, New Jersey: Doubleday and Company,
1958), p. 132. Also consult Nuzi
citations in an unpublished thesis by Loren Fisher at Brandeis University, Nuzu
Geographical Names. Both cited in
Schultz, ibid., p. 32.
20. James B. Pritchard, ed.,
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, (Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1955), p. 265. I. E. Edwards, C. J. Gadd
and N. G. L. Hammond, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, (Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1971), vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 106. Also consult David Rohl, Legend: The Genesis
of Civilization, (London: Century Random House UK Ltd., 1998), p. 159. Rohl’s volume is no. 2 in a series called “A
Test of Time.”
21. Pritchard, loc. cit.
22. Henry H. Haley, Haley's
Bible Handbook, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p.
74-75. See also Unger, ibid., p.
18-19. Even Ramm proclaims that
"Babylonian records speak of men living 30,000 years!" Cf. Ramm, ibid., p. 341. For a more liberal treatment of Ancient Near
Eastern myths, consult Anderson, ibid., p. 166-167, 384-385, etc.
23. For the two meanings of
the term saros, see Jean L. McKechnie, gen. ed., Webster's New Twentieth
Century Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, (New York: The World
Publishing Company, 1968), p. 1609. A
brief discussion of the Sumerian counting system is found in Joseph Ward Swain,
The Ancient World, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), vol. 1, p. 75. Our argument for a reduction factor is
somewhat anticipated by Alfred Rehwinkel.
He is aware of the two meanings for saros but erroneously figures the
astronomical version as 18 1/2 years.
Working with numbers from Berosus, he thus calculates the antediluvian
time span as 2,221 years (120 sar X 18 1/2).
This, he concludes, is "most remarkable," since it is only 21
years from the Septuagint version of Genesis 5.
See Alfred M. Rehwinkel, The Flood, (St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia
Publishing Company, 1951), p. 166-167.
24. Thorkild Jacobsen, The
Sumerian King List, (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, Assyriological Studies number 11, University of Chicago Press, 1939),
p. 72, ftnt. 17, etc. Perhaps
Lal-ur-alimmuk can be identified with the Lamech of Genesis 4:18-24. The patron god of Nippur, Enlil, appears in
Sumerian mythology as the king of the gods.
Thus, even though Nippur is not named as one of the five, antediluvian
cities, the prominence of Enlil would seem to indicate that Nippur achieved a
dominant position at a very early date in Sumerian history. Perhaps later Sumerian chronologists did not
recognize the antiquity of Nippur because that city (like its deity) ruled by
force and tyranny. This supposition fits
well with the violence, bloodshed, and vengeance expressed by the “boast” of
Lamech in Genesis 4:23-24. However,
Lamech may also be identified with the King List Prologue’s Enmen-luannak, who
founded the ruling house at Bab-tibira.
So recognition of this Biblical character in Sumerian records is far
from conclusive.
25. Edwards, et. al., ibid.,
p. 463.
26. Davis, ibid., p.
440. Swain, ibid., p. 79-80. Pritchard, ibid., p. 41 ff.
27. Unger, ibid., p.
58. Pritchard, ibid., p. 104. Jacobsen, ibid., p. 76.
28. Our version of the
Middle Chronology has been derived from
http://my.raex/~obsidian/ancmesop.html.
Also consult the internet sites mentioned in footnote 17. Compare Jacobsen, ibid., Table II, between
pp. 208 and 209.
29. Rohl, ibid., p.
430. Compare Jacobsen, loc. cit.
30. Swain, Joseph Ward, The
Ancient World (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), Vol. 1, pp. 69-70. Otherwise, we assume the Middle
Chronology and Jacobsen intervals cited
in ftnt. 28.
31. Jacobsen, loc. cit. Remember that we have added 100 years to
accommodate the Middle Chronology, as well as 6 years for Swain’s addition to
Agade I. See ftnts. 28 and 30.
32. Jacobsen, loc. cit.
33. Rohl, ibid., pp.
171-174.
34. Jacobsen, loc. cit. Also see Pritchard, ibid., p. 266 and Rohl,
ibid., p. 165. Compare Wikipedia,
Sumerian King List, Uruk I.
35. Jacobsen, op. cit., p. 88, n. 125, as cited by Pritchard,
ibid., p. 266, n.7.
36. The meaning of these terms, as well as subsequent Sumerian
derivations in this chapter, come from John A. Halloran’s Sumerian Lexicon,
which can be found at www.sumerian.org/sumerian.pdf.
37. Rohl, ibid., pp. 174-177, 217.
38. Rohl, ibid., p. 178.
39. Jacobsen, loc. cit.
40. Pritchard, ibid., p. 87, 114-118.
41. See ftnt. 36.
42. Jacobsen, loc. cit. Also
consult Rohl, ibid., pp. 171, 178-179.
43. See ftnt. 36.
44. Rohl, ibid., p. 190, 194, 197.
45. Ramm, ibid., p. 316.
46. Davis, ibid., p. 256.
The only other Scriptural reference to nephilim occurs in Numbers 13:33,
where the
ten untrustworthy spies state that they saw, "Anakim, the sons
of nephilim" in the land of Canaan.
The descendants of Anak, however, are more accurately described as one
of the tall "Rephaim" (fully human?) groups. See Deuteronomy 2:10-11, 20-21.
The antediluvian patriarchs and the
Sumerian King List
First
published in: Journal of Creation 12(3):347–357, 1998
The Sumerian King List records
the lengths of reigns of the kings of Sumer. The initial section deals with
kings before the Flood and is significantly different from the rest. When the
kingdom durations of the antediluvian section are expressed in an early
sexagesimal numerical system, all durations except two are expressed as
multiples of 602. A simple tally of the ciphers used yields six 10x602 signs,
six 602 signs and six 60 signs.
The lives of the biblical
patriarchs, however, have a precision of one year. If Adam and Noah are not
included (as in the King List), and the lives of the patriarchs are similarly
rounded to two digits, the sum of the lives has six 103signs,
six 102 signs and six 10 signs. In addition, if the number
representing the sum of the ages was wrongly assumed as having been written in
the sexagesimal system, the two totals become numerically equivalent.
It is suggested that the
Sumerian scribe that composed the original antediluvian list had available a
document (possibly a clay tablet) containing numerical information on the ages
of eight of the patriarchs similar to that of the Genesis record and that he
mistakenly interpreted it as being written in the sexagesimal system.
That the two documents are
numerically related is strong evidence for the historicity of the book of
Genesis. The fact that the Sumerian account shows up as a numerically rounded,
incomplete version of the Genesis description, lacking the latter’s moral and
spiritual depth, is a strong argument for the accuracy, superiority, and
primacy of the biblical record. In addition, the parallels between the Sumerian
and biblical antediluvian data open up the possibility of establishing
chronological correlations between the rest of the Kings List and the book of
Genesis.
Introduction
The early chapters of the book
of Genesis contain numerical information about the ages of the biblical
patriarchs and their chronological relationships during the antediluvian world.
They also contain a description of the moral and spiritual condition as well as
the history of that period. Although there are other, non-biblical, references
to the antediluvian era, there is no other document in all of the extant
records of the ancient world that provides the detailed and coherent
information found in the book of Genesis. The Genesis account gives us a
glimpse into that obscure portion of the history of mankind, and provides
information for a chronology of that period. It has, nevertheless, been
criticized by non-Christians as well as liberal theologians as being
mythological, or at best symbolic and incomplete.
The Sumerian King List, on the
other hand, contains an initial section that makes reference to the Flood and
to Sumerian kings of extremely long reigns before the Flood [[1]][[Kramer, S.N., The
Sumerians, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 355 pp,
1963]]. The antediluvian portion of the King List is very different
from the biblical account. It only contains eight kings, while Genesis has ten
patriarchs. The Sumerian list assigns an average reign duration of 30,150 years, with
a total duration for the period of 241,200 years, compared to an average age of
the biblical patriarchs of 858 years and a sum of 8575 years for their full
lives. It also lacks the detailed information of Genesis and its moral and
spiritual emphases.
Nevertheless, Walton [2]][[[Walton, J., The antediluvian section of the Sumerian King
List and Genesis 5, Biblical Archaeologist, 44:207–208, 1981.
Also, see his later study on the Sumerian King List in Ancient Israelite Literature in its
Cultural Context, Zondervan, pp. 127–31, 1989.]] has
pointed out that the antediluvian portion of the King List does not include the
Sumerian first man nor the Flood hero. If Adam and Noah are dropped from the
biblical list, the number of people in the two lists is then the same—eight.
Walton has also noticed that the total of the durations of the kingdoms and the
total of the ages of the patriarchs are numerically related and are equivalent
if the number base of the Sumerian list is changed from sexagesimal to decimal.
This is an important result and
would imply that the two records relate to the same events in the early history
of mankind. If so, then finding numerically related elements of the biblical account
in the Sumerian King List would open up important avenues of research into the
relationship of biblical and Mesopotamian chronologies. This paper carefully
and thoroughly examines the numerical relationships between the two documents.
In Section 2, the Sumerian King List is surveyed in the light of its
chronological context. In Section 3, a study is made of the Sumero/Babylonian
numerical systems to ascertain the development of the different methods used to
represent numbers and the peculiarities and limitations of the different
systems that could have possibly been used to represent the original
antediluvian Kings List. In Section 4, the two lists are expressed in one of
the early numerical systems and compared. Attention is paid to the internal characteristics
of the two sets of numerical values and their formal similarity. Section 5
summarizes the results, presents a hypothesis for the similarities of both
records, and comments on the importance of these findings.
The Sumerian King List
The Sumerian King List records
in succession the names of most of the kings of Sumer and the lengths of their
reigns.[[ 1]][[ Kramer, S.N., The Sumerians, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 355 pp, 1963]] The
document begins at the beginning of history, the time when ‘kingship (first)
descended from heaven,’ and goes up to the reign of Sin-magir (1827–1817 BC [3]][[[Morby, J.E., Dynasties of the World,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 253 pp, 1989]]) towards the end of the
Isin dynasty. The list is characterized by extremely long durations for the
different reigns, especially the earlier ones. One quarter of a million years
is assigned to the first eight kings before the Flood and more than 25,000
years for the first two dynasties after the Flood. By comparison with other
historical documents, inscriptions and archaeological dating, it appears that
the list does not correspond to a strict succession but that there is
considerable overlap and contemporaneity between several of the dynasties that
are presented in the list as having existed one after the other.
The documents
The first considerable fragment
of the Sumerian King List was published in 1906.[[4]][[ Jacobsen, T., The
Sumerian King List, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 217 pp,
1939.]] It was found in the temple library of Nippur at the turn
of the century. Since that date, more than 15 different fragments and at least
one fairly complete list have been found and published. Most of these
manuscripts have been dated to the 1st dynasty of Babylon. All the documents
show extensive and detailed agreement among themselves. Thus it appears that
the extant texts ultimately descend from a common original, i.e., that they are
copies, or copies of copies, of a single original document[[4]]. In a now
classical example of textual criticism, Jacobsen [[4]] developed the
genealogy of all the different variants and reconstructed the most likely
original text of the King List in 1939. That reconstruction has been accepted
and used by most scholars. The following discussion of the King List is based
to a large extent on his original work.
The antediluvian section
A few of the manuscripts seem
to have had an initial section dealing with kings before the Flood. That
section, however, is significantly different from the rest of the list which
deals with kings reigning after the Flood. First of all, it has a large degree
of independence. The postdiluvian sections do not appear in other Mesopotamian
manuscripts that are not fragments of the King List, and their contents have
only been found in the King List.
In contrast, the antediluvian
section has been found as a separate entity in a tablet dated to the end of the
3rd millennium without reference to lists of other rulers. This tablet also has
particular linguistic features that show that it is not an isolated part of the
King List (such as the total absence of the grammatical formulas so
characteristic of the latter).
In addition, some of the
phrases and information in the antediluvian section have been found in a
Sumerian epic dealing with the beginning of the world.4 There
is a close correspondence between the common phrases of these two documents,
and the identical order of the primeval cities, which tends to indicate that
they are literarily interdependent.
Furthermore, the antediluvian
section has a particular set of formulas different from those used in the
postdiluvian section. The formulas for the change of dynasty and the mention of
their totals are very consistent in the postdiluvian part and are very
different from those used in the antediluvian one. Jacobsen4 believes
that the antediluvian section is a later addition to a King List that did not
originally contain kings before the Flood. He stated that the new part was
copied and adapted from information that
‘was
current in various settings in Sumerian literature at the time when most of our
copies of the King List were written … (and) that it was written later by a
person different from the one who originally composed the postdiluvian section
of the list … by a scribe who was bringing his copy of an older original up to date
…’ (See Figure 1).
The following is the
translation by Jacobsen4 of his critical edition
of the Sumerian text of the antediluvian section of the King List together with
a few selected lines of the postdiluvian section for comparison (see the text
following for explanation of the italics, bold and underlining):
When the kingship was
lowered from heaven
the kingship was in Eridu(g).
(In) Eridu(g) A-lulim(ak) (became) king
and reigned 28,800 years;
Alalgar reigned 36,000 years.
2 kings
reigned its 64,800 years.
I drop (the topic) Eridu(g);
its kingship to Bad-tibira(k)
was carried.
(In) Bad-tibira(k) En-men-lu-Anna(k)
reigned 43,200 years;
En-men-gal-Anna(k)
reigned 28,800 years;
divine Dumu-zi(d), a shepherd, reigned 36,000 years.
3 kings
reigned its 108,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Bad-tibira(k);
its kingship to Larak was carried.
(In) Larak En-sipa(d)-zi(d)-Anna(k)
reigned its 28,800 years.
1 king
reigned its 28,800 years.
I drop (the topic) Larak;
its kingship to Sippar was carried.
(In) Sippar En-men-dur-Anna(k)
became king and reigned 21,000 years.
1 king
reigned its 21,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Sippar;
its kingship to Shuruppak was carried.
(In) Shuruppak Ubar-Tutu(k)
became king and reigned 18,600 years.
1 king
reigned its 18,600 years.
5 cities were they;
8 kings
reigned their 241,200 years.
The Flood swept thereover.
After the Flood had swept thereover,
when the kingship was lowered from heaven
the kingship was in Kish.
the kingship was in Eridu(g).
(In) Eridu(g) A-lulim(ak) (became) king
and reigned 28,800 years;
Alalgar reigned 36,000 years.
2 kings
reigned its 64,800 years.
I drop (the topic) Eridu(g);
its kingship to Bad-tibira(k)
was carried.
(In) Bad-tibira(k) En-men-lu-Anna(k)
reigned 43,200 years;
En-men-gal-Anna(k)
reigned 28,800 years;
divine Dumu-zi(d), a shepherd, reigned 36,000 years.
3 kings
reigned its 108,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Bad-tibira(k);
its kingship to Larak was carried.
(In) Larak En-sipa(d)-zi(d)-Anna(k)
reigned its 28,800 years.
1 king
reigned its 28,800 years.
I drop (the topic) Larak;
its kingship to Sippar was carried.
(In) Sippar En-men-dur-Anna(k)
became king and reigned 21,000 years.
1 king
reigned its 21,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Sippar;
its kingship to Shuruppak was carried.
(In) Shuruppak Ubar-Tutu(k)
became king and reigned 18,600 years.
1 king
reigned its 18,600 years.
5 cities were they;
8 kings
reigned their 241,200 years.
The Flood swept thereover.
After the Flood had swept thereover,
when the kingship was lowered from heaven
the kingship was in Kish.
[end of the antediluvian
section]
In Kish Ga … ur(?)
became king
and reigned 1,200 years;
.
.
.
Aka,
reigned 625 years.
.
.
.
Kish was smitten with weapons;
its kingship to E-Anna(k)
was carried.
In E-Anna(k)
Mes-kiag-gasher,
son of Utu, became high priest
and king and reigned 324 years.
.
.
.
Jacobsen translation is based on his critically edited text of the Wendell-Blundell prism in the Ashmolean Museum of Oxford University (W-B 1923.444). This fairly complete text is referred to as WB. The line numeration refers to the lines of the WB prism.
became king
and reigned 1,200 years;
.
.
.
Aka,
reigned 625 years.
.
.
.
Kish was smitten with weapons;
its kingship to E-Anna(k)
was carried.
In E-Anna(k)
Mes-kiag-gasher,
son of Utu, became high priest
and king and reigned 324 years.
.
.
.
Jacobsen translation is based on his critically edited text of the Wendell-Blundell prism in the Ashmolean Museum of Oxford University (W-B 1923.444). This fairly complete text is referred to as WB. The line numeration refers to the lines of the WB prism.
The origin of the antediluvian
section
The bold underscored
lines are found in essentially the same form in the epic fragment
referred to above. Thus it appears that the two documents are related. The
phrases ending each dynasty (‘I drop Eridu(g)’, ‘I drop Bad-tibira(k)’, etc.),
however, are totally out of place in the epic. They are also very different
from the phrases repeatedly used for the ending of the different dynasties in
the postdiluvian sections (e.g., ‘Kish was smitten with weapons’).
For those reasons, Jacobsen[[4]] concludes
that the scribe adding the antediluvian section was not copying directly from
the epic but was using a different source (Document A) that was literarily
related to the epic. There are three equally probable explanations for the
relationship between the epic and Document A (see Fig. 1): (1) Document A was
based on the epic but its author introduced the particular formulas. (2) The
epic used A but dropped the formulas as they did not fit its style. (3) Both A
and the epic were derived from a third document B that contained the common
phrases and the formulas.
The information about the
cities, the names of the kings, and their reigns are most probably also derived
from source A, as there are strong indications that it was originally present
in the complete text of the epic. All the text considered to have a high
probability of being derived from source A is indicated above by bold letters.
It is difficult to ascertain if the verb ‘he reigned’ after the various reigns
and the city summaries of the number of kings and the total duration of their
reigns were derived from source A or if they were added by the scribe. Since
there are some evidences for both, they are indicated by Roman but not bolded
letters in the transcription shown above.
The italicized lines correspond
to phrases that Jacobsen considers were written by the scribe as he added the
material of the antediluvian section to an earlier version of the King List,
which he was also bringing up to date, in the middle of the Isin dynasty. They
essentially represent attempts to bring the added section into conformity with
the style of the rest of the King List. Those phrases are not present in the
epic nor in the isolated list of the antediluvian kings mentioned above. In
addition, they contain grammatical peculiarities also present in the very last
section of the King List which he appears to have added. Phrases and words
attributed to the scribe are indicated by italicized letters.
The isolated antediluvian list
that has been mentioned above has many similarities but also marked differences
with the antediluvian section of the King List. It is a short and concise list
of the type that probably the original author of WB used for his source
(Document A). However, it gives the impression of being a further condensed
version with emendations (some probably of a political nature) of the material
used by WB.
A consideration of that list,
and the reconstructed portion of the source used by WB (text in bold letters),
shows that the original information about the antediluvian kings did not claim
that the different kingships were successive. In fact, the language of the
change of dynasty gives the impression that it was trying to avoid saying so.
According to Jacobsen, ‘This view, that the antediluvian dynasties were more or
less contemporaneous, is clearly incompatible with the King List proper, which
directly aims at following the route of the “the kingship” from one city to
another.[[4]]4
The information contained in
source A can then be summarized as follows:
When the kingship was lowered
from heaven
(In) Eridu(g) A-lulim(ak)
reigned 28,800 years;
Alalgar reigned 36,000 years.
2 kings
reigned its 64,800 years.
I drop (the topic) Eridu(g);
(In) Bad-tibira(k) En-men-lu-Anna(k)
reigned 43,200 years;
En-men-gal-Anna(k)
reigned 28,800 years;
divine Dumu-zi(d), a shepherd, reigned 36,000 years.
3 kings
reigned its 108,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Bad-tibira(k);
(In) Larak En-sipa(d)-zi(d)-Anna(k)
reigned its 28,800 years.
1 king
reigned its 28,800 years.
I drop (the topic) Larak;
(In) Sippar En-men-dur-Anna(k)
reigned 21,000 years.
1 king
reigned its 21,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Sippar;
(In) Shuruppak Ubar-Tutu(k)
reigned 18,600 years.
1 king
reigned its 18,600 years.
5 cities were they;
8 kings
reigned their 241,200 years.
The Flood swept thereover.
(In) Eridu(g) A-lulim(ak)
reigned 28,800 years;
Alalgar reigned 36,000 years.
2 kings
reigned its 64,800 years.
I drop (the topic) Eridu(g);
(In) Bad-tibira(k) En-men-lu-Anna(k)
reigned 43,200 years;
En-men-gal-Anna(k)
reigned 28,800 years;
divine Dumu-zi(d), a shepherd, reigned 36,000 years.
3 kings
reigned its 108,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Bad-tibira(k);
(In) Larak En-sipa(d)-zi(d)-Anna(k)
reigned its 28,800 years.
1 king
reigned its 28,800 years.
I drop (the topic) Larak;
(In) Sippar En-men-dur-Anna(k)
reigned 21,000 years.
1 king
reigned its 21,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Sippar;
(In) Shuruppak Ubar-Tutu(k)
reigned 18,600 years.
1 king
reigned its 18,600 years.
5 cities were they;
8 kings
reigned their 241,200 years.
The Flood swept thereover.
Chronological considerations
Most of the existing
manuscripts of the King List have been dated to the second half of the Isin
dynasty. An examination of the grammar of the List, however, shows certain
usages that had disappeared by that time. Jacobsen[[4]] has compared these
manuscripts with well-dated documents outside of the King List and has
determined the time when these usages disappeared from the then current
language. The postdiluvian portion of the King List shows that a large part of
it has a high degree of stylistic similarity.
The concluding section of WB,
however, shows a different style. By noting the date when these different grammatical
usages also had disappeared from the language, and the dynasty in the List when
the different writing style was introduced, Jacobsen[[4]] came to the
conclusion that the first part of the List was composed earlier than the reign
of Utu-hegal of Uruk (2119–2112 BC)[[1]][[3]] and
that the later section of WB was added by a different scribe as he brought an
older copy of the List up to date with information about new kings and
dynasties. The style of the concluding sections is also very similar to that of
the antediluvian section which has been seen above to be an addition to the
main body of the King List.
Jacobsen concludes that ‘The
man who added the antediluvian section is also responsible for the last part of
the list; his literary peculiarities appear in both places.’[[4]] This
scribe added the 3rd dynasty of Ur (2112–2004 BC)[[3]] and
the dynasty of Isin down to Sin-magir (1827–1817 BC), so the antediluvian section appears to have been also added
after that time.
An inscription of Utu-hegal
describing this victory over Gutium shows very close similarities in ideology
and language to the earlier portion of the postdiluvian King List.[[4]] The
characteristic phraseology common to the inscription and the King List occurs
in no other document. In both documents the idea is expressed that Babylonia
had always been one single kingdom and that the capital had changed from city
to city as rulers from different cities defeated the existing capital. It was
considered that at no time was there more than one king. By defeating Gutium
around 2119 BC,
Utu-hegal had brought back the kingdom to Sumer. The Sumerian nationalism must
have been stimulated by the newly-won independence from the barbarous Gutians.
This would have been the right environment for the production of a work such as
the King List that seeks to present the history of Babylonia as a succession of
different national kingdoms passing from one city to another.
A detailed analysis of the
structure of the King List[[4]] indicates that the author of the first
part took his material from lists that gave the names of local rulers in
chronological order and the length of time that each had reigned. Apparently,
the different cities each had their own separate list of local rulers,
irrespective of any overlord the city may have had at the time. There are
evidences that some of these local lists existed in pre-Sargonic times even as
far back as the Fara texts (c. 2500 BC).
The author appears to have
merged the independent local lists to a sequential list produced under the
theory that there was only one king at a given time in all of Babylonia. The
form of the final list shows that the author did not reject any material from
the local lists. He should have eliminated some kings because ‘large sections
in each of his sources would have been irrelevant because they dealt with
rulers reigning at periods when their city was not in possession of the
kingship.’[[4]]
Thus, many of the dynasties
listed as consecutive were in reality contemporaneous. He apparently divided
the larger of his source lists into smaller dynastic units and interpolated
them separately to try to ameliorate the large errors that obvious synchronisms
between well known rulers would have exposed by strictly merging all the
sources one after another. In most cases, however, he cut the individual lists
for interpolation along dynastic groups.
It has been indicated above how
the later scribe who added the concluding sections of the King List and the
antediluvian portion also followed the dogma of only one king at a time for all
of Babylonia and only one capital. It is not likely that the original
antediluvian source he used tried to present the antediluvian kings in such a
consecutive way; it seems that the scribe forced this concept of his own in
order to conform his new material to the style of the copy of the King List he
was adding to.
Sumerian and Semitic number systems
Before comparing the
Antediluvian portion of the King List to the Genesis record, it is important to
review the characteristics of the number system used in Mesopotamia as deduced
from the earliest archaeological findings. The following survey is based
principally on the descriptions of Friberg [[5]][[Friberg, J., Numbers and measures in the earliest written
records, Scientific
American, 250(2):110–118,
1984.]], Flegg [[6]][[Flegg,
G., Numbers, Their
History and Meaning, Barnes and Noble, NY, 295 pp, 1993]], Nissen
[[7]] [[Nissen, Hans J., The early History of the Ancient Near
East, 9000–2000 BC, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 215 pp, 1988]] Walker [[8]] [[Walker, C.B.F., Reading
the Past: Cuneiform, Trustees of the British Museum, British
Museum, 64 pp, 1987]] and the University of Wisconsin[[9]] [[University of Wisconsin, Sign, symbol, script: An exhibition on the origins of
writing and the alphabet, Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 88 pp, 1984.]] among others. Dates correspond to
the conventional chronology which is probably quite accurate in the later
periods but tends to give dates that are too old in the earlier ones.
Proto-Sumerian Period
(3300–2900 BC)
The first indications of
writing and numbers are found in the Late Uruk Period [[7]]. At
the beginning of this period, however, tally stones or tokens made of clay of
different shapes have been found. These appear to represent different counting
units and the objects being counted [[10]] [[Schmandt-Besserat,
D., The earliest precursor of writing, Scientific American, 238:50–59, 1978]]. The
token method of counting was combined with the use of cylinder seals. The
tokens were enclosed in a ball of clay covered on the outside with impressions
of usually only one seal. In some cases there were also oblong impressions on
the outside of the ball that represented numbers that corresponded to the
tokens within the ball. In some instances, flat clay slabs have been found with
the oblong symbols for numbers impressed on their surfaces together with many
impressions of cylinder seals. Some tablets have compartments marked off with
incised lines, each one containing a different number.
Tablets with true writing
appear at the end of the Late Uruk Period (Uruk Level VI), where numbers are
accompanied by pictorial and curvilinear symbols made with a pointed stylus.
The texts found appear to relate to both simple and complex economic
transactions. Although they are still not completely legible, they can be seen
to correspond to allotments of food, lists of sacrifices, division of fields,
herds of animals and textile and metal manufacture. Writing is well developed
when it first appears in the archaeological records. Nissen[[Nissen, Hans J., The
early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000–2000 BC, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 215 pp, 1988]] rejects
the theories that the earliest known writing must have had more primitive
predecessors. He hypothesizes, however, that once the idea of writing arose
somewhere in the administration, its value was immediately recognized and it
was very quickly developed into a functional instrument.
Many
tablets have been found with the information divided into three different
sections. On one side of the tablet are many individual entries of numbers
accompanied by pictorial symbols, probably signifying the objects being counted
or the names of persons. On a separate section, are entries that correspond to
subtotals of the individual numbers. Usually on the back side of the tablet, a
third section contains a final total that adds up the previous subtotals. This
practice, which Nissen[[7]] calls ‘a strict
bookkeeping mentality,’ was prevalent throughout the Middle East and is also
found in the Kings List. Joshua 12:9–24 is an example of its use
in the Bible.
Figure 2. Number symbols
used during the Proto-Sumerian and Early Dynastic Periods (3300–2334 BC).
Very early, an oblong
impression was used as the symbol for one. This oblong numeral was repeated
several times to represent small numbers and this can be considered an
extension of the method of tallying where
there is a one-to-one correspondence between the objects counted and the
inscribed marks. The indentations on clay were made by pressing a blunt stylus
of circular section at an angle and had the appearance of a bullet (Fig. 2).
The symbols were grouped by threes for a quick communication of the numerical
information. For numbers larger than nine, a collective symbol that represented
10 units was used. This is the practice of cipherizationfound in all numeral systems
around the world.
The existence of a sign for 10
does not prove that the system employed the base ten or that it had a
combination of bases. Ten was essentially an intermediate cipher to avoid the
need for extensive repetition of the sign for 1. An example of the use of
intermediate ciphers is found in the Roman number system, where ciphers for 5
times the powers of 10 were developed even though the system was fundamentally
decimal (V, L, and D for 5, 50, and 500). The symbol for 10 was made by
pressing the stylus vertically into the clay and had the appearance of a
circle. The presence or absence of symbols defined the number unambiguously and
the order of the symbols did not matter. However, it was the convention to
write the symbols for 10 together and not mix them with the symbols for 1.
Thus, the early numeral system followed an addition principle and there was no need
for a zero.
The early Sumerians used the
base 60 for their number system. The reason for the adoption of such a large
base is probably a reflection of the various units of measure used for
commercial, administration and religious purposes. These were mostly
sexagesimal because they afforded many convenient factors of the unit (halves,
thirds, quarters, fifths, sixths, tenths, twelfths, fifteenths, twentieths, and
sixtieths) all expressed as whole numbers of the next lower denomination.[[6]]
The next power of the base (601) was
expressed as a large version of the units (600)
symbol. This was done by pressing the other end of the stylus at an angle. This
end was also blunt but had a larger diameter, so it would produced the shape of
a larger bullet. These symbols were repeated until 600 was reached when the
symbol used for ten (a small circle) was impressed inside the large oblong
symbol for 60.
For the next power of the base
(602), a large circle was used that was made by vertically pressing
the larger end of the stylus into the clay. As with the symbol for 600, a small
circle was impressed inside the larger circle (3,600) to multiply it by ten and
represent 36,000. Although the Sumerian system had a sexagesimal base, the
symbol for ten (the small circle) was used as an intermediate symbol between
powers of sixty. This simplified the tallying procedure by grouping by ten the
ciphers for the different powers. The resulting number was very easy to
understand and used the multiplicative principle.
The system actually contained
only two symbols in two sizes. The small number of symbols made the system very
intuitive and available to the masses but needed a fair number of repetitions.
Thus, to write the numbers up to 59, as many as 14 individual symbols were
needed for the individual numbers. The small number of numerical symbols was,
to a large extent, controlled by the method of writing numbers using a blunt
stylus with a circular section to impress marks on wet clay.
The next archaeological phase,
represented by the Jamdet Nasr, Proto-Elamite and Uruk Level III Periods, was
marked by a simplification and acceleration of operations in every sphere[[7]]. The
pictographic signs began to lose their pictorial appearance, becoming more
abstract and linear. In this phase, the first use of symbols with determinative
value has been found. The language represented was probably Sumerian but that
is not certain. Nevertheless, the tablets were written in an archaic
pictographic script that can be recognized as a precursor of the Sumerian
cuneiform script. The writing system was logographic, where one sign or sign-group
was used for each term or concept without adding grammatical elements. The
numbers as a rule were still made with the round end of a stylus and are easy
to identify. A special bi-sexagesimal notation has also been found[[5]] where
two of the same large bullet signs, but with a less elongated impression, were
pointed towards each other to signify 120. The same symbol with a small
circular impression represented 10x120=1200 (Fig. 2).
Early Dynastic I–II Periods
(2900–2600 BC)
The first identifiable use of
purely phonetic elements and grammar appeared during this time. In this stage
some signs were used to represent syllables. The language used is clearly
Sumerian. Most of the material for this period comes from the Archaic Ur
tablets. The same number system as in Jamdet Nasr is used. The script was not
yet cuneiform, but the signs are more linear.
Early Dynastic II–III Periods
(2600–2334 BC)
During this interval, writing
became much easier and simpler to use, mostly through a change in writing
techniques. The earlier method of incising to make the curvilinear pictorial
symbols was gradually replaced by the technique of making impressions of short,
straight lines by holding a stylus of triangular section at an angle. Writing
now became much faster. The same symbols were used, but many had their form
completely changed because the new method only allowed short straight lines.
Superfluous details were omitted, and curved lines were replaced by short
straight segments. The short strokes had a head, which was more deeply
impressed and therefore wider. The lines resembled a wedge, and this became the
reason for the name ‘cuneiform’ given later to this script. Many earlier
complicated symbols disappeared.
Nissen[[7]] speculates
that the changes in the technique of writing may have had their basis in the
increased demand for scribes in an expanding economy. The major groups of
tablets for this period come from Fara (Shuruppak), Abu-Salabikh, and Ebla in
Syria. From about 2500 BC onwards,
the cuneiform script was also used to write Akkadian and Eblaite, which are
Semitic languages. About eighty percent of the words written on the
approximately 10,000 tablets found at Ebla are in Sumerian. Interspersed are
the remaining twenty percent in Eblaite. At that time, the calendar used at
Ebla was Semitic and the counting appears to be in Semitic units which were
decimal [[11-14]]. The same is observed in Mari and Abu-Salabikh. The
number system for representing the counting, however, remained the same as in
the previous periods, with the same two different symbols (the bullet and the
circle) and the same two sizes (Fig. 2).
Figure 3. Number
symbols used during the Akkadian Period (2334–2154 BC).
Dynasty of Akkad (2334–2154 BC)
During the period of the
Semitic dynasty of Akkad, the Akkadian language replaced Sumerian as the
administrative language, as Sargon I of Agade conquered all of Mesopotamia and extended
the empire to the Amanus Mountains to the West, and to the Zagros and Taurus
mountains to the East and North[[15]]. The Sumerian signs were used to write
the Old Akkadian language which was Semitic. The wedges of the cuneiform
symbols now appear only at the top or the left of the sign. This is a
culmination of the tendency started in the Early Dynastic II Period of
restricting the impressions of the triangular stylus ‘within a narrow segment
of the possible directions the stylus could theoretically take.’ This meant
that few changes in the direction of writing were necessary and the speed of
writing could be increased [[7]].
The number symbols, however,
could be written in two ways: either as cuneiform signs, inscribed with a
stylus of triangular section, or as circular signs made with the blunt end of a
circular stylus [[5]]. That means that two different types of stylus were
used simultaneously. The new cuneiform numerals tried to reproduce with wedges
the rounded impressions of the earlier numerals. Thus, an elongated wedge
represented the number one and a vertically impressed triangular shape
represented the number ten. These symbols were the equivalent of the small
bullet and circle of the earlier system. The earlier large circle which stood
for 602 was now represented by four long wedges making a diamond
shape, and the large bullet with the small circle inside (10x60) was written
with an elongated wedge and a triangular impression superimposed on its right
side (Fig. 3). Similarly, the large circle with the small circle inside (10x602) was
substituted by a diamond made with four long wedges with a triangular
impression inside. Sixty was represented by an elongated wedge which sometimes
was larger than the wedge for one, but most of the time had to be differentiated
from it by the context or the arrangement of the other numeral symbols.
Figure 4. Number symbols
used during the Sumerian Period (2112–2004 BC).
Sumerian Period (2112–2004 BC)
This period is marked by the
hegemony of the Sumerians under the leadership of Ur-Nammu, founder of the
Third Dynasty of Ur, who conquered other Sumerian and Akkadian city-states. As
a consequence, there was a revival of the Sumerian language, but only in
religious and literary areas, as the language remained unimportant for
administrative purposes. The scribal art reached an exceptional stage of
precision. The round numerals, that had to be made with a different circular
stylus, disappeared from current use and only the cuneiform representations,
made with the triangular stylus, were employed from now on (Fig. 4).
Old Babylonian Period
(2004–1595 BC)
Figure 5. Number symbols used
during the Babylonian Period (2004 BC–75 AD).
Up to this time, a positional notation
for sexagesimal numbers had not become established and separate signs were used
for 1, 10, 60, 10x60, 602, and 10×602. A
special sign for zero was not necessary. During the Babylonian Period, however,
a quasi-positional notation was used that depended on only two signs: the
elongated wedge used for the number one and the triangular impression used for
10. The wedge now also stood for the powers of 60 and the triangle for ten
times the powers of 60 depending on their position within the sequence of
ciphers representing the number (Fig. 5).
Eventually, a sign for zero was
adopted in the Babylonian system, but it was only used to denote internal empty
places, the new numerical symbol was not used to the right of a number as the
last symbol [[6]].This meant that the numbers were not unambiguous and the
actual value had to be determined very carefully from the context.
Summary of number systems
In conclusion, there were two
different but related systems for representing numbers in the Sumero-Babylonian
culture. An earlier one, based on round impressions using a blunt circular
stylus, and a latter one, based on cuneiform impressions made with a stylus of
triangular section. The first system appears during the Proto-Sumerian Period
and was in use until the time of the Akkadian Dynasty. By the Sumerian Period
of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the cuneiform system had totally replaced it.
Because both systems were sexagesimal and had a limited number of signs,
frequent repetitions of the same sign were necessary. An intermediate cipher
for 10 was developed to ease the need for repetition and it was used by itself
and to multiply the different powers of 60. The individual signs representing a
number had to be added together to obtain the actual value of the number. The
earlier system used only two different signs in two different sizes to write
the numbers. The cuneiform system also employed only two elements, the wedge
and the triangle, but used four wedges to represent the large circle of the
earlier system. In both cases, the largest value represented by a single symbol
was 36,000, although very large numbers could be expressed by the repeated use
of the symbol for 36,000.
During the Babylonian Period,
however, a quasi-positional notation was developed that allowed for the
convenient representation of very large numbers. Only two signs, the wedge and
the triangle, were used to represent the different powers of 60 and 10 times
the different powers of 60 depending on the position of the symbol in the
number string. A sign for zero was used to indicate internal empty positions.
No other culture in the ancient
world used the base 60 for their number system. The Egyptians, for example,
used a pure decimal notation as well as the Romans and the Greeks [[6]]. The
latter adopted the sexagesimal base for astronomical computations but a decimal
notation was employed for other purposes. The Elamites apparently adopted the
sexagesimal system from the Sumerians and only used a decimal notation when
counting animals [[5]]. Although the Semitic kingdoms of Ebla, Mari, and
Abu-Salabikh adopted the cuneiform writing and the cuneiform numbers, the
calendar was Semitic and the counting appears to be in Semitic units which were
decimal.
Figure 6. List of the
duration of the Antediluvian Sumerian reigns.
King List and patriarchs chronology
The antediluvian portion of the
King List appears to have been originally composed very early in Sumerian
history. Therefore, the early number system, based on rounded signs, has been
used to represent the numerical part of the list in Fig. 6. A representation
based on the non-positional cuneiform system, however, would have been very
similar. It can be seen that the majority of the symbols needed to express the
duration of the reigns of the antediluvian kings are the large circle (602 =
3,600) and the large circle with the small circle inside (10x602 =
36,000). Only the last two numbers would have needed the symbol of the large
bullet with a small circle inside (10x60 = 600). The symbols for one, ten, and
sixty would not have been needed. Thus, in six of the eight numbers, the
durations were given as units of 602, and
in the last two with a precision of 10x60. Notice that all the numbers taken
together yield three 10x602 signs, thirty-six 602 signs,
and six 10x60 signs. To obtain the total of the eight reign durations, the
scribe would have used the tallying method. So, for example, he would have
counted ten of the large circle signs and written an additional large circle
with a small circle inside. In case there were less that ten symbols of the
same kind left, they were usually arranged in up to three rows of three symbols
each. Thus, the thirty-six 602 signs
would have yielded three more 10x602 signs
for a total of six, with six individual 602 signs
left. The six large bullets with a small circle inside could have been written
as two rows of three signs each, following the convention of the maximum of
three rows of three. However, because of the peculiarities of the system, six
large bullets with the small circle inside also make a large circle. So, the
six 10x60 signs could have been also expressed as an additional 602 sign
for a total of seven (see Fig. 6). The resulting total is equivalent to 214,200
years. This number also has a precision of 3,600. It is curious that the 10x60
signs of the last two durations add up exactly to one of the 602 signs,
the basic unit of all the other numbers and the overall total, and that the
10x60 unit was not used until the last two reign durations of the list.
A table with the total ages of
the antediluvian biblical patriarchs is shown in Fig. 7. For comparison with
the Sumerian King List, Adam and Noah are not included. The King List does not
include the Sumerian first man nor the Sumerian Flood hero (Ziusudra). The
third column is the representation of the ages as decimal-counting Semites
would have written them using the early rounded stylus. Exactly what the
convention would have been is not known. However, following the same rules for
the selection of symbols to represent the different powers of the base as in
the sexagesimal system, it would follow that the small bullet and the small
circle would represent one and ten, the large circle the next power of the base
(102), and the large circle with the small circle inside ten times
that power (103). There would have been no use for the large bullet impression
because the first power of the base was already represented by the small
circle, and no use for the large bullet with the small circle inside because
ten times the first power of the base was the square of the base which was
represented by the large circle. According to that convention, the total ages
of the antediluvian patriarchs would have been expressed as shown in column
three. The precision of the ages is one year, and the majority of the ages have
units.
Figure 7. List of the
Ages of the Antediluvian biblical Patriarchs.
A comparison of Figs. 6 and 7
shows that the ages have no relationship between themselves, and neither do the
totals. However, if the ages of the Patriarchs are rounded to the two highest
digits as in the Sumerian list (that appears to be rounded to the two highest
sexagesimal ciphers), their representation would be as shown in column 4 of
Fig. 7. A total of the eight ages of the patriarchs can also be obtained by
tallying all the symbols employed in the individual numbers. The total would
then have six 103 signs, six 102 signs,
and six 10 signs for a sum of 6600 years. If we do not incorporate the six
10x60 signs (large bullet with small circle inside) of the Sumerian total into
an additional next higher order sign, the Sumerian total has 6 signs for 10x602, six
signs for 602, and six signs for 10x60.
Thus, the totals of both the
rounded Genesis and Sumerian lists obtained by a straight tally have six of the
signs for ten times the square of the base, six of the signs for the square of
the base and six signs for the next lower symbol. It should be noted that,
although the particular form of the symbols used to represent the decimal
numbers has been assumed, the relationship of the arithmetic structure of the
totals is inherently independent of the symbols used. Nevertheless, the choice
of signs employed in Fig. 7 to represent decimal numbers is entirely reasonable
as it follows the same rules of the sexagesimal system. If this was indeed the
system used, the resemblance between the totals would have been not only
inherently but formally true as well.
A Sumerian scribe looking at a
document containing the Genesis total would have interpreted the signs as
sexagesimal. Thus, the first 6 signs would have represented 216,000 years (6 x
10x602), and the next six, 21,600 (6 x 602) for a
total of 237,600 years. This is very close to the total in the Sumerian
antediluvian document. The scribe would have been puzzled at the last set of
six small circle signs. That sign was generally recognized as the cipher for
10. But why introduce 60 years (6 x 10) when already the first two sets of
signs amount to more than two hundred thousand years? Also, it would have
appeared very strange that no intermediate ciphers between 602 and 10
were used in the total. The scribe would have expected to see the next smaller
cipher of the system, namely the large bullet with the small circle inside
(10x60). It would have seemed very reasonable to assume that the signs were
wrong and that the large bullet had been dropped. Given that assumption, the
last three signs would have represented 3,600 (6 x 10x60) for a grand total of
241,200 years, the total appearing in the Sumerian list.
Our hypothesis for explaining
the similarities in numerical structure and magnitude of the two totals is as
follows: The Sumerian scribe that composed the original Antediluvian list had
at his disposal a document (possibly a clay tablet) containing numerical
information on the ages of eight of the patriarchs similar to that of the Genesis
record. The numbers denoting the lifespans of the individual patriarchs were
missing or obliterated. However, the document had a rounded total of the
lifetimes of the patriarchs (possibly on the back of the tablet). Although this
number was written using a decimal number base, the scribe assumed it was
sexagesimal and incorporated it into his document after making some slight
emendations. He then proceeded to assign approximate reign durations to the
perceived antediluvian kings in an arbitrary manner but keeping the sum equal
to the total he had copied from the decimal (Semitic) tablet. He only used two
high order ciphers to represent the durations (in units of 3,600 years) but
used a third smaller cipher in the last two reigns to conform to the structure
of the total he had adopted.
Although this hypothesis cannot
be proven at this time, it seem to afford a reasonable explanation of the
similarities and differences between the two documents. The probability that
the resemblance is fortuitous is very small in view of the fact that the two
lists:
·
mention the Flood;
·
refer to the same
(adjusted) number of personages;
·
have totals that are
made up of the same number of symbols for ten times the square of the base, the
square of the base, and the next lower symbol of the two different numerical
systems involved;
·
and, have their totals
correspond to each other numerically.
On the other hand, it is highly
unlikely that the biblical account was derived from the Sumerian because:
·
the Genesis account has
more numerical precision and more detailed information;
·
the ages of the
patriarchs are much more reasonable than the extremely long reigns of the kings
of the Kings List, the account is much more realistic and true to life;
·
and, the moral and
spiritual qualities are immensely superior. For example, in the Sumerian
account of the Flood (as given in the Gilgamesh epic) there is no reason given
for the decision of the gods to destroy mankind. There are no allusions at all
to a fault committed by man. The Flood appears as a capricious act of the gods
rather than a divine punishment. In Genesis, however, God purposes to purge
mankind because the thoughts and designs of men were continually evil, and the
Earth was full of violence.
Another possible explanation is
that, instead of a written document, the Sumerians had an oral tradition
referring to the antediluvian account which was used in composing the early
part of the Kings List, but that they had available only the general setting of
the story, the number of personages involved (interpreted as kings), the rough
magnitude of their ages (interpreted as durations of reigns), and the rounded
total; originally in a decimal numerical system, but incorrectly assumed to be
in a sexagesimal one at a later date. The main problem with this explanation is
that there is a detailed numerical correspondence between the two lists that
would have been difficult to remember from one generation to the other. On the
other hand, the total of the lifetimes (which provides the principal numerical
correspondence) has a structure (three sets of six ciphers each in strict
decreasing arithmetical order) that would have made remembering that number
much easier.
Discussion and summary
The Sumerian King List records
in a chronological succession the names of most of the kings of Sumer and the
lengths of their reigns. The composition is based on the theory that there was
always only one king at a time for all of Babylonia, and a single capital. A
few of the existing manuscripts of the List have an initial section dealing
with kings before the Flood that is significantly different from the rest of
the list. This antediluvian section was a later addition written by a person
different from the one who composed the postdiluvian section of the list. This
scribe appears to have adapted an earlier list of antediluvian kings to conform
to the style and philosophy of the document he was bringing up to date.
However, it is evident that his source for the antediluvian kings did not claim
that the different kingships were successive. The original King List was
probably composed during the reign of Utu-hegal of Uruk (2119–2112 BC) and the antediluvian section added after the reign of
Sin-magir (1827–1817 BC) of
the Isin dynasty.
Sumerians and Babylonians
employed a sexagesimal number system. There were two non-positional ways of
representing the different ciphers: an earlier one using a round stylus, and a
later cuneiform way using a triangular stylus. In both systems the number of
ciphers was very small requiring many repetitions of the same symbol, although
grouping of the sexagesimal symbols by tens was employed. Later, during
Babylonian time, a quasi-positional system was devised. No other culture of the
ancient world developed a sexagesimal number system, although non-Sumerian
groups adopted the Sumerian script to represent their languages and used their
numerical system. This was the case of Semitic groups such as at Ebla and Mari,
but although they used the cuneiform system, they retained a Semitic calendar
and decimal counting.
When the kingdom durations of
the antediluvian portion of the King List are represented with the early
Sumerian numerical system, the total and all of the numbers except two need
only two different symbols. These are the two largest units of the system, so
that the numbers are expressed as multiples of 3600. The total (241,200) needs
six 10x602 signs, six 602 signs,
and six 10x60 signs. The duration of the lives of the biblical patriarchs,
however, have the precision of one year, and the majority of the ages have
units. If Adam the first man and Noah the Flood hero are not included to match
the contents of the Kings List, their total ages would be 6695. If the ages are
rounded to the two highest digits as in the Sumerian list, the final number has
six 103 signs, six 102 signs,
and six 10 signs for a total of 6660. Thus, the totals of both the adjusted
Genesis and Sumerian lists have six of the signs for ten times the square of
the base, six of the signs for the square of the base, and six signs for the
next lower value of their respective system. In addition, when the number
representing the sum of the ages of the biblical patriarchs is interpreted as
having been written in the sexagesimal system, the two totals become
numerically equivalent.
The probability that the
resemblance between the two documents is fortuitous is very small. On the other
hand, it is highly unlikely that the biblical account was derived from the
Sumerian in view of the differences of the two accounts, and the obvious superiority
of the Genesis record both in numerical precision, realism, completion, and
moral and spiritual qualities. It is much more likely that the Sumerian scribe
that composed the original antediluvian list had available a document (possibly
a clay tablet) containing numerical information on the ages of eight of the
patriarchs similar to that of the Genesis record and that he mistakenly
interpreted it as being written in the sexagesimal system. Another possibility
is that the Sumerians had an oral tradition of the antediluvian world that only
provided the general setting of the story, the number of personages involved,
the rough magnitude of their ages and the rounded total, and that these numbers
were originally decimal but were incorrectly assumed to be sexagesimal at the
time of writing the antediluvian list.
The fact that numerical
elements of the biblical antediluvian account appear so distinctly in the
context of a secular Sumerian historical document such as the Kings List, is
strong evidence for the historicity of the early chapters of the book of
Genesis. The biblical description is not limited to the Hebrews, but it appears
that there was an ancient tradition of the antediluvian world in the early
stages of the Mesopotamian culture as well. On the other hand, the fact that
the Sumerian account shows up as a numerically rounded, incomplete version of
the Genesis description, lacking the latter’s precision and wealth of details,
as well as its moral and spiritual depth, is a strong argument for the priority,
accuracy and superiority of the biblical record. And finally, the clear
parallels between the Sumerian and biblical antediluvian data, qualitative as
well as numerical, open up the possibility of establishing some chronological
correlations between the rest of the Kings List and the early chapters of the
book of Genesis.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my
gratitude to my wife Evangelina V. López for her patience and understanding
during the research and preparation of this work. Her help in editing and proof
reading is also greatly appreciated.
References & notes:
Kramer, S.N., The Sumerians,
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 355 pp, 1963. Return to text.
Walton, J., The antediluvian
section of the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5, Biblical Archaeologist,
44:207–208, 1981. Also, see his later study on the Sumerian King List in
Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context, Zondervan, pp. 127–31,
1989. Return to text.
Morby, J.E., Dynasties of the
World, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 253 pp, 1989. Return to text.
Jacobsen, T., The Sumerian King
List, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 217 pp, 1939. Return to text.
Friberg, J., Numbers and
measures in the earliest written records, Scientific American, 250(2):110–118,
1984. Return to text.
Flegg, G., Numbers, Their
History and Meaning, Barnes and Noble, NY, 295 pp, 1993. Return to text.
Nissen, Hans J., The early
History of the Ancient Near East, 9000–2000 BC, The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL, 215 pp, 1988. Return to text.
Walker, C.B.F., Reading the
Past: Cuneiform, Trustees of the British Museum, British Museum, 64 pp, 1987.
Return to text.
University of Wisconsin, Sign,
symbol, script: An exhibition on the origins of writing and the alphabet, Board
of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Department of Hebrew and
Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 88 pp, 1984. Return to text.
Schmandt-Besserat, D., The
earliest precursor of writing, Scientific American, 238:50–59, 1978. Return to
text.
Mattiae, P., Ebla: An Empire
Rediscovered, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1981. Return to text.
Pettinato, G., Catalogo dei
Testi Cuneiformi de Tell Mardikh-Ebla, Instituto Universitario Orientale di
Napoli, Naples, 1979. Return to text.
Pettinato, G., Testi Administrativi
della Biblioteca L. 2769, Instituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Naples.
Return to text.
Pettinato, G., The Archives of
Ebla, Doubleday, Garden City, NY. Return to text.
Fiore, S., Voices From the
Clay, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, 254 pp, 1965.
FacebookTwitterEmailMore
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق