We wouldn’t, the flood is obviously a hyperbolic description of a devastating Mesopotamian flood.
My concern is not the lens we might look through as we read the biblical text. My concern is what the writer(s) intended. Keep in mind that the push toward the idea that Genesis 2-11 had a theological purpose came from those who read it as intended world history and knew it wasn’t very good at that, and since it is “God breathed” according to Paul, it must have some other purpose. In essence, it stemmed from a desire to rescue the text which otherwise would be just plain wrong.
I had no idea there was any historical corroboration when I began a search starting in 1984, but since I lived only 30 minutes from the Library of Congress and its treasure trove of books on the ancient Near East it just was too rich a resource to not take advantage of it, and largely unavailable to people who lived elsewhere. So when I studied theology in seminary I was assailed by text books I had to read that were written by theologians who did no research and out of sheer ignorance just opined that Genesis was “pre-history” or “proto-history.”
I can’t impart everything I learned from over 30 years spent in the Jefferson Reading Room in the LOC pouring over books and related articles gathering evidence to write my own books and journal articles. All I can do here on this forum is offer piecemeal the evidence I think is the most important to make the case.
Hi Jack:
The Hebrew word har means either mountains or hills. So the “hills of Urartu” would be a correct reading in my opinion. And Urartu was a large area north and east of Shuruppak. There is one possible landing spot south of the Lower Zab where an ark could have landed. Jebel Judi in Turkey has been considered, but I consider the elevation too imposing.
Floods deposit and scour. Ur had 10 feet of “water-laid” clay while no deposit was uncovered at Eridu only eight miles away. It’s hard to imagine a massive flood in one city while its neighbor was untouched. Deposits are spotty and unpredictable.
Floods deposit and scour. Ur had 10 feet of “water-laid” clay while no deposit was uncovered at Eridu only eight miles away. It’s hard to imagine a massive flood in one city while its neighbor was untouched. Deposits are spotty and unpredictable.
I think this is largely due to a land formation between the two. Ur was flooded so badly in this instance because of its location near the coast. Mountains and ridges provide valuble protection against floods and other natural disasters, so I don’t find an absence of a flood at Eridu inconceivable. It is for these very same reasons that flood deposits are spotty.
We still have no evidence that the flood deposits destroyed any buildings in Kish, and in my view it was important that such a large city center would be destroyed. At this point my issue with the 2900 flood is mostly chronological, but I am still troubled by the lack of deposits at Ur and Uruk, among others.
Kish was the first city the Sumerians rebuilt according to the SKL, so perhaps it was not heavily damaged. As for the boat and its course of travel, going against the current and uphill probably rules out Jebel Judi in Turkey. I think it is more likely the boat floated downstream and washed out in the Persian Gulf, then with oars or punting poles it traveled along the coast and then was poled up the Tigris until they found a suitable, secluded spot. Getting away some distance from any potentially hostile Sumerians would have been important. Pritchard and Speiser point toward mount Pir Omar Gudrun in the Kurdish region near Kirkuk, Iraq, a low-lying mountain at the beginning of the Zagros range.1
- Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts , 94; E. A. Speiser, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, VIII (1928): 18, 31.
It was not necessarily the first city they rebuilt, rather the first one with kingship. It is most likely that Sargon of Akkad comissioned the list, and he was from Kish. If Sargon wished to legitimize his status as king, writing down his native city as the first center of power in Sumer makes his claim Sumer quite strong.
I think it is more likely the boat floated downstream and washed out in the Persian Gulf, then with oars or punting poles it traveled along the coast and then was poled up the Tigris until they found a suitable, secluded spot.
If Noah had simply poled upriver then why did he need a dove to see if there was dry land? Doves can travel an average of 600 miles in a day, meaning that the ark was still surrounded by hundreds of miles of water when the dove found no dry land.
I think Sargon comes a little late and he isn’t named on the king List before Kish is “smitten with weapons.”
If Noah had simply poled upriver then why did he need a dove to see if there was dry land? Doves can travel an average of 600 miles in a day, meaning that the ark was still surrounded by hundreds of miles of water when the dove found no dry land.
Good question. A swollen river might explain it or perhaps while floating around in the Persian Gulf?
I think Sargon comes a little late and he isn’t named on the king List before Kish is “smitten with weapons.”
Do you mean to say Sargon is too late to be the one who initially compiled all the dynasties into the Sumerian King List?
A swollen river might explain it or perhaps while floating around in the Persian Gulf?
I doubt a river could swell enough to make land not visible, but I assume it might be possible. However, it is not possible Noah released the dove while floating in the Persian Gulf, as the Bible makes it clear he had already landed when he released the dove.
I know you are not fond of Dickin’s suggestion because there is no direct evidence confirming it, so I found yet another suggestion that has quite a bit more evidence backing it. Once more, however, this flood is placed very early by the author; maybe it is worth considering that the Sumerians used political conflation, a favorite trick of ancient peoples; Noah certainly doesn’t appear to be a king.
2nd Flood Proposition: The geomorphological and hydrogeological evidences for a Holocene deluge in Arabia
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were arguing for a global flood.
Looking back on some of the things I wrote, I can easily see how one would get confused. My point with the global flood example was that if we accept a global flood we lose truth. Why does it matter that Job or Noah were real people? I believe their stories could be symbolic and still be meaningful, but I don’t think that’s the case, their reality matters because truth matters.
Ziusudra was king and Noah was Ziusudra. A tablet recovered from Nippur contained about 300 lines with the first thirty-seven lines missing. Following is a part of the flood account originally written in Sumerian cuneiform:
"The gods of heaven and earth [called upon] the names of Anu and Enlil.
Then did Ziusudra, the king … build a mighty …
Obeying in humility and reverence, [he] … the gods, a wall …
Ziusudra, beside it, stood and hearkened."
This is the ending:
"Utu came forth, he who sheds light over heaven and earth.
Ziusudra opened a window in the great ship;
Utu, the hero, cast his beams into the interior of the giant boat.
Ziusudra, the king, fell on his face before Utu.
The king kills an ox, slaughters a sheep."1
Notes
- Andre Parrot, The Flood and Noah’s Ark (New York: Philosophical Library, 1953), 35-37.
I still think its a fair proposition to say that the Sumerians conflated the earlier flood hero with a contemporary king who had survived a flood. This idea would better make sense of Sumerian chronology, as Enmerkar clearly predates any king named Ziusudra.
Weld-Blundell Prism (WB-62) Sumerian King List
1 Alulim Eridu 64,800 453,600 388,800
2 Alalgar Eridu 72,000 388,800 316,800
3 - kidunnu Badtibira 72,000 316,800 244,800
4 - alimma Badtibira 21,600 244,800 223,200
5 Enmenluanna 21,600 223,200 201,600
6 Dumuzi Badtibira 28,800 201,600 172,800
7 Ensipazianna Larak 36,000 172,800 136,800
8 Enmenduranna Sippar 72,000 136,800 64,800
9 Sukurlam (Surrupak) Shuruppak 28,800 64,800 36,000
10 Ziusudra Shuruppak 36,000 36,000 Flood
--- Flood --- Total 453,600
WB 62 is a small clay tablet unearthed from Larsa. It is the oldest dated source, at ca. 2000 BC. Note the tenth king. The last of ten antediluvian kings listed by Berossus is Xisuthros, Greek for Ziusudra.
Is it not possible that Ziusudra did really survive a bad flood, but has been conflated with Noah who survived a mcuh earlier and larger flood? Enmerkar’s date (3400-3200 BC) cannot be reconciled with a 2900 flood being the THE cataclysmic deluge of the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Ziusudra being listed as king before the flood does not rule out any theory of conflation.
I suppose anything is possible. Ziusudra is on the pre-flood king list and Enmerkar is on the post-flood king list. In accordance with Occam’s Razor, Ziusudra predates Enmerkar. What am I missing?
Ziusudra is on the pre-flood king list and Enmerkar is on the post-flood king list. In accordance with Occam’s Razor, Ziusudra predates Enmerkar. What am I missing?
Enmerkar can be confidently date to the Late Uruk Period (c.3400-3200). Enmerkar is a post-flood king, Ziusudra is a pre-flood king. It follows from these facts that Ziusudra predates 3400 BC, or he has been conflated with the flood hero of a much earlier age; I prefer the first proposition. If occam’s razor applies to everything, then we need to dismantle the way we understand a lot of things.
If you can address why you think Enmerkar is not dated to 3400 BC, then I would happily re-evaluate the Shurrupak flood.
I’m sure more people are interested in when Abraham lived. “Estimates as to the era in which Abraham lived can vary from 2100 BC to 1800 BC.” Now you are looking at a time period far earlier and about someone no one cares a lot about. My guess is that the flood may have been a smidgen later and/or maybe Enmerkar lived a tad bit earlier. All dates that are over 5,000 years ago I would consider rough approximations unless you have some radiometric evidence. Ziusudra is famous for surviving the flood and Enmerkar is famous for rebuilding a city damaged by the flood. So I would fit the dates around the facts, but I don’t think there are too many tearing their hair over it.
I would tend to think that even dates 5000 years ago are not off by 500 years. If Enmerkar lived around c.3400-3200 then the First Dynasty of Kish could have been as early as 3500 or 3600. Dates are certainly allowed to be a good ways off, but 700 years goes outside the margin of error. If we can add a 700 year margin of error to ancient dates, I might suppose the Shurrupak flood really occured in 2300 BC. Clearly neither of us are going to budge on this issue, so I think it best we move forwards.
I’m sure more people are interested in when Abraham lived.
Maybe so, I think our best guess is in the Isin-Larsa period.
Frankly, I admit I have some reluctance finding fault with those who actually fought off mosquitoes and did the grunt work, enduring the hot sun and digging in the sand, Langdon, Watelin, Woolley, and Mallowan. Estimated sedimentation rates is no way to accurately date the clay deposits, but they worked with what they had and with the available technology of almost 100 years ago. I didn’t get my hands dirty, and it is a consensus date agreed upon by others who didn’t get their hands dirty either.
I don’t disagree with their dating of the Shurrupak flood, but I also don’t disagree with Miguel Civil’s dating of the Jemdet Nasr tablet mentioning Enmerkar. I appreciate the work of all of these scholars immensly, for it is them that layed the groundwork from which I am able to work from; all this doesn’t mesan we have to agree on everything.
On a slightly different note I would like to know if you take the ages of the Patriarchs to be literal ages. This greatly affects how far back we are able to put Adam in Noah, meaning that if the ages are figurative we have to put more gaps.