Inscriptions and Creation Myths

Ezra further records that “Cyrus the king also brought out the vessels of the house of the LORD that Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem and placed in the house of his gods” (1:7).

Early skeptics once doubted that an ancient king would allow captured people to return to their homes and rebuild their temples. Then, in 1879, Hormuzd Rassam discovered a clay cylinder with a cuneiform inscription the ruins of Babylon. The cylinder is a foundation text describing Cyrus the Great’s capture of Babylon and restoration of the city.¹  Lines 30-35 of this text contain a declaration by Cyrus:

From [Babylon] to Aššur and (from) Susa, Agade, Ešnunna, Zamban, Me-Turnu, Der, as far as the region of Gutium, the sacred centers on the other side of the Tigris, whose sanctuaries had been abandoned for a long time, I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there, to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings.

In addition, at the command of Marduk, the great lord, I settled in their habitations, in pleasing abodes, the gods of Sumer and Akkad, whom Nabonidus, to the anger of the lord of the gods, had brought into Babylon.

May all the gods whom I settled in their sacred centers ask daily of Bêl and Nâbu that my days be long and may they intercede for my welfare.²

The inscription announces Cyrus’ general policy of returning exiles to their “dwellings” and allowing them to take their gods with them and rebuild their “sanctuaries.”  The Jewish people had no idols, so the articles that had been taken from the Temple were returned.  The Cyrus Cylinder then contains the general policy announcement, and the declaration in Ezra 1:1-3 is the specific announcement to the Jewish people.  This confirms the biblical claim that Cyrus allowed the Jewish people who had been captured by the Babylonians to return to their homeland and rebuild their temple.  In fact, many now hail the Cyrus Cylinder as the first declaration of human rights and a copy of it resides in the headquarters of the United Nations.

The DSf Foundation Inscription of Darius

The book of Esther begins with the great feast that Ahasuerus (called Xerxes in Greek) gave for all of his officials and servants at Susa, one of the four Persian capitals.  The biblical text describes the splendor of the palace garden at Susa this way:

And when these days were completed, the king gave for all the people present in Susa the citadel, both great and small, a feast lasting for seven days in the court of the garden of the king’s palace. There were white cotton curtains and violet hangings fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rods and marble pillars, and also couches of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl and precious stones. (Esther 1:5-6 ESV).

The palace at Susa was constructed by Xerxes’s father, Darius.  The foundation deposit inscriptions at the palace at Susa were discovered in three languages: Old Persian, Akkadian and Elamite.³ Known as the DSf, these foundation inscriptions describe the splendor of the palace in a way that is similar to the biblical description:

The palace which I built at Susa, from afar its ornamentation was brought…the cedar timber, this – a mountain named Lebanon – from there was brought.  The Assyrian people, it brought to Babylon; from Babylon the Carians and the Ionians brought it to Susa.  The yaka-timber was borught from Gandhara and from Carmania.  The gold was brought from Sardis and from Bactria, from here was wrought.  The precious stone lapis-lazuli and carnelian which was wrought here, this was brought from Sogdiana.  The precious stone turquoise, this was brought from Chorasmia, which was wrought here.  The silver and the ebony were brought from Egypt. The ornamentation with which the wall was adorned, that from Ionia was brought.  The ivory which was wrought here, was brought from Ethiopia and from Sind and from Arachosia. The stone columns which were wrought, a village by name Abiradu in Elam – from there were brought.  The stone-cutters who wroght the stone, those were Ionians and Sardians….Saith Darius the King: At Susa a very excellent work was ordered, a very excellent work was brought to completion.⁴

One can easily see the similarities in the descriptions of great wealth and splendor of the king’s palace: stone columns of marble, precious stones, precious metals, etc.  Scholars have noted that the writer of the book of Esther must have been familiar with the Persian palace at Susa during the time period described in the book of Esther.

The Tattanai/Tattannu, Governor-Beyond-The-River Fragment

In Ezra 5 we read about the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem as well as the opposition that arose to this:

Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Jeshua the son of Jozadak arose and began to rebuild the house of God that is in Jerusalem, and the prophets of God were with them, supporting them.At the same time Tattenai the governor of the province Beyond the River and Shethar-bozenai and their associates came to them and spoke to them thus: “Who gave you a decree to build this house and to finish this structure?” (Ezra 5:2-3 ESV)

Confirmation of Tattenai, the governor of the province Beyond-The-River was found among a group of Persian tablets called the Tattannu Fragment Archive.  One cuneiform tablet (VAS 4 152) is a promissory note dated to the 20^th year of Darius I (502 B.C.) in which one of the witnesses of the transaction is a servant of “Tattannu, Governor Across-The-River.”⁵ There is a consensus among scholars that this governor Tattannu and the biblical Tattenai are one and the same.⁶

SUMMARY:

These three Persian inscriptions confirm an event (the public policy of Cyrus to return exiles to their home countries to rebuild their places of worship), a place (the palace of Darius I at Susa) and a person (Tattenai, governor Beyond-the-River) described in the Bible.  They are evidence that the Bible is historically reliable.

While the Bible is not primarily a history textbook, it is nonetheless a historical document with different genres of literature, including passages that claim to record actual events (ie. the books of Kings and Chronicles in the Old Testament and the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament).  There are those who would seek to “throw off the shackles of having to believe in the historicity of the Bible.”  However, the sheer number of chronological and historical markers throughout Scripture make such a view difficult to defend.  Yes, it is important to interpret each passage in light of its genre of literature (ie. Proverbs). However, when it comes to the straightforward historical people, places and events described, there is no need to reinterpret what is described in order to dismiss the Bible’s historicity.

Archaeologist, Dr. Scott Stripling has stated, “After 150 years of archaeology in Israel, hundreds of synchronisms (connections) between the material culture and the biblical text have been established.  At this point, it takes more faith to believe that the Bible is not true than to believe that it is true.”⁷

Endnotes:

1 Bryant G. Wood, “The Ongoing Saga of the Cyrus Cylinder: The Internationally-Famous Grande Dame of Ancient Texts” Associates for Biblical Research.  August 18, 2010. ;(Accessed March 16, 2019)

2 “Cyrus Cylinder Translation” Livius.org. January 12, 2017. ;(Accessed March 16, 2019)

3 “DSf” Livius.org. November 16, 2018. ;(Accessed March 16, 2019)

4 Edwin M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 296.

5 Matthew Jursa and Matthew M. Stolper, “From the Tattannu archive Fragment,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 97 (2007): 243.

6 Ibid, 244.

7 Scott Stripling in a personal email to the author.  July 26, 2016.

MARCH 15, 2019BRYAN WINDLE

Even a cursory reading of the book of Kings and Chronicles reveals that the Hebrew Kings had many interactions with the kings of the surrounding nations.  During the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. the Assyrian empire was the most powerful nation on earth, controlling most of the Middle East, from the Persian Gulf to Egypt.¹ It’s hardly surprising then to read about these powerful Assyrian kings in the pages of Scripture:

• Tilgath-pileser III/Pul (744-727 BC) – 2 Kings 15:19; 2 Kings 16:7; 1 Chron. 5:26;
• Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC) – 2 Kings 17:3; 2 Kings 18:9
• Sargon II (721-705 BC) – Isaiah 20:1
• Sennacherib (704-681 BC) – 2 Kings 18-19; 2 Chron. 32; Isaiah 36-37
• Esarhaddon (680-669 BC) – 2 Kings 19:37, Isaia 37:38; Ezra 4:2
• Ashurbanipal (668-627 BC) – Ezra 4:10

What is interesting is that we also read about Hebrew kings in the Assyrian records.  Several of these inscriptions confirm specific events described in the Bible, although they are described from the Assyrian perspective.  Here are three Assyrian inscriptions about Hebrew kings.

The Tribute of Jehu on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III

Jehu was an army commander when we was anointed by a prophet as the next King of Israel (2 Kings 9:3).  From these humble beginnings he was raised to the most powerful position in the land.  His reign did not go well, however.  Scripture records:

“But Jehu was not careful to walk in the law of the LORD, the God of Israel, with all his heart. He did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam, which he made Israel to sin.  In those days the LORD began to cut off parts of Israel.” (2 Kings 10:31-32 ESV)

The Bible goes on to describe some of that territory was taken by Hazael, King of Syria.  Apparently, Jehu’s disobedience led to his humiliation before the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III as well.  This is portrayed on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, which depicts Jehu bowing before the Assyrian king.  The accompanying inscription reads, “The tribute of Jehu (Ia-ú-a), son of Omri (Hu-sum-ri); I received from him silver, gold, a golden saplu-bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king, (and) wooden puruhtu.“² 

It should be noted that Jehu was not the son of Omri, but rather a successor to the Omride throne.  At that time the Assyrian Kings referred to most of the kings of Israel as the “son of Omri.”

While we have no record of this specific event in the Bible it is certainly in keeping with the general description of God whittling down Jehu’s kingdom in punishment for his disobedience.

The Tribute of Ahaz in the Summary Statements of Tiglath-Pileser III

When Ahaz, King of Judah was under siege by Rezen, King of Syria and Pekah, King of Israel he turned to the King of Assyria for help.  The Bible records:

So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying, “I am your servant and your son. Come up and rescue me from the hand of the king of Syria and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are attacking me.” Ahaz also took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD and in the treasures of the king’s house and sent a present to the king of Assyria. And the king of Assyria listened to him. (2Kings 16:7-9a ESV)

In 1873, Austen Henry Layard discovered the palace of Tiglath-Pileser III in which were unearthed numerous inscriptions summarizing the king’s accomplishments.  In  Summary Inscription Seven, Tiglath-Pileser III describes the tribute that Jehoahaz gave him. (In Assyrian Inscription Ahaz is referred to as Jehoahaz, his longer name with a theophoric prefix – the Bible simply refers to him by his shortened name).  Dating to 729 B.C. it reads, “In all the countries which… [I received] the tribute of… Jehoahaz (ie. Ahaz) of Judah…(consisting of) gold, silver, tin, iron, antimony, linen garments with multicolored trimmings….”³

Tiglath-Pileser III’s Summary Statement Seven confirms the tribute the Bible describes King Ahaz (Jehoahaz) bringing to him, although the biblical inventory lists only the most precious items of gold and silver.

The Siege of Jerusalem under Hezekiah in the Annals of Sennacherib

In 2 Kings 18:13 we read, “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them.” (ESV) This was in response to Hezekiah’s rebellion against the Assyrian king, refusing to serve him as a vassal (2 Kings 18:7).  Sennacharib’s army laid siege to the city of Lachish (2 Kings 18:14) and Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:17) as part of this campaign.  While he eventually took the city of Lachish, Sennacharib was unable to take Jerusalem because the Lord delivered his people (2 Kings 19:35-36).

Archaeological confirmation of Sennacherib’s campaign into Judah can be seen both in the Lachish reliefs from his palace at Ninevah, as well as in his official records.

The Taylor Prism was discovered at the site of ancient Ninevah by Colonel Taylor in 1830.  It is a hexagonal prism that records the annals of Sennacharib in Akkadian cuneiform.  Two other prisms have been discovered with the same text – the Jerusalem Prism and the Oriental Institute Prism – but the Taylor Prism is the best preserved.  In it Sennacherib boasts:

As for Hezekiah the Judahite who had not submitted to my yoke, I surrounded 46 of his strong walled towns, and innumerable small places around them, and conquered them by means of earth ramps and siege engines, attack by infantrymen, mining, breaching, and scaling. 200,150 people of all ranks, men and women, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, cattle and sheep without number I brought out and counted as spoil. He himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I put watch-posts around him, and made it impossible for anyone to go out of his city.⁴

Sennacherib goes on in the Taylor prism to boast, “Now the fear of my lordly splendor overwhelmed that Hezekiah”⁵ and to confirm that the Judahite King did indeed pay him tribute (2 Kings 18:14).  It is interesting to note that Sennacherib does not boast of conquering Jerusalem, but merely shutting Hezekiah up in his royal city “like a bird in a cage.”

Summary

These three inscriptions are just a few of the many references in Assyrian records that confirm Hebrew kings and events.  They demonstrate the reliability of the Bible as a historical text.  As my friend and archaeologist Gary Byers says, “The Bible and archaeology tell the same story.”⁶

BONUS: I highlighted the importance of Assyrian Inscriptions and in particular, the Limmu Lists and the the Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III as part of my article on the Top Ten Discoveries in Biblical Archaeology Relating to the Old Testament.

NOTE:  This is part of my series on ancient inscriptions that relate to biblical people, places and events.  Here are the other articles in the series:

• 3 Egyptian Inscriptions About Israel

ENDNOTES:

1 The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Assyria.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Dec. 14, 2017. ;(Accessed February 16, 2019).

2 “Annals Edition 4 – The Black Obelisk, 828 or 827 BCE,” Center for Online Judaic Studies. ;(accessed February 16, 2019).

3 “Biblical Archaeology 14: Tiglath-Pileser III Inscriptions.” Theosophical Ruminations,  Aug. 11, 2011. ;(Accessed February 16, 2019)

4 Alan Millard, “Sennacherib’s Attack on Hezekiah.” Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985) 61-77.  ’S_ATTACK_ON_HEZEKIAH (Accessed February 18, 2019).

5 Ibid, 62.

6 Gary Byers in a personal email to the author.  July 26, 2016

MARCH 22, 2019BRYAN WINDLE

When two people synchronize their watches, they set them so that they match each other, telling the same time.  In archaeology, a synchronism is a connection between the literary (biblical) description of a person, place or event in history, with remains from the material culture (inscriptions, etc.).  Many archaeological discoveries have established synchronisms between Israel and the surrounding nations which confirm historical details in the Bible.  I have highlighted synchronisms with Egypt through three Egyptian inscriptions that refer to Israel, as well as synchronisms with Assyria through three Assyrian inscriptions that refer to Hebrew kings.  In this article, we’ll look at three Babylonian inscriptions and how they synchronize with the Israelite nation around the time of the exile.

The Babylonian Chronicles

2 Kings 24 tells the story of Jehoiachin, the King of Judah.  The Bible records:

“At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up to Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to the city while his servants were besieging it, and Jehoiachin the king of Judah gave himself up to the king of Babylon, himself and his mother and his servants and his officials and his palace officials. The king of Babylon took him prisoner in the eighth year of his reign and carried off all the treasures of the house of the LORD and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold in the temple of the LORD, which Solomon king of Israel had made, as the LORD had foretold….And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah.” (2Ki 24:10-14,17 ESV)

This event is described in the Babylonian Chronicles – a collection of clay tablets, written in cuneiform that describe the significant events in Babylonian history each year.  The chronicle for the years 605-595 B.C. (known as the Jerusalem Chronicle) records the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar in March 587 B.C.:

“He [Nebuchadnezzar] camped against the city of Judah [Jerusalem] and on the second day of the month of Adar he took the city and capture the king [Jehoiachin].  He appointed a king of his own choice there [Zedekiah], took its heavy tribute and brought them to Babylon.”¹

This Babylonian inscription confirms numerous details from the Biblical account: the siege of Jerusalem, the deposition of King Jehoiachin, the appointment of King Zedekiah, and the heavy tribute (ie. the treasures from the Temple and palace) that Nebuchadnezzar took.   Furthermore, it gives the exact date that the city of Jerusalem fell: March 16, 597 BC.

The Jehoiachin Ration Tablet

When Jehoiachin was deposed by King Nebuchadnezzar, he was taken as a prisoner to Babylon.  Later, when Nebuchadnezzar’s son, Evil-merodach became king, he released Jehoiachin.  In 2 Kings 25:27-30 we read:

“And in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, graciously freed Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. And he spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat above the seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon.  So Jehoiachin put off his prison garments. And every day of his life he dined regularly at the king’s table, and for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king, according to his daily needs, as long as he lived.” (ESV)

In the early 1900’s, Robert Koldewey led the excavations at Babylon.  Near the famous Ishtar Gate he unearthed a collection of clay tablets that were official Babylonian administrative documents recording the monthly rations of oil, barley and spices for royal prisoners and skilled laborers.  Amidst the tablets was one that named King Jehoiachin and recorded, “10 sila of oil to Jehoiahhin, king of Judah…and to the sons of the king.”²

This Babylonian ration tablet is consistent with the biblical text confirming that Jehoiachin was a prisoner in Babylon, and that he was given a ration (allowance) for his needs.  Moreover, this was the first extra-biblical document describing the Judahite royal household during the Babylonian Captivity.³

The Nabonidus Cylinder

Daniel 5 records the account of the fall of Babylon to the Medes and the Persians.  It begins, “King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords and drank wine in front of the thousand,” (Dan 5:1 ESV) and ends with words, “That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old. (Dan 5:30-31 ESV).

During the early 19^th century, critics used to point to this chapter as evidence of the inaccuracy of the Bible, as Belshazzar was unknown to history.  Ancient historians (Berosus and Abydenus) recorded that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon.  Then in 1854, J. E. Taylor was excavating the ruins of the ziggurat at Ur when he discovered four cylinders in each of the corners of the structure.  These cylinders contained the same inscription: a prayer of Nabonidus to the god Sin.  It reads:

“As for me, Nabonidus, King of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life of long days, and as for Belshazzar, my oldest son my offspring, instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart an may he not  commit any cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plentitude.”⁴

Another inscription, the Persian Verse Account of Naboniudus, was discovered in 1924.  It described how Nabonidus abandoned the worship of Marduk the chief Babylonian god and built a temple for the new sun god, Sin, whom he wished to worship.  He then went on a “long journey” to the west, ending up at the Tayma Oasis, which he built into a city and constructed a palace to live within.  Before leaving he “entrusted the army to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey.  (ii.5 and ii.6).”⁵

These inscriptions confirm that Beshazzar was an actual historical figure and that he was the reigning monarch in Babylon the night it fell.  Furthermore, they help to explain Belshazzar’s comment in Daniel 5:7 that the person who could read the writing on the wall would be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom.  As co-regent in his father’s absence, that’s all he could offer.

Summary

These Babylonian inscriptions establish synchronisms between the biblical description  of the Israelite exile and corresponding Babylonian history. On their own, each might be considered interesting side note to a Bible story.  Considered in the context of the hundreds of other synchronisms that have been established through archaeology between Ancient Near Eastern history and the biblical text, they become a powerful part of the mounting evidence that testifies to the historical reliability of Scripture.

Endnotes

1 Joseph M. Holden and Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible. (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2013), 271.

2 Ibid, 272.

3 Clyde E. Fant and Mitchell G. Reddish, Lost Treasures of the Bible. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 218.

4 Ibid, 233.”

5 “Verse Account of Nabonidus,” LIvius.org.  (Accessed February 21, 2019).

MARCH 8, 2019BRYAN WINDLE

In the Bible there are numerous interactions between the Israelites and the Egyptians.  Such interactions can be seen in three Egyptian inscriptions that clearly refer to the Hebrew people.

1. The Soleb Inscription

At the end of the 15^th century B.C., the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep III built a temple to honor the god Amun-Ra at Soleb in Nubia (modern-day northern Sudan). Within the temple area are a series of columns on which Amenhotep III listed the territories he claimed to have conquered.  Each territory is listed by a relief of a prisoner with their hands tied behind their backs over an oval “name ring” identifying the land of the particular foe.  The most interesting from a biblical perspective is a column drum that lists enemies from the “the land of the Shasu (nomads) of Yahweh”.   Given the other name rings nearby, the context would place this land in the Canaanite region.  In addition, the prisoner is clearly portrayed as Semitic, rather than African-looking, as other prisoners in the list are portrayed.¹  Two conclusions are almost universally accepted: this inscription clearly references Yahweh in Egyptian hieroglyphics (the oldest such reference outside of the Bible), and that around 1400 B.C. Amenhoteph III knew about the god Yahweh. Moreover, it would indicate an area in Canaan in the 15^th century B.C. inhabited by nomadic or semi-nomadic people who worship the god Yahweh.

This inscription is also evidence that points to an early date for the exodus.  According to a literal reading of 1 Kings 6:1, Solomon began building the temple in the 480th year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, placing the exodus around 1446 B.C.  Moreover, when Moses first went to Pharaoh to deliver God’s message to let His people go, Pharaoh responded by saying, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover, I will not let Israel go” (Ex. 5:2).  By around 1400 B.C., when the Israelites would have been nearing the end of the conquest of Canaan, the ruling Egyptian Pharaoh does know about Yahweh.  Egyptologist, Dr. Charles Aling and historian Dr. Clyde Billington summarize: “If the Pharaoh of the Exodus had never before heard of the God Yahweh, this strongly suggests that the Exodus should be dated no later than ca. 1400 BC because Pharaoh Amenhotep III had clearly heard about Yahweh in ca. 1400 BC.”²

2. The Merneptah Stele

In 1208 B.C. Pharaoh Merneptah erected a 10-foot tall victory monument (called a stele) in a temple at Thebes to boast of his claims to victory in both Libya and Canaan.  Of Merneptah’s Canaanite campaign we read:

Israel is wasted, its seed is not;

And Hurru (Canaan) is become a widow because of Egypt.³

Despite Merneptah’s boast of having destroyed Israel, we know from history that this did not happen.  The Bible makes no mention of this attack. It seems to have been a relatively small military campaign, taking only three cities and then boasting of Israel being laid waste.  For comparison, when Pharaoh Shishak invaded Israel he recorded the names over 180 cities/places he claims to have conquered.  Even though this seems to have been a small military operation the Merneptah inscription is of huge importance to biblical archaeology.

Most scholars agree that this is the oldest definitive reference to Israel as a nation outside of the Bible, and certainly the clearest Egyptian reference to Israel.⁴  It is also important because it too points towards an early date for the exodus (ca. 1446 B.C.) and not the late date that some scholars hold to (ca. 1270 B.C.).  It is doubtful that there would be enough time from 1270 B.C. to 1208 B.C. to account for the exodus, the 40 years of wandering in the dessert, the seven-year conquest of Canaan, the settlement of the tribes in their territories, and the establishment of a national presence in the land, all before Merneptah claims to have conquered them.  Merneptah’s Canaanite campaign instead likely dates to the time of the Judges, when the nation of Israel was already settled in Canaan.

3. The Shishak Inscription

In 925 B.C. Pharaoh Shishak, identified as Shoshenq I, swept through Israel and Judah conquering city after city.  The Bible describes this campaign in 2 Chr. 12:2-4:

In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, because they had been unfaithful to the LORD, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem with 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen. And the people were without number who came with him from Egypt—Libyans, Sukkiim, and Ethiopians. And he took the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem.

When he returned, he had a relief carved at the temple complex of Amun-Ra at Karnak, listing the 180+ cities he claims to have conquered.  While Jerusalem itself is not named, numerous Israelite and Judahite cities are, including Beth-Shemesh, Gibeon and Megiddo, as well as places called “the fields of Abraham,” and the “highlands of David.”   In fact, the remains of a victory stele set up by Pharaoh Shishak has been discovered at Megiddo.

The biblical text goes onto record that Shishak took away the treasures of the house of the LORD and the treasures of the king’s house. He took away everything. He also took away all the shields of gold that Solomon had made (1Ki 14:26).  Since Jerusalem in not named in the toponym list, scholars have suggested that it was spared when King Rehoboam capitulated to Shishak paying a ransom of the treasures from the temple.⁵

One interesting note about the Shishak invasion is that when his son, Osorkon I became Pharaoh, he gave 383 tons of gold and silver as a gift to the temples of Egypt.  He also buried his son Sheshonq II in a coffin made of pure sliver.  Some have suggested that all of this wealth came from his father Shishak’s campaign into Canaan and that this gold and silver may have come from the Temple in Jerusalem and from the other cities in Judah and Israel that he conquered.⁶

Summary

Each of these inscriptions confirm Israel’s existence as a people group in the land of Canaan at the time the Bible describes.  They act as external witnesses to the historicity of the biblical text.

Bonus Inscription: 

The Berlin Pedestal is yet another Egyptian inscription that almost certainly references Israel. I highly recommend Dr. Bryant Wood’s article on this artifact, and the implications it has.

Endnotes:

1 Joel Kramer, The Oldest Yahweh Inscription. ;(Accessed February 2, 2019)

2 Charles Aling and Clyde Billington, The Name Yahweh in Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts. ;(Accessed February 2, 2019)

3 Gary Byers, “Great Discoveries in Biblical Archaeology: TheMerneptah Stele,” Associates for Biblical Research,  (Accessed February 2, 2019)

4 Gary Byers, Great Discoveries in Biblical Archaeology: The Merneptah Stela.  ;(Accessed February 3, 2019)

5 David E. Graves, Shishak I Inscription. ;(Accessed February 3, 2019)

6 Bryant Wood, What evidence has been found of the Egyptian king, Shishak?  (Accessed February 3, 2019)

FEBRUARY 22, 2019BRYAN WINDLE

Increasingly people are making the claim that the Genesis account of creation is remarkably similar to other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths. Usually this is followed by one or more of the following assertions:

• God communicated his creation story using a common story template (ie. literary framework) that the Israelites would have been familiar with
• Moses borrowed from earlier Mesopotamian or Egyptian myth literature when he (supposedly) wrote the book of Genesis
• A straightforward reading of Genesis 1-2 is not needed since this it is just another Ancient Near Eastern creation myth
• Just as the Ancient Near Eastern myths are poetic accounts of creation, so Genesis is meant to be read as poetry, not as a narrative account of creation

Setting aside the unsubstantiated claim of how familiar Bronze-Age Israelites would have been with Assyrian or Babylonian literature or the fact that statistical studies of verb usage that have clearly demonstrated that Genesis 1 and 2 are not Hebrew poetry, are the Ancient Near Eastern creation myths really that similar to the biblical account?

Whenever I hear people make one of these claims this I’ll ask, “Have you read any Ancient Near Eastern creation myths?”  Almost always they’ll admit that they have not.  They are merely parroting an academic-sounding argument which they believe frees them to read Genesis 1&2 in a particular way.  As an English major, I enjoy reading old literature and have read numerous Ancient Near Eastern creation myths.  So, allow me share three of the most famous ones with you, as well as my thoughts on how similar they actually are to the biblical accounts

1. The Enuma Elish (also spelled Enûma Eliš)

The Enuma Elish is an ancient Babylonian creation myth -perhaps the earliest – which describes the birth of the gods, as well as the creation of the universe and the forming of humans.  It was discovered on seven tablets in 1849 in the ruins of Ashurbanipal’s library in ancient Nineveh.  In this myth, the gods are birthed out of swirling waters, which divide into fresh water, becoming the god Apsu and salty water, becoming the goddess Tiamat.  From these two come a host of younger gods, whose noise annoys Apsu, and so he plans to kill the younger gods.  The younger gods are warned of this and strike back by killing Apsu.  Tiamat is enraged by the death of her mate, leading to a battle between Tiamat and Marduk, the champion of the younger gods.  Marduk wins and creates mankind from the blood of the god Quingu, who is blamed for the conflict and executed.¹

SIMILARITIES TO GENESIS:

• The Enuma Elish has a “Biblical sounding” beginning: “When the heavens above did not exist, And earth beneath had not come into being…” (Tablet I, lines 1&2)
• Marduk creates the constellations to mark time (Tablet V, Lines 1-5), which is similar to Gn 1:14
• Order is created from chaos, which is similar to God creating everything from that which was formless and void in Gn 1:2ff

DIFFERENCES:

• The Enuma Elish is polytheistic; Genesis is monotheistic
• The Enuma Elish is primarily the story of the elevation of the Babylonian god Marduk to “kingship over the gods” (Tablet VI, line 99), and the creation of Babylon as his dwelling place (Tablet VI, lines 55, 72) whereas Genesis is primarily the story of the creation of all living things by Yahweh.
• The creation of the world is a result of Marduk’s defeat of Tiamat whom he cuts in two, with the Euphrates and Tigris rivers flowing from her eyes, the mountains being formed from her breasts and the heavens being wedged up her crotch (Tablet V, lines 55, 57 & 61). In Genesis, God creates through his own power saying, “Let there be…”
• Humans are created so that they could do the menial work allowing the gods to rest (Tablet VI, line 8), whereas in the Genesis account humans are created on the sixth day as the only creature made in the image of God Himself.
• There is no distinction between the creator and the creature in the Enuma Elish. Humans are made out of the same substance as the gods.  Thus, Marduk is not a creator, in the biblical sense of creating something out of nothing; he fashions humans out of Quingu’s blood.  This is not the same as being made ex nihilo in the image of God.²

While there are a few similarities, this crude and bloody tale bears little resemblance to the orderly, sequential creation account in Genesis. One could pull some lines out of the Enuma Elish and some Bible verses out of context in an attempt to claim they’re similar.  However, when one reads both accounts side-by-side it becomes apparent how different they really are.

2. The Atrahasis Epic (also spelled Atra-Hasis Epic)

The Atrahasis epic is named after the primary character in the myth (Atrahasis means “exceedingly wise”).  Tablets of this story, written in ancient Akkadian cuneiform script, have been discovered at various Mesopotamian sites.  It tells the story of the Sumerian gods – the seven great Anunna-gods and the lesser the Igigi-gods. The lesser gods were being burdened with the work and decided to rebel.  Before the battle a peaceful solution is proposed: create man to do the work.  They agree to this and slaughter the god Aw-ilu, and mix his flesh and blood with clay to make man.  Humans increase, and their noise disturbs the god Enlil who decides to destroy all humanity with a flood.  The god Enki warns Atrahasis, the hero of the story, who builds a boat to escape the flood.  He, and his family, and animals enter the boat and seal the door, surviving the storm and the flood.  After seven days, the flood ends and Atrahasis exits the boat and offers sacrifices to the gods. While Enlil is initially furious with Enki for thwarting his plan they eventually agree to control humans in other ways.³

SIMILARITIES TO GENESIS:

• Clay is used to create man, similar to the Lord creating man out of the dust of the earth (Gn 2:7)
• The Atrahasis Epic generally follows the Flood narrative in Genesis: judgement on mankind, great flood, wise man and animals saved in a boat, sacrifices offered afterwards

DIFFERENCES:

• The Atrahasis Epic is polytheistic; Genesis is monotheistic
• The creation of man is a solution to a battle between the gods for the purpose of doing the work the lesser gods find a “drudgery” (Lines 2 and 34)
• While clay is used in the creation of man, so is the flesh and blood of a god who is slaughtered (Lines 224-226), as opposed to the peaceful creation of man in Genesis through dust and the breath of God. Foundationally, being made out of the same stubstance as a god (ie. his flesh and blood) is a very different concept than being made in the image of God, despite how some might try to argue that one is metaphorically similar to the other.
• While there are obvious similarities between the flood accounts in the Atrahasis Epic and Genesis, there are notable differences: the judgement of the gods on mankind is because of their noise, whereas God’s judgement on mankind is because of their sin; Atrahasis is saved because he is wise, while Noah is saved because he is righteous.

The flood narrative in the Atrahasis Epic is certainly similar to the flood narrative in Genesis, although these similarities are just as logically explained by the fact that both refer to a common historical event, as they are by assuming Moses copied a Babylonian myth.  Moreover, the point of this blog is to focus on the creation element of the myth and here we see far more differences than similarities.  The gods in the Atrahasis Epic are complaining, spiteful, warring beings.  When one reads this creation myth along side the Genesis account of creation, the differences are accentuated all the more.

 3. The Egyptian Creation Myth from Heliopolis

In Egyptian mythology, the creation stories are usually associated with the primary god worshiped in a particular city.  Thus, at Memphas, Ptah is the creator god, while at Hermopolis, the Ogdoad – their four main gods and their consorts – act as creators.  These stories come primarily from the pyramid texts, decorations on the tomb walls that date back to the Old Kingdom (ca. 2780 – 2250 B.C.).⁴ At Heliopolis, the god Atum is said to have created everything.  Atum is so closely related to the sun god Ra, who was worshiped at Heliopolic, the he eventually became known as Atum-Ra.  In the Heliopolis creation myth, Atum emerges from Nu, the primordial waters, and masturbates, creating the air god, Shu, and his sister Tefnut, the goddess of moisture/rain.  In Utterance 527 we read, “To say: Atum created by his masturbation in Heliopolis. He put his phallus in his fist, to excite desire thereby. The twins were born, Shu and Tefnut.”⁵ These gods give birth to other gods and eventually the world comes into being.

SIMILARITIES TO GENESIS:

• Atum emerging from the primordial water is reminiscent of God hovering over the face of the waters (Gn 1:2)
• Atum is said to have created himself, which perhaps hints at an eternal nature.  On the other hand Genesis presumes (and the Bible declares elsewhere) God’s eternal uncreated nature

DIFFERENCES:

• The Heliopolis creation myth is polytheistic; Genesis is monotheistic
• In the Heliopolis creation myth, Atum masturbates to create other godswhile in Genesis God speaks the physical world into existence.
• The focus of Egyptian creation myths is on the forming of the gods, who represent various elements of nature.  The focus in Genesis is on the creation of the elements of nature themselves.
• While the creation of the gods/the world are described in the Heliopolis story, very little is said about the creation of animals and mankind in this or any other Egyptian Creation myths.⁶ The only hint at man’s creation comes not from the written texts themselves but from Egyptian art, where Khnum, the god of the Nile, is sometimes depicted as fashioning man on a potters wheel.
• Rather than being a sequential account of the creation of the world and mankind as in Genesis the Egyptian myths are a scattered group of texts that one must piece together in order to understand their view(s) of creation.

Egyptian creation myths are often contradictory and, depending on which city the inscriptions come from, attribute creation to a different god.  As with the ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, their purpose is clearly to elevate a particular god from the pantheon to the status of chief god.  When one reads an Egyptian creation myth, and then the creation account from Genesis 1 and 2, one wonders why certain scholars seem to see so many similarities.  The differences are  glaring.

Summary

In The Popular Handbook of Biblical Archaeology, Joseph Holden and Norman Geisler summarize the difficulties with the “literary-framework” hypothesis, and offer a four-point critique of scholars who make much of the similarities between Genesis and these Ancient Near Eastern creation myths:

1. First, the critical scholars’ overemphasis on similarities has blinded their eyes to the many differences that set the accounts apart.
2. Second, the similarities may be accounted for by the fact that different groups were writing about the same original historical event (creation).
3. Third, we now know that the Genesis account is not dependent on, or identified with, any earlier Mesopotamian, Egyptian, or Assyrian creation tradition because of the recognized direction of myth (ie. Myths can become more embellished over time, but never become more historical-sounding over time).
4. Some critical scholars forget that early creation myths are not necessarily concerned with creation per se; rather they are attempts to justify or elevate the standing of particular deities or cities in the eyes of the people.⁷

My purpose has been to analyze the popular theory that the creation account in the book of Genesis follows the same literary framework, or is strikingly similar to other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths.  No one is denying that there are some superficial similarities.  However, when I read the Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation myths side-by-side with the book of Genesis, the substantial differences far outweigh the similarities.

Endnotes:

1 Mark, Joshua J. “Enuma Elish – The Babylonian Epic of Creation – Full Text.” Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified May 4, 2018. ;(Accessed January 29, 2019).

2 Adamthwaite, Murray R. “Is Genesis 1 just reworked Babylonian myth?” Journal of Creation 27(2) 2013: 101. ;(Accessed January 29, 2019).

3 “The Epic of Atrahasis.” Livius.org. Last modified on January,3, 2017. ;(Accessed January 29, 2019).

4 Bradley, Jeremy. “The Origin of the Egyptian Myth of Ra & Heliopolis” Classroom.  ;(Accessed January 29, 2019).

5 “Miscellaneous Texts Chiefly About The Deceased King’s Reception and Life in Heaven, Utterances 523-533.” Sacred Texts. ;(Accessed January 29, 2019).’

6 Shetter, Tony L. “Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths.” Bible.org. Last Modified April 22, 2005. ;(Accessed January 29, 2019).

7 Holden, Joseph M. and Geisler, Norman. The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2013), p. 362.