Is A Third World War Brewing?

In this essay, I discuss the possibility that the current situation in Ukraine and Syria would escalate into a third world war. I take the model of war and peace cycles, the current international geopolitical game and the situation in Syria into consideration. I also discuss the when-question.

The year 2014 is both the 100th commemoration of the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 as well as the 75th commemoration of the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. And suddenly talk of war is back in the air. Suddenly, after Russia's annexation of Crimea in Ukraine on 21 March, Europeans and others around the world are considering the unthinkable: war can once more encompass Europe and even the world.

Western leaders have reacted in saying that Russia's actions are a breach of the post-Cold War security arrangements on the continent. The acting Ukrainian prime minister, Arseny Yatseniuk, has accused Russia of wanting to start a third world war. He told his interim cabinet in remarks broadcast alive: "The world has not yet forgotten world war two, but Russia already wants to start world war three... Attempts at military conflict in Ukraine will lead to a military conflict in Europe".

Although the world is certainly at this stage not even close to a third world war, it is surely in order to consider the possibility of such a war. We have become so used to peace that the possibility of war seems unreal and even farfetched. There is, however, good reason for informed readers to give it serious consideration. Long before the present escalation of conflict in Ukraine I wrote that we must seriously consider the possibility of another great war, comparable with the First and Second World Wars, breaking out in the next few years [1]. I based that on the work of one of the greatest minds in the history of political thinking, namely Professor Nicholas John Spykman (1893–1943) of Yale University.

In this essay, I consider strategic, geopolitical and historical reasons why another great war is a real possibility. In this regard we should not only focus on Russia; we should consider the bigger picture in the world. This picture includes the Ukrainian and Syrian conflicts, the standoff with Iran as well as China. We should consider the likelihood of a broad network of strategic alliances being formed between opposing factions without which such a war would not be possible (although regional wars would obviously be possible). Only when all these aspects are integrated into our considerations, are we in a position to evaluate the current threat to world peace.

War and peace cycles

In 1942 Prof. Spykman published a study entitled “America's Strategy in World Politics”, sponsored by the Yale Institute of International Studies. In this, he made the astonishing claim that war and peace follow a cyclical pattern. Although there are many wars in the world, he arranged them (especially those in which the British participated) into a pattern, showing that for the past 150 years (at that stage) all major wars could be classified into three types, with one of these, the truly great wars, somehow adhering to a cyclical pattern. In my own study, I have confirmed that this pattern persisted even after the Second World War and statistical analysis predicts that, if this is true, then the period around 2014 is the most likely date for another great war. This does not mean that such a war will break out this year; rather, it suggests that if there is indeed such cycles of war and peace, then another great war can be expected in the next few years. 

I first discussed these war and peace cycles and the possibility of another great war breaking out in the next few years in my book Die Arabiese Opstande (2011). In early 2012, I posted a more detailed analysis of war and peace cycles on this blog [1]. In that essay I considered the last 100 years in some detail, focusing on the characteristics of both the war and the peace phases of such cycles. In this period I found four war and peace cycles, commencing on average every 25 anew, which adhered to the same characteristics. The great wars during this period were the First World War, the Second World War, the Vietnam War and the climax of the Cold War (which had some unique characteristics due to the fact that the opposing powers both had nuclear weapons). 

In all these wars there were worldwide networks of opposing military alliances which included all the major powers in the world. Britain's participation in such wars was subsequently replaced by that of the Anglo-American establishment, about whom another well-known historian, professor Carroll Quigley, wrote the very informative book The Anglo-American Establishment (1949). This alliance holds to this day and NATO became its military arm. The characteristics of the war and peace phases of these cycles which I discerned in my previous analysis are:

The war phase of the cycle typically commences with a financial crisis, followed by a recession/depression and a period of economic stagnation. Thereafter occurs a great war against one of the most important imperialistic competitors of the Anglo-American establishment. Sometimes the initial crisis is followed by a short period of some economic growth, but eventually, it results in a recession, after which the war starts. During the war, there is a concerted effort (not always successful) to restrict and reduce the power of their most important political and economic competitors and to promote the Anglo-American political-territorial interests. A new balance of power is also established with the purpose of keeping the most important role players in check.

The peace phase starts directly after the war. It is typically characterized by a post-war recession (a “reconversion crisis”), followed by a prolonged period of economic growth and boom. During this period some mild economic downturns may occur, but on the whole, it is a long period of growth. Although it is called a peace phase, some of the other types of war (mentioned earlier) do occur during this period, through which the scene for the next great war is set up. During the peace phase, the objective is to include as many countries as possible in the framework of world trade with the purpose of maximizing the gains of the Anglo-American financial magnates, who pursue a policy of free trade.

In that essay, I came to the conclusion that Iran would be the primary opponent in such a war for the simple reason that it poses a major threat to Anglo-American interests in the Middle East which are closely interwoven with that of Israel. And the fact that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon makes them a soft target. But this does not mean that Iran would be the only country involved in such a war. For it to be a major war, compared with the ones mentioned, other major powers will have to be involved also. In this regard, Russia, with its close ties with Iran, would seem to be an obvious partner as part of the network of military alliances opposing NATO in such a war. Russia's possible involvement, as well as that of other countries such as China, must, however, be considered in geopolitical terms. 

Geopolitics

Another important aspect of the war and peace phases is the play between stability and instability during those phases. The peace phase is characterized by a stable balance of power between the world powers, with the winners of the previous great war dominating the scene. When the war ends without a clear winner among the great powers, such stability rests on the even balance between those powers (for example, after the Vietnam War when the West and the USSR were evenly balanced). Towards the end of this phase, however, some of the other powers become real imperialistic competitors of the Anglo-American establishment. 

During the war phase, which typically commences after a great financial and subsequent economic crisis (these economic crises were in 1907-8, 1929-33, 1957-58, 1980-82, 2008-9), the world suddenly becomes more unstable. The reason for this is that the stable balance of power in which one superpower dominates a mono-polar world (emperial Britain or the US) or two powers are evenly balanced in a bi-polar world (the US and USSR), makes way for a multi-polar world in which various players actively participate in the pursuit of power - when the great powers try to maneuver themselves into positions of power. This happened before all the great wars which I mentioned. It is now happening again with the other powers sensing that the Great Recession has damaged the financial power of the West and with it, its ability to project power. And they are preparing strategies to assert themselves in ways unthinkable a few years ago.

One of the most important factors which determine such actions are geopolitical concerns. This is when countries take geography into consideration in their political ambitions to expand and project their power. Again, in this area, Prof. Spykman is probably the most important thinker of the past century. His theory of "containment" to this day plays a central role in the thinking of all the war strategists of the major powers. I discussed his theory (as well as those of Mahan and Mackinder) in an essay that I wrote earlier this year (posted on 2 February) in which I focused on the present international pursuit of geopolitical power [2]. 

In my discussion of the major players in this game, namely China, the EU, the US and Russia, I mentioned that the eastern expansion of the EU has placed enormous geopolitical pressure on Russia and that the eastern partnership program of the EU, had it been signed with all the earmarked countries (the Ukraine, Moldavia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan), would have contained Russia beyond the Ural mountains. I wrote that "such a Russia is effectively stripped of all geopolitical possibilities to expand its power". Since Russia is cornered, one should not be surprised by the "strong-armed" tactics of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. No wonder that (shortly after my writing) Russia initiated its program to take control over the Crimea, where its Black Sea fleet is stationed in Sevastopol. This followed directly after the successful uprising against the Russian-favored Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych.

I will not here repeat the things discussed in that essay (which is now even more relevant than before). In the same manner that Russia is strangled by the expansion of the EU, China is encircled by US allies or partners (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia). In the same manner that Russia has annexed the Crimea, China has also annexed certain reefs in the South China Sea in recent years. In November 2013 China even proclaimed a new air defence zone which includes the Senkaku Islands (called Diaoyu by the Chinese) which belong to Japan. In January 2014 it further announced that it would this year take over control of the Philippine-occupied Pagasa island (the second biggest island in the Spratlys). 

The main difference between Russia and China is that Russia is a declining power, struggling to keep its options for future power projection open, whereas China is a growing power whose strategic interests are coming more and more in direct conflict with that of the US. China's rise would result in it becoming a major sea power (see the mentioned essay) and its projection of power into the East and South China Seas will become more asserted. Both Russia and China are at a paradigmatic moment regarding their geopolitical interests and would use every possible opportunity to take control of surrounding areas which they consider of strategic interest. If they work in concert and initiate sudden moves which do not endanger US core interests, thinking they can get away with it (testing the waters), the worldwide situation can easily escalate towards more confrontation. 

The recent 400 billion dollar agreement between these countries, according to which Russia would supply China with gas for 30 years, must be seen in this context. This can be the beginning of closer ties between these countries against the US and its allies. Russia is clearly preparing for war insofar as its military budget is concerned, which has just surpassed that of the US in GDP terms. For a large scale confrontation with the West, to try and secure its geopolitical interests, Russia would need China; China can gain a lot from such an alliance in its growing confrontation with Japan and other Western allies and partners in that region. 

 The theatre of war

We should not see the events in Ukraine in isolation. Russia is not only under pressure in its own backyard; it is also under enormous pressure in the only other important part of the world where it still has some influence after the fall of the USSR, namely the Middle East. There its partners Syria and Iran are under great pressure. Syria is involved in a civil war and Iran is strangled by sanctions. In a certain sense, the conflict in Syria stands at the centre of the geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the West. If the Syrian regime falls, Russia will not only lose its Mediterranean naval base at Tarsus, it will be effectively excluded from the Middle East (except for its relation with Iran). This is why Russia so fiercely defends its ally, both in the UN Security Council and on the ground where it provides the Syrian regime with weapons and even training. 

Already in December 2011 in an essay on this blog, I predicted that Russia would stand by Syria and that it would not follow the path of the other Arab Spring countries where revolutions had been successful (that is before the counter-revolutions in some of those countries). I also mentioned that Iran would probably become involved and that the Syrian conflict can eventually escalate into a wider Middle Eastern war. Although other neighbouring countries have not thus far become directly involved, Iran did and today the Iranians play a very important role in steering the Syrian war effort with its allies Hezbollah and other Shiites from Iraq. As in the case of Russia, Iran also has a lot to lose would the Syrian regime fall. Not only would the important Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Shiite axis, which allows Iran to project its power all over the Middle East, be broken and its ally Hezbollah be left isolated, it would also make it much easier for the Israelis to attack Iran on its home ground. 

It seems to me quite possible that the conflict in Syria (which includes Iran) could eventually become the theatre where the next great war begins - if it comes to that. Although such a conflict would also play off in other areas of the world (near Russia or China), I think the epicentre would be in the Middle East. It seems very unlikely that such a conflict would ever be fought on Russian soil (because of its nuclear weapons); it is, however, very possible that it would, at least in part, be fought in Syria and Iran. Not only are Russia and Iran already supporting the Syrian regime, the West is slowly but steadily increasing its support for the rebels. Over the last few months funding, weapons and training of certain moderate rebel groups have strengthened their relative power in rebel circles.

In a major foreign policy speech on 28 May at the United States Military Academy at West Point, President Barack Obama recently announced a five billion dollar “Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund” to train local forces in the Middle East and Africa. Obama reversed his past opposition to large-scale American arming and training of Syrian rebels and said that strengthened moderate rebel groups could serve as a counterweight to radical Islamist groups. The US, Saudi-Arabia and others are already training the rebels for some time in Jordan (at least since 2013) and the CIA played a major role in establishing Brig. Gen. Abdul-Illah al-Bashir, an important leader of the Free Syrian Army, in the Golan town of Quneitra. They have also started providing the rebels with heavy weaponry.

The Syrian conflict and Russia's involvement in Ukraine would probably with time become closely intertwined. The US would try to force Russia's hand in Ukraine with threats of providing the rebels with even better weapons. We can see Obama's speech in these terms. Furthermore, Russia and Iran are not only close friends which are involved in the same conflict in Syria, both are now also under Western sanctions. This would bring them even closer to each other and it is quite possible that Russia (and China) would in future break ranks with the West on Iranian sanctions if the nuclear negotiations do not succeed. Russia and Iran also recently announced a 20 billion dollar oil-for-food deal and they are in talks about another 10 billion dollar energy deal. One can easily see how Iran can become part of a Russia-China-Iran axis of powers opposed to NATO.

When can such a war be expected?

The important question is: If the war and peace cycles and geopolitical concerns suggest that we can expect a major war over the next few years, when will it commence? This is an extremely difficult question to answer, but I can mention some of the factors that would play an important role in this regard. I ranked them from the most to the least importance.

1. The war phase. We can consider the details of the war phase of the cycle more closely to see what precedes the outbreak of such wars. These phases typically begin with a financial crisis, followed by a deep depression or recession and a prolonged period of stagnation thereafter. The present cycle clearly commenced with the financial crisis of 2007 which was followed by the Great Recession of 2008-9 and the period of stagnation (especially in the EU) ever since.

In two of the previous cycles, this involved another recession just before the war starts. Since this did not occur in all the cycles we cannot, in general, take it as signalling the outbreak of war. The average period from the financial crisis to the outbreak of war is 7 years. In the period which preceded the Second World War, it, however, took 10 years (the longest period registered) from the financial crisis in 1929 to the outbreak of the war in 1939. This means, statistically speaking, that the chance for such a war is the greatest over the next three years (2014-17), but it is always possible that it can take even longer before it starts.

2. Iranian nuclear negotiations. Although the present negotiations between Iran and the six world powers are not often described in those terms, they are probably the last effort to avoid direct confrontation between Iran and a US-led alliance (that includes Israel), which can easily escalate into another great war. Without a deal, Iran poses an existential threat to Israel and the Anglo-American establishment will not tolerate that. A breakdown in negotiations can, therefore, lead to war with Iran, which in my opinion can easily lead to another great war in the cycle of such wars.

As long as the talks proceed it seems unlikely that the situation in Syria would escalate into direct Iran-US-Israel confrontation. One can furthermore expect all the parties to the talks to do everything in their power to come to an agreement. The problem is that such an agreement must not only satisfy Israel, it must also satisfy the Iranian security establishment. Although the current Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, is a moderate, he faces growing criticism at home. A coup against him would change everything and can dramatically escalate the conflict between Israel and Iran. The Iranians have all reason to think that giving up their nuclear deterrent would leave them exposed to Western attack [3]. This would make an agreement very difficult to reach.

3. The Obama administration. I have previously discussed the strategic interests of the US, Israel, France, Iran and Russia regarding the situation in Syria [3]. Since the US is the leader of the Western nations, they will not go to war without her. The Obama administration, however, will do everything to avoid war. They are nonetheless under enormous pressure in the US because of the perception that the enemies of the US are taking advantage of Obama's reluctance and even aversion to war. It seems, however, that Obama will not easily take the US into another war. If they are not overtaken by events, it will probably fall to the next US president to decide on this. But remember President Woodrow Wilson, who promised peace and then took the US into World War I.

4. Oil and gas supplies. One can expect that a great war with its epicentre in the Middle East will have a dramatic impact on the oil price and can destabilize the world economy. This will count in Russia's favour, which is a major oil and gas exporter. Also, Russia is in a strong position because of the EU's dependence on it for its fuel. The EU imports about 39% of its gas and about 33% of its oil from Russia. Since the Ukraine crisis, the EU has been actively exploring other options. They have access to other fuel resources but some of these are also under pressure, for example in Libya.

There is, however, a very important change in world fuel production in progress which would impact on the situation. Gas-fracking has changed the fuel market beyond recognition. The US is already self-sufficient and will probably start exporting in the near future. The EU leaders have even talked to President Obama about getting fuel from the US. He mentioned that this is subject to the successful conclusion of the free trade agreement between the US and the EU. One expects that the Western nations would try to solve this problem before deciding to go to war.

5. The US-EU free trade agreement. For some readers, it would seem strange that I mention this point. I, however, think that this is an important issue which will decide whether and when such a war breaks out. The reason is that such a great war would generate a common enemy for the EU on a scale not seen before. This will propel the EU into further integration in the same manner that the economic crisis did. Such a war, which includes Russia as the aggressor on its eastern border, will bring the EU nations together and allow the Euro countries to proceed with further integration. Those right-wing groups who have done so well in the last EU election, and who view President Putin as the hero, will come under enormous pressure to be "patriotic" and loyal to the EU. The reason why the US-EU trade agreement is important is that the US would not like to see the EU become so powerful if it is not safely embedded with them in one economic zone. The US would probably want to see at least substantial agreement on trade issues before going into a large-scale war.

In my opinion, the Vietnam War in important aspects provides our best precedent for the current situation. Both then and now we see a proxy war which escalated (or can escalate) into a war in which all the major world powers participated (or participates). In that case, the conflict between the Viet Cong and the government of the anti-communist South began in 1955. The US sent the first support troops in 1961 and became directly involved only in 1965. The current Syrian conflict started early in 2011 and the US has only recently announced that they would become more actively (but not directly) involved. One can expect that particular incidents would serve as the reason for deeper participation, but that is obviously impossible to predict. I do not think that we can take the timescales of the US involvement in the Vietnam War as the basis for projections (one example cannot count as statistics), but I do think that the present situation can follow at least that pattern in the run-up to such a war.

Conclusion

There has recently been talk about a "third world war". Leaders often engage in such talk for reasons of their own. In this case, however, it seems that there are reasons to think that the present situation in Syria and Ukraine can easily escalate into a major war which involves the major powers around the globe (if not The Third World War). The most important reason why I think that such a war could very well be on hand is that the present circumstances fit perfectly with my model of war and peace cycles. The events in Syria and Ukraine are not isolated instances; they are closely connected in the geopolitical game currently underway in the world. An analysis of the geopolitical situation shows that more such conflicts can be expected and that it can easily escalate even more. Of central importance in this regard is that Russia, China and Iran are moving closer to each other. Their short-term goals are closely linked and they all experience some form of Western containment which strangles them.

When would such a war break out if it comes to that? This is an extremely difficult question to answer. I have mentioned various factors which are important in this regard. On the whole, it seems that the West is not yet ready for war. Although the situation can change fast, it seems that such a war will not easily start under the Obama administration (but remember President Wilson!). The most important factor which will determine what will happen and when is the nuclear negotiations with Iran. We can take it as an important barometer regarding a possible future war which could include not only Israel and Iran but also the other major powers.

[1] Click on Predicting a war against Iran? - an inquiry into war and peace cycles
[2] Click on The pursuit of geopolitical power in an emerging multi-polar world
[3] Click on War-clouds darken over the Middle East

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

See also: A New Iranian Empire is rising.

Part 1: Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective.

In this series I consider the question: Can we still believe the Bible? from different angles, namely from hermeneutic (interpretive), archaeological, scientific and prophetic perspectives. This essay focuses on the hermeneutic aspect.

The Bible is probably the best-known book in the world. The Biblical narrative includes stories from ancient Sumer (6000-2000 BC) to the end of the apostolic age (100 AD). There are more than two billion people today who adhere to the Christian and Jewish religions and who take the Bible (or at least the Old Testament) as the basis for their faith. Many among these believe that the Bible is the "Word of God". This would necessarily imply that the Bible is a trustworthy document. Over the past several hundred years, however, some Biblical scholars in the Biblical Criticism tradition have levelled severe criticism against the trustworthiness of the Bible. Most academics in secular society have accepted these criticisms. So, the question is: Can we still believe the Bible?

It has become widely accepted in academic circles that the Bible was written long after the events mentioned therein by authors who did not have any direct connection to those events. This would imply that we cannot take the historical information in the Bible serious. It has also been argued that the Biblical authors wrote with particular agendas to forward their own viewpoints. We should, therefore, view the Bible as propagandist and untrustworthy. Some archaeologists do not even want to use the Biblical text in the archaeological reconstruction of Biblical history because they reject it as a valid source about that history. In this essay, I discuss the philosophical background within which these views originated and ask if they are still valid. Both the modernist and postmodernist approaches are evaluated. What is the best hermeneutic approach to the Bible and what is the implications thereof for Biblical scholarship? What does it say about the credibility of the Bible?

Hermeneutic approaches to the Bible

One of the main reasons why the Bible is regarded with scepticism in contemporary secular society is because of the learned opinions of Biblical scholars in the Biblical Criticism tradition over the past few hundred years. These people were regarded as scholars who knew their field of study and their views impacted enormously upon the scholarly views regarding the Bible. Students at universities were brought up within that scholarly paradigm and many scholars in their particular fields of study have been influenced by those views. But were they right? Did they use an acceptable approach in their study of the Bible? Today it is generally acknowledged that the modernist framework in which they operated is deeply flawed and that their views in this regard should be discarded. But the scholarly paradigm that they started persists, sometimes with minor adaptions, even today. And generations of other scholars have been influenced in their thinking by these distorted views. Many of their basic standpoints have become well-established "truths".

I previously wrote a critique of Biblical Criticism in which I focused on the modernist roots of that discipline (this is a very important essay [1]). The hermeneutic (interpretive) approach used by those scholars assumed that the scholar could have an objective viewpoint on the text, wrongly thinking that their hypotheses could be confirmed in the same or similar manner than in the natural sciences. They believed themselves to be masters of the text. But what they were in fact doing was to reflect their modernist perspectives onto the text. Their basic working principle was: "What the text clearly states can, by no means, be true" [2].

This radical doubt with which they approached the texts reflected their modernist radical doubt of all tradition, but especially Biblical tradition. The agendas which they ascribed to the Biblical authors reflected their own scholarly psychology. The settings and interpretations which they ascribed to the Biblical texts, did not reflect respect for the views of the authors and their tradition but only for the view of the readers. We can compare this with someone with whom you are in conversation, who are sceptical about everything you say, who do not think much of your views, who ascribes all sorts of agendas to you, who speaks all the time and tries to force his view on you.

The postmodern paradigm was built upon this. Although the postmodernist reader criticized the modernist paradigm, he/she did not start from scratch in their study of the Biblical text. They all came from the modernist perspective and it was, therefore, impossible to turn a clean page. Those modernist conclusions that have become widely accepted, became the basis on which the new paradigm was formed. Now, following the hermeneutic views of  (especially) the philosopher Derrida, they accepted that in any text the meaning is fluid and could give rise to any amount of interpretations. The endless multiplication of meaning is celebrated. Every person can develop his/her own interpretation and we cannot affirm the one above the other.

Although we can understand that Derrida rejected fixed meanings, which he called the "logocentric" bias of Western tradition, as is typical of the modernist hermeneutics, he went to the other extreme where all stable meaning is discarded. This immediately means that there is no sensitivity to the voice/word (logos) of the author of the text. Even though we cannot reconstruct the intentions of the author, we should surely have an openness to listen to the voice of the authors and their traditions. We cannot disrespect the author and empower the reader at the cost of the author! We can say that whereas the modernist view killed the author, the postmodernist view accepted his/her death and believes that we can freely form our own individual interpretation. Whereas the modernist approach violated, yes, "raped" the text, the postmodernist approach accepts that she is silenced and that we can use her as we like.

A very important question is: Can we find a middle way between these two extremes? Is there a more balanced hermeneutic approach available? [3]. Yes, there is. In this regard, the hermeneutic approaches of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur are of great importance in the study of the Biblical text. Although Gadamer agrees that meaning is independent of the intention of the author (we cannot reconstruct the intention of the author), he nonetheless believes that in the interaction between author and reader some stable meaning comes into being (considered as an ontological "event"). For Gadamer, it is important that we respect the author and the tradition from which he/she originates and have an openness in our listening to the text. He wrote: "I must allow tradition's claim to validity, not in the sense of simply acknowledging the past in its otherness, but in such a way that it has something to say to me" [4]. Ricoeur built upon this approach and says that we should approach the text not as the master, but as a disciple. We should learn from the text.

The respect with which these philosophers approach the text and the tradition in which it stands is in direct contrast with both the modernist and postmodernist approaches. Although we cannot say that the text has just one meaning, we can formulate informed meanings of the Biblical text in which the words of the authors and their tradition are respected. We cannot doubt the credibility of information in the text from the start, we cannot attribute all sorts of agendas to him/her - although we should obviously acknowledge that he/she worked within a particular perspective as well as tradition, just as we do. Although it is very difficult to really hear the voice of the authors given all the noise caused by the misuse of the text, it is important that we do exactly that. That we take their statements regarding their own tradition (history) and their own times serious. That we treat their views with the seriousness that it deserves. That we try to put our preconceived ideology apart and focus on listening to their perspectives.

When we do this we find that the Biblical authors often mention how much care they have taken to correctly preserve their own traditions and the events about which they were writing. The author of Chronicles, for example, mentions exactly which sources he has used, namely histories written by the prophets Samuel (who operated in the time of King Saul), Nathan, Gad (from the time of King David), Ahijah (from the time of King Solomon), Shemaiah, Iddo (from the time of king Rehoboam), writings by Elijah (from the time of King Ahab), Isaiah (from the time of King Hezekiah) and others. The author of the gospel of St Luke mentions that the events surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth were handed down by eyewitnesses and that he himself had done a "careful investigation" going back to the very beginning (Luk. 1:1-2). 

Basic principles of hermeneutics

With this background, a more detailed account of what counts as good interpretation can be provided. I have often said in my essays that we should avoid the two extremes of thinking either that we can achieve one final objective interpretation (modernism) or that we can freely form interpretations (postmodernism). We must search for "better" interpretations. But what is a better interpretation and is it not too subjective an approach? 

The main problem in hermeneutics is that we do not have the tools of the empirical sciences available (see my discussion in [1]). This, however, does not stop readers from seeking some foundationalist grounds in interpreting texts. Some Christians, for example, are unaware that there is an enormous gap between us and the authors, between our traditions or paradigms and theirs. They think that they have access to the intentions of the Biblical authors and that they, therefore, have access to the final truth in our understanding of Biblical passages. Some think that the Holy Spirit guides them in this - forgetting that other Christians, who also have the Spirit, follow other interpretations. The apostle Paul cautions in this regard when he says: "now we know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known" (1 Cor. 13:12). 

Others think that tradition can serve as the foundation for final objective interpretations, arguing, for example, that the Catholic tradition is the correct one, in part because God entrusted to them the affirmation of the Biblical canon. This view forgets that the canon was already accepted in the early church [5] and that the Roman Catholic Church made many other decisions that are clearly ungodly, for example in establishing the Inquisition which led to the murder of great numbers of Christians. One good decision (i.e. accepting the canon) does not give it any foundational ground in establishing truth in all interpretation.

The acknowledgement that we do not have access to objective interpretations does not imply that we are stuck with relativism. Not at all. But we should accept that our human mind restricts us (we do not have a so-call God's eye view) in a manner that we cannot overcome. All our interpretations are coloured by our individual and traditional/paradigmatic backgrounds [6]. All our interpretations are underlain by our system of belief which could be religious (with all its variety) or agnostic (atheistic), but which are always situated within a certain informal (cultural) or more formal (academic) paradigm. This is the basic ground from which we interpret texts.

Furthermore, there is an uncrossable gap between us and the world of the texts. In Kantian terms (in reference to the philosopher Immanuel Kant), we can speak of the world in which the authors operated, the tradition from which they came, their worldviews and their personal intentions, as a "world in itself", i.e. the world of the authors as it really is beyond any possibility of us ever accessing it. (In the rest of the essay I will also use some examples from Kantian interpretation). This includes the manner in which that world is presented in the text as well as the background behind the coming into being of such texts (for ancient texts like the Bible, the real textual history is forever lost [7]). Since we are so severely restricted, both by our own human condition as well as the inaccessibility of the world-in-itself of the text, and we do not have the tools of the empirical sciences available in hermeneutics, we can never arrive at an objective interpretation which can be empirically confirmed. 

This inaccessibility of the ancient world of the text as it really was, is also the reason why there are certain aspects of the earliest Biblical world which we would probably never fully understand, for example, why the early forefathers mentioned in the Book of Genesis (and those mentioned in the ancient Sumerian King List with which the lists in Genesis show agreement) have been accorded such long lives. Some agnostics and atheists are quite good in snuffing out such passages, but it is unclear to me how that helps their case. Once we understand the reasons behind such passages we would probably also be able to make sense thereof.  


Although we cannot achieve objective interpretations, we can nevertheless formulate certain rules of interpretation which should guide our interpretation of texts. We should bring all interpretation of texts under these basic rules of understanding. These are well-founded (but not foundational) and enable us to discard wrong interpretations (on both sides). They show that we have good reasons to discard certain interpretations (and therefore reject relativism) but also that we cannot achieve one single objective interpretation (and therefore reject foundationalism). And they force us to acknowledge that other interpretations than our own (even from other paradigms than our own) could be valid interpretations of the Biblical text. These are

1. No internal inconsistencies. We can accept that any rational author would try to eliminate inconsistencies in his/her writing. Although it is possible that the text does, in fact, contains inconsistencies of its own, often perceived inconsistencies are caused by the distance between us and the texts and are therefore pseudo-inconsistencies. Pseudo-inconsistencies arise due to insufficient information about the world of the author and the events that he/she is writing about. It can also be due to artificial conflicts created by simplistic readings, sometimes by scholars who think it is scientific to accentuate and articulate all sorts of assumed conflicts in the textual accounts.  The use of this rule implies that interpretations which find important inconsistencies in the text should be rejected in support of those which reduce inconsistencies to a minimum. The reason for such inconsistencies lies with the interpretation, not with the text! In Kantian studies, for example, the so-called two-object interpretation has led to many notorious inconsistencies in his view. Since these disappear in the alternative two-aspect interpretation, we know that these are not of Kant's own making. 

In Biblical studies, the same thing happens all the time. Often inconsistencies appear when readers interpret the Bible from a scientific standpoint, forgetting that the authors did not write with such factual perspectives in mind; they wrote with integrity, but we should not take everything that they wrote as if they made scientific statements about the world. Writing with integrity implies that they wrote what they saw and experienced, not about things far beyond their knowledge (except with regard to prophecy, which involves a particular form of divine inspiration). We, for example, find in the six solar day interpretation of creation in Genesis 1 the glaring inconsistency that God made the sun only on the fourth solar day. So there were three solar days without the sun! Clearly, it is wrong to think that the author made a scientific statement that God created in six solar days! He did not. There are other better interpretations in which this inconsistency does not occur (see my discussion of these issues in the series on the Book of Genesis [8]). On the other hand, agnostics and atheists often use these pseudo-inconsistencies as evidence that the Bible is full of errors.

2. Sufficient use of context. The background in which texts were written, the relevant historical and archaeological data, related texts from that period etc. should be used to establish well-grounded (but not foundational) interpretations. We cannot arrive at good interpretations of Biblical texts if we do not take the world from which the Bible originated into account. In texts from more recent periods, such background information can establish final confirmation of some aspects of texts. In ancient texts, like the Bible, we often find that the text can be situated in various possible contexts. Often traditional scholars would place the time of writing in an early context whereas Biblical Criticism scholarship would place it much later. 

How do we solve this problem? This is where the insights of Gadamer are important. If we have insufficient external data or there is no good reason to distrust the textual account, we should have an open attitude and be willing to really listen to the voices of the authors and the tradition from which they originated. We should not just automatically assume that the textual tradition is untrustworthy. One of the reasons why contemporary Biblical Criticism scholarship date many Biblical texts to the Babylonian exile and later is due to their belonging to that paradigm - they cannot absolve themselves from that paradigm in spite of all the major errors made by previous scholars, for example, in their formulation of the documentary hypothesis (see [1]). 

The errors of modernist scholarship have resulted in many contemporary scholars from that paradigm accepting a postmodern perspective - but, as I have shown above, even this is indirectly grounded on the interpretations of modernist scholarship (it is a reaction to that). Such scholars will find every possible reason to adhere to the established paradigmatic grounds for interpretation for the simple reason that it is deeply ingrained into their very being by the paradigm in which they operate (the same is, obviously, true for the traditional paradigm, but in that case we do not have such obvious errors which discredited the general Biblical Criticism approach in interpretation (see [1]).

3. Use the hermeneutic circle. We should accept that any author writes a unified account in which he/she weaves all the parts of the narrative into a whole, irrespective of the sources that are being used in doing so. This allows us to use the parts to understand the whole and the whole to understand the parts. We should also value the continuous tradition in which the authors wrote. The reason for this is simple: At that period tradition was still very resistant to change; it is only with mass media that culture can be changed quite rapidly. This rule allows us to treat the Old and New Testaments as part of one continuous and interwoven tradition, rejecting all approaches which atomize the Biblical material.

This rule gives preference to synchronic (unified in time) approaches to the text and reduce diachronic (distinguishing the parts and their singular histories) approaches to secondary status. Often diachronic approaches bring the text into internal conflict with itself. The various parts (supposedly derived from different sources) is thought to stand in conflict with each other. Such diachronic approaches assume that the best manner to understand the text is to use a patchwork approach. But often this approach itself creates the very pseudo-inconsistencies which such scholars think that they find in the text! It is only when we cannot find any unified key (and this does not mean that one will not eventually be found), that we can provisionally allow such approaches.

Many examples can be given in this regard. It has, for example, become custom to use patchwork approaches to understand Kant's view on freedom in his Critique of Pure Reason. But some authors like Henry Allison have shown that we can, in fact, arrive at a unified interpretation in this regard. The same thing happened in Biblical Criticism where the documentary hypothesis, which finds various "sources" in the text of the Pentateuch, have created a patchwork of epic proportions. The unity in the text is reduced to an absolute secondary consideration. The various parts (sources) stand apart and in conflict with each other since they are supposedly written in different epochs and later crudely combined. The text is taken apart like a motor engine. This goes against the very grain of the principle of the hermeneutic circle and should be discarded (except when clear evidence to the contrary is provided as in the case of Tatian's Diatessaron, which group passages in the gospels together in one integrated work).

As I mentioned above, these rules are always applied from within a certain perspective. We cannot go beyond that. So, when it comes to metaphysical questions, our worldview which is grounded in the paradigm to which we belong will determine our view. As evangelical Christians, we can insist on the Biblical pronouncements regarding miracles, prophecy and the divine inspiration of Scripture (II Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21). As such, we cannot accept that the Biblical text is placed on an equal footing with other ancient texts. We cannot but make a decision in this regard: either we take the Biblical perspective as the basis or we take other perspectives, which cannot be anything but a rejection of this perspective, namely that the Biblical text is divinely inspired.

Re-reading the Bible

We can now focus in more detail on the material in the Book of Genesis, especially in the "ancient history" (Gen. 1-11), to illustrate the point. When reading the Bible one is struck by the amount of Mesopotamian material used in this ancient history. Clearly, the author has been influenced by Mesopotamian historical and cultural perspectives. But how did that material end up in the Bible? We can discern two obvious possibilities, namely 1) that a historical Abraham brought that material from Sumer from where he is said to have originated, i.e. from the city of Ur, after which it was handed down in the family until it was used by an early author (like Moses) when he wrote the Book of Genesis, or alternatively, 2) that the author came into possession of the material due to Israel's Babylonian exile.

Some scholars who adhere to the documentary hypothesis think that some of the sources which they find in the Pentateuch, in which that material is used, originated in the in-between period, somewhere during the monarchical period. This is not necessarily in contrast with the first view but would be if it is assumed that the Mesopotamian material diffused to Israelite circles during this in-between period. Since all the material is grouped together in a well-presented whole in the ancient history of Genesis 1-11, and clearly includes much more than accidental or occasional borrowing, it is difficult, however, to see how this could have happened in any other period than those mentioned above, in which Israel had no direct contact with Mesopotamia.

The first view assumes that the material in the book is very old and had been delivered down in patriarchal and Israelite circles since the eighteenth century BC; the second view assumes that the material dates from the sixth century BC or later. The first view strongly suggests that the rest of the Old Testament narrative is historically correct and refers to real historical persons and events. The second view doubts large parts of that narrative.

Many scholars in Biblical Criticism circles believe that the second view is correct. But can this be? There is a substantial problem with this view since there is no post-Abrahamic (post-Old-Babylonian) material included in the Book of Genesis (even if we view the relevant passages as containing some argument against other contemporary views). (Definitely not from the Babylonian Enuma Elish as is often argued without any substantial evidence!). But how is it possible that there is no Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian material per se included in the book if the author lived in or after that period? How did it happen that he ignored all contemporary material? He would surely have included at least some material which reflects the period in which he was writing! But none at all! 

I challenge any Biblical scholar to show me any Mesopotamian material included in the Book of Genesis which dates from the post-Old-Babylonian period per se. That places a large question mark over this position. It seems that this hypothesis is accepted without good argumentation. It is accepted simply because of the presupposition which accepts that the Bible was written late and that no early inclusion of such material could have been possible. If we are more open-minded, we can allow for the possibility presented in the text and Biblical tradition, namely that the book was in fact written early.

There are many features in Genesis 1-11 which underlines the ancient character of the text. It is not possible in this essay to discuss all the material in any detail (see my book Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel)). I can mention a few things. One is the above-mentioned Mesopotamian material included therein. Another is the lists of genealogies, the exceptionally long lives of those people and the short remarks in between, all of which also occur in the Sumerian King List which date from about 2000 BC. (No document from the exilic period shares these features).

There is a lot of other data which confirms that the material in the Book of Genesis must be very old. A good reason to think that the Abrahamic history was written down early, is because it also records the oracles of God given to him. We know from other Middle Eastern data from that period (from Mari) that such oracles were in fact written down [9]. Also, some historical data regarding Abraham's period could only have come from historical sources in this regard. This includes, but is by no means restricted to, the fact about the Elamitic incursion into northern Syria (there was only one), the name of the leader of that incursion (the shortened form shares the root structure k-d: Chedor/Kudu), the period when it happened (1822 B.C., which agrees perfectly with the dates in the Septuagint) etc. I discuss the evidence for a historical Abraham in detail in my book Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel). Furthermore, the Book of Genesis also includes material which obviously goes back to the time before the name Elohim became established. This older stratum is visible in the name under which the Abrahamic family worshipped their God, namely El-Shaddai (God Almighty), as well as the name of Melchizedek's God, namely El-Elyon (Most High God) [10].

Although it is beyond the scope of this article to argue in any detail that one author wrote the book (recognizing that he obviously used older source material handed down from the fathers), I can mention a few things in this regard. Single authorship is disputed in the documentary hypothesis, according to which the book is regarded as a patchwork of sources. The book is divided between the Y (Yahweh), E (Elohim) and P (Priestly) sources. Just in the ancient history of Genesis 1-11 we find the following division: Y: 2:4b-4:24,25c; 6:1-8; 7:1-5,7,10,12,16a-20,22,23; 8:2b-3a,6,8-12,13b,20-22; 9:18-27; 10:8-19,21,24-30; 11:1-9. P: 1:1-2:3; 6:9-22; 7:8,9,11,13-16a,21,24; 8:1,2,3b-5,7,13a,14-19; 9:1-17; 10:1-7,20,31,32; 11:27-31. E: starts from chapter 20.

There is, however, reasons to think that the "ancient history" forms a single whole which was written by one author as a single document. The most important of these are the very particular and unique features which clearly sets it aside from the rest of the Pentateuch (and even from the rest of the Book of Genesis!), namely the use of ancient Mesopotamian material, combined with pre-patriarchal lineages with long lives and short comments in between. The material, as well as its presentation, is typical of Sumerian sources, as mentioned before (I have already mentioned that no post-old-Babylonian material whatsoever is found therein!). We also find, unique to this ancient history, that a strange and clearly very ancient way of referring to God as "us" is used on three occasions in the material which supposedly belong to different sources, namely in Genesis 1:26, 3:22 and 11:7. Since it is extremely unlikely that any later editor of the text (who may have combined the Y and P sources) would have used such archaic terminology, this is a clear sign of single authorship.

In the Masoretic text, the divine name Yahweh-Elohim is used only in the garden story. This usage does not appear again in the "ancient history" (Gen. 1-11; except once in Gen. 9:26). In the Septuagint [11], however, we find that the divine name Yahweh-Elohim is used throughout the ancient history and even sporadically thereafter in the Book of Genesis. The unity of the ancient history (as is manifest from the use of the Godly "us") strongly suggests that the Septuagint incorporates the original reading. What is also interesting about the Septuagint reading, is that the divine names Elohim and Yahweh-Elohim alternate (i.e. both are used) throughout the ancient history. This totally negates the documentary hypothesis which allocates the sources according to the supposed use of different divine names by the authors. So, on the whole, it seems that we have good reasons to reject the documentary hypothesis and accept single authorship of the ancient history in Genesis.

In trying to preserve the documentary hypothesis one can argue that it at least explains the use of Elohim and Yahweh respectively, which typically appear in passages where God is presented as aloof (Elohim) or in anthropomorphic form respectively (Yahweh often appears in human form in dreams or in person). But this usage can easily be explained differently. In my book Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel) I show that we can clearly distinguish two early forms of El in Israelite literature, namely El-Shaddai and El-Elyon which is closely associated with the roles of "king of the gods" (Gen. 49:23-25, see especially the Septuagint reading; Ex. 15:18, which should be read with Ex. 6:2; Ps. 95:3 etc.) and "father of the gods" (Ps. 82:6 etc.) in the council of the gods [10]. Without taking the ancient concept of the council of the gods (see 1 Ki. 22: 19-22; Ps. 82: 2; 89: 7, 8; Ezek. 28: 16; Is. 14: 13) into consideration, we lose all connection with the ancient manner of thinking.

Now, it seems that the name Elohim, which could originally have been a plurality, developed as the unified form of God in which both these El-forms were combined (see Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel)). So, it makes sense that the divine names are distinguished. This would explain the usage of the divine "us" by Elohim in the ancient history (in Gen. 3:22 the Septuagint, which I take as the correct reading, have Elohim, not Yahweh-Elohim, speaking as "us"). It also makes sense that Yahweh is typically presented in anthropomorphic form. He had a special connection with the patriarchs and their early forebears (starting with Adam and Eve) because we read that this name (Yahweh) supplanted El-Shaddai, the forefatherly name of the Abrahamic family after it was revealed to Moses (see Ex. 6:2). So, El-Shaddai, the forefatherly name of the patriarchal family was replaced with Yahweh, the God of Israel, after they became a people during the exodus. The author of Genesis obviously wrote after that, which is why he used the name Yahweh when referring to that particular manifestation of God. (I plan to discuss this issue in more detail in future essays on this blog).

In the same manner, we can also argue for the unity of the Book of Genesis as a whole. There are various features unique to the book which does not appear in the rest of the Pentateuch, namely the repeated use of the expression "(the book) of the generations of" (Gen. 2:4a; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10,27; 25:12, 19; 36:1,9; 37:2), the references to the oracles of God to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 12:7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-22; 18:1-33; 22:1-2, 15-18) and the other patriarchs (although this also appears sporadically later in Israel's history), the unique patriarchal setting of the narratives, the use of the divine name El-Shaddai (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25; other than here, this name only appears sporadically in Hebrew literature) as well as the corresponding name El-Elyon (Gen. 14:18,19,20,22).

According to the documentary hypothesis, this whole is cut into a lot of bits and pieces (see above). The Abrahamic oracles are divided between the Y and P sources (P: only Gen. 17:1-22) and the use of the divine name El-Shaddai is also ascribed to both the Y and P sources, as well as EYE (Editor of YE)! (Y: 49:25; P: 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 48:3; EYE: 43:14). The expression "book" of generations (see Gen. 5:1) seems to imply that the original author used source material which could be ordered as "books" when he wrote Genesis; not that a later editor used the terminology. These sections of "generations" stand in direct contrast with the source theory, which negates the unity of these sections and cut it into various pieces. In the light of all the unified features of the Book of Genesis, the source theory seems unconvincing. There is, in fact, nowadays a general trend to discard such diachronic approaches for synchronic ones; clearly with good reason!

An early date for and a single author of the Book of Genesis does not imply that editors did not later add and reworked parts of the book. In the Israelite tradition, it often happened that later authors added comments or clarified the information in the text. We, for example, find that a later author included the words "of the Chaldees" after the city name Ur to affirm which city is referred to (Gen. 11:28, 31). The Chaldees are the Neo-Babylonians who appeared after the turn of the first millennium in the area of the city of Babylon. This reference, however, does not mean that the whole book was written in this period! This would be a very simplistic reading of the book. It merely shows that someone such as Ezra edited the book.

We can now come back to the original question: Can we still believe the Bible? If the approaches that were previously used in the academic study of the Bible are so deeply flawed, then the present consensus in a large segment of secular society is just plain wrong. The fact that so many people believe that the Bible was written late and can therefore not be trusted as a source of history, does not make it the correct view. Informed readers should reject that assumption - on good grounds. How do we swipe all these centuries of bad scholarship off the carpet? How do we restructure deeply held opinions - assumed to be academically arrived at? In my opinion, the documentary hypothesis should not be salvaged, it should be discarded. If it fails in the ancient history or the Book of Genesis, it fails in the Pentateuch as a whole. Instead, we should recognize that we need to approach the Bible anew - with an open mind and ready to listen to the authors and their tradition who speak to us through the text. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot believe the Bible.

Conclusion

In this essay, I have focused on only one basic aspect regarding the credibility of the Bible, namely hermeneutics. It is immediately clear that the modernist approach to the Bible - as well as the new postmodernist one - did/do not listen to the authors speaking with us through the text. It forced a modernist "objective" perspective onto the text - distorting the message in the text beyond recognition. Current philosophical thought rejects that approach - hermeneutics involves an open conversation between author and reader. Although we cannot reconstruct the intention of the authors, we can arrive at valid interpretations. We can confirm that there is a healthy middle ground of possible interpretations, some better than others. The rules of good hermeneutic principles should guide us in this.

Although it has become generally accepted in secular society that the Bible was written late and is an unreliable source regarding history, we can remind ourselves that society has often in the past held views that we consider to be wrong today. The problem is that the acknowledgement of the errors of modernism did not lead to a radical new beginning, but to a new phase which built on the ruins of the past. We should reject that. We can conclude that the Bible is trustworthy. In my studies, I have not found any reason why we should doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible.

[1] Click on: A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline
[2] I took this from Eta Linnemann's book Historical Criticism of the Bible, Methodology or Ideology (1990), page 87. She was a Biblical Criticism scholar (professor at Marburg, East Germany) but renounced all her previous work after her conversion. Chapters 6-8 of her book is highly recommended and reflects her in-depth knowledge of Biblical Criticism. Some criticism can, however, be levelled against the rest of the book. In my opinion (as a scientist) her view is too anti-science. Her arguments about the unscientific nature of immature science are generally acknowledged by philosophers of science. When the natural sciences reach maturity, however, they are empirically well-grounded (even though the theory could include unconfirmed perspectives). The main problem with historical Biblical Criticism which she should have accentuated is that it tried to establish itself as an empirical science. This is not possible since it is merely a hermeneutic discipline (see [1].)
Another possible criticism that I have of Linnemann's work, concerns her hermeneutics. When she says that God's Word is independent of interpretation (p154), it can (I assume, incorrectly) be taken as meaning that we have access to it without interpreting it. This, however, is wrong. But it is true that the text as divinely inspired is independent of any particular interpretation. This is reflected in 2 Peter 1:19-21 where we read: "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit". This verse does not negate all human interpretation of the text (we have no choice but to interpret the text); it says that the text did not come into being as the result of mere human interpretations (i.e. those of the prophets regarding their times and future events). There is no reason why we cannot develop better interpretations of the text when new information about ancient times etc. becomes available. But, for evangelical Christians, such interpretations should adhere to basic evangelical principles.
[3] Gerald Bray argues that a new hermeneutic paradigm has opened up in the academic study of the Bible, namely that three approaches to the formal, scholarly study of Scripture have evolved, namely the historical-critical tradition (which no longer possess the monopoly that it once had), the "social trends" approach (which focuses on current social and political issues) and "conservative evangelicalism" (Biblical Interpretation Past and Present, 1996, InterVarsity).
[4] Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Truth and Method (translation revised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, second, revised ed.). New York: Crossroad. Gadamer is one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century.
[5] Although it took some time before the canon as we know it was widely accepted in the church, the early church used a very basic principle to decide, namely that the authors of the New Testament had to be either an apostle or brother of the Lord (Hand. 1:14 etc.), or wrote under the guidance of and with the approval of the apostles. They included only those texts in the canon of which they were convinced that they adhered to this principle.
[6] Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago. Click also on: Paradigmas in konflik: Bybelwetenskap vs traditionalisme
[7] Only in later periods, when known texts are used, is it possible to compose a (partial) textual history. I discuss this issue in the second part of the following essay (click on): A critique of archaeology as a science
[8] The Book of Genesis, Part 1 etc.
[9] Click on: Bible prophecy: Predicting the distant future? 
[10] Herbert Niehr argued in his book Der hochste Gott (1990) that these names for God are a late development. But this view cannot explain why El-Elyon is regarded in the Biblical writings as the "father of the gods", which is a very ancient concept. It can also not explain why El-Shaddai is closely connected with the role of "king of the gods". The only way to distinguish these roles is to take the ancient concept of the council of the gods into consideration as well as the Israelite reworking of developments in that council (see my book Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel).
[11] Click on: The importance of the Septuagint in Biblical studies

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. Posted on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com

The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)) and is a philosopher and scientist (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology. 

For a more in-depth discussion of the Book of Genesis, see my series of essays on it. To read, click on Part 1 etc.  
Read also 
Part 2: Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective.

Part 3. Can we still believe the Bible? A scientific perspective
Part 4. Can we still believe the Bible? A prophetic perspective

Readers are welcome to share the essay with friends and others.

A message for the church

Dearly beloved

I write this letter to you at a time when the church faces enormous challenges. We experience a period of dramatic change in our country and around the world. This is a time in which all those whose hearts are concerned about the decline and falling away should come together and ask: what must we do? With the psalmist, we can ask: When the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do? It is in a time like this that the call goes out: Where are those among them, who should make up the hedge, who shall stand in the gap before the Lord for the land, that it would not fall into total destruction!

The answer came to me during an early morning of prayer with some dear brethren. Sometimes we are confused. Sometimes we do not see things clearly. Sometimes we are unsure about what we should do. That is the time when we should inquire about the foundations. What are the foundation stones without which no building can do? What are the basic principles of the church? We should go back to these. We should clearly discern what are the fundamental truths of the gospel.

I believe that God made it very simple. Given in a nutshell: there are only two basic principles. The one regulates our relation with Him and the other our relationship with all people. These are 1. Obey God  2. Forgive each other. Can it be so simple? Yes, it is. In our day and age, the principles of obedience and forgiveness have fallen out of favour. Why? Because these are not typical democratic values. Obedience is not the language of democracy. Forgiveness is not the language of the market. But the kingdom of God is not a democracy! The Lord Jesus is our King. We belong to God's kingdom. And these are the principles of His kingdom.

We should remind ourselves what a kingdom is like. The kingdom in old Israel was based on a tribal/clan system. The king was a father; he was a father to all those who had no father, approachable by all his subjects. He was also a leader who commanded them against their enemies. As Christians, we belong to God's kingdom - which, I repeat, is a kingdom, not a democracy! And the essence of God's kingdom is obedience. Obedience flows from the deep trust that we have in God, our father. God is our spiritual father who loves us, who gave His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to die for us. But as King, we also hold Him in awe. Love, trust and awe - that's why we obey Him. We need to rediscover the principle of obeying God. Absolute obedience.

With democracy came the greed of an absolutely free market. Here the principle is: To get somewhere you must use people. You must use them to reach your goals. And this leaves many people with grudges. But in the kingdom of God, the exact opposite is true: We must forgive because God forgave us. We should reconcile with those who have grudges against us. And this is an absolute rule: Forgive and live as far as possible in such a manner that others do not have to forgive us. We experience the full joy of freedom if we forgive and are forgiven by others. To be free of anger, distrust, hate, grudges - there is only one answer: forgive each other in the same manner in which God forgave you. That is: absolute forgiveness.

When we carefully consider these principles, then we ask: Can we really live that in the full sense? Is it really possible in practice? A better question is: How can this be done? There is only one answer: This is only possible if we are crucified with Christ. In fact, we are already crucified with Christ! But it is not enough to say that Jesus has done that for us on the cross. It is not enough to recognize that we should live crucified lives and try our very best to do so. Rather, we must participate in that salvation. We must in faith accept and experience that salvation. We must be able to say with the apostle Paul: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me! Only then can we experience the fullness of our inheritance in Christ as members of God's kingdom who are able to live according to the principles of that kingdom.

Christians who are living uncrucified lives have a quarrel with the principles of obedience and forgiveness. But nothing will change this basic rule of the kingdom of God: the key that unlocks the power of God's Spirit working through us is crucifixion. When we in faith reckon ourselves to be crucified with Christ as the same apostle Paul says in his letter to the church in Rome, yes, and die by God's grace to our selfish desires, to our own interests, then we can be fully committed to God and have the disposition to obey Him. When we bend our knees before God and humbly pray: I am willing to let go of my pride, my selfishness, my laziness, even my right to myself, only then will we experience the full power of Christ's resurrection. Then will we be able to say: Lord, I am fully thine, do with my life as you please. It is only when we experience such a crucified life, such a life of full surrender to God, that we would be able to obey God and forgive each other in a really profound and even radical way.

Some of you will say: But what about love! Is not love the central message for and of the church. Should we not love one another. This is indeed the basic commandment of Jesus. This love, however, will only be realized in and through our lives when we are fully committed to God. Only when we are crucified with Christ and live such a life in faith will we experience that the reservoir of God's love in us is unlocked. Then will we be able to obey and forgive, and experience the love of God in action. Then will the dynamic Pentecostal power of God's Spirit flow through our lives like a river of living waters. The love for God, each other and all people, is not from ourselves - it is God's love that flows through us. God loves through us. Love will characterize our lives and that of the church.

I, therefore, repeat, beloved, that we should obey God and forgive each other. How deep is our obedience? How deep is our forgiveness? How deep are we committed to God? To what extent do we live according to the basic principles of the kingdom of God? We should not let the spirit of this world govern our lives. We should not allow the norms of the time to dictate to us how we should live. Those who try to form our opinions according to this world hate these principles. They attack it. But we belong to another kingdom. And if we want to see the power of God in action, if we want to see God's kingdom come in power, we should implement the basic principles of that kingdom in our lives. So, we have to ask ourselves: Do I really live according to these principles?

I want to encourage you all. The end is drawing closer. Times will become more difficult. But Jesus, our leader, will lead us to victory. Let's obey Him and forgive each other. Let's consecrate our lives to Him anew. Let's take hands and become one in our love for Him and each other. Let's ask ourselves: Is this how I lead my life? We should make time to go on our knees and consider these things in the presence of God. When we allow God to realize these things in our lives we will experience the presence of God in our lives and in the church. Yes, even the awful presence of God in revival.

May God be with you all.

Your brother in Christ

Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud@yahoo.com)
Strand, South Africa

Read also
Die profeet
God hoor
Wrong choices
The Power of God
Something or Someone is Missing
Revival is of the Lord
Om God te glo

The Garden of Eden: Was it a real place?

In this essay, I discuss the Biblical Garden of Eden in the wider context of the ancient Middle East. The Bible is not the only text where this motif is found; it appears elsewhere in the ancient Semitic literature. I ask: Was it a historical place? This is the third part of the series on the Book of Genesis.

The Garden of Eden is introduced right at the beginning of the Bible, in Genesis 2-3. I have previously discussed the creation story (see part 1 of the series) as well as the main characters in the garden story, namely Adam and Eve (see part 2). Now, I focus on the garden itself. Although the basic theme of the garden is well-known, the long tradition behind this theme is for the most part unknown.

The views that readers have regarding the Garden of Eden closely reflects their views regarding Adam and Eve as historical personages or not. Those who believe in a historical Adam and Eve also take the geographical details in the story serious, namely the names of the rivers and the areas through which they flow. Various interpretations have been offered as to where the garden was located, some placing it in southern Mesopotamia, even in the Persian Gulf. Others think that the garden was located in the north, in Turkey or northern Iran. Nowadays some even argue that the garden was originally located in the Great Rift Valley in Africa where homo sapiens is said to have originated.

Even those who do not take the story serious as referring to real historical events may be interested in the history of the motif within the framework of the ancient Semitic world. As such, we should carefully consider the Biblical tradition about this garden. In this regard, any discussion of the Garden of Eden should commence with a careful analysis of the main features of the garden mentioned in the story. We must first ask certain basic questions, for example: Was the garden in a plain? Or was it situated on a mountain? Did the rivers originate or converge in the garden? What do we know about the tree(s) in the middle of the garden? Such an analysis will allow us to research the history of these motifs and see where they were first used. From this important insights could be gained. Only then should we engage with the questions about the geographical details and the historicity of this garden.

The Garden of Eden

The Garden of Eden [1] is introduced in Genesis 2:8. We read that "the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden". Various interesting things are said about this garden:

1. All sorts of trees grew in the garden, both those that were "pleasant to the sight" and those who were "good for food". Two of these trees are singled out, namely the "tree of life" and the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". Both these trees grew in the middle of the garden (Gen. 2:9, see also 2:17; 3:3, 6, 17, 22, 24). God forbid Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and when he and Eve did, they were chased from the garden to stop them from also eating from the tree of life.

2. There is the reference to a river which watered the garden. Another four rivers are mentioned: "and from hence [i.e. the garden] it was parted, and became four heads" (Gen. 2:10). These rivers were the Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel (Tigris) and the Euphrates. If we take the reference to "heads" as the upper headwaters of these rivers, then this garden must have been situated somewhere high in the mountains.

3.  God's abode could have been in or near the garden because we read that He walked in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8). What is also quite interesting, is that God speaks in the plural saying: "man has become as one of us to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22). We find this use of the plural also in Gen. 1:26 and 11:7.

4. The inhabitants of the garden included not only Adam and Eve but all kinds of animals which Adam named. Among these animals was the serpent who tempted Eve. Furthermore, God placed cherubim on the eastern side of the garden. They are associated with "a flaming sword which turned in every way" (Gen. 3:24).

These features can be compared with those mentioned in Ezekiel 28 and 31 where we also find discussions of events that are said to have taken place in "Eden, the garden of God" (mentioned in both chapters: Ezek. 28:13; 31:9). Although Ezekiel tells a different garden story, there can be no doubt that the same garden theme is used. In both cases, it is clearly stated that the events happened in Eden, the garden of God. Although the four rivers are not mentioned, there is an agreement between the two depictions. The depiction in Ezekiel can help us gain a better understanding of some of the things which are implicit in the Genesis story of the garden. The following is said about the garden in Ezekiel 28 and 31:

1. All sorts of trees grew in the garden, among which were cedars and chestnut trees (Ezek. 31:8). One tree is singled out, namely a "cedar in Lebanon" (Ezek. 31:3). This cedar's height was exalted above all the trees of the field and its roots were by great (underground) waters. It seems that this cedar throned over the whole earth: "All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations" (Ezek.31:6). Eventually, it was cut down because of its pride.

2. A certain anointed cherub, "that covereth", was in Eden, the garden of God (Ezek. 28:14). This cherub was very beautiful and wise but became fallen because of its pride.

3. The garden and the mountain of God are closely connected in the story. The garden seems to have been on or near the "holy mountain of God" (maybe lower down on the mountain?). We can deduce this from the fact that the garden of God, in which the exceptionally beautiful cedar grows, is said to be located somewhere in the Lebanon mountains, where one of the peaks probably represented the mountain of God. The top of the "holy mountain of God" was covered with "the stones of fire" (Ezek. 28:14), which could metaphorically refer to the stars [2]. This reflects the extreme height of this mountain. The fallen cherub is said to have been in the garden as well as on the mountain of God.

The second reference in Ezekiel 28 to the "mountain of the God" (Ezek. 28:16) is translated in my Afrikaans Bible as "godeberg", which literally means "mountain of the gods". This refers to the mountain of God where all the "gods" (later called "angels") gathered for the council (or: congregation) of the gods (see Ps 82:1, 6-7 where the angels are called "gods"; Ps. 89:7 where the angels are called "Sons of the Mighty One" [or: God, in the Septuagint] or "saints", i.e. the "holy ones"; Is. 14:13, 14; 1 Ki. 22:19-22; Ezek. 28:16) (I discuss the ancient tradition about the council of the gods gathering on the mountain of God (El), which go back to pre-Biblical times, in [3]). The fallen cherub was clearly one of those gods who was later chased from the mountain of God.

When we compare the two descriptions of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2-3 and Ezekiel 28, 31 we find some obvious agreements in the basic motifs, but also disagreements regarding the details. Among these agreements is a reference to some special tree in the garden which is singled out. In the Genesis 2-3 story this is the tree of knowledge; in Ezekiel's story, this is a beautiful high cedar. Regarding this tree, there seem to be some differences, namely that we find two trees in the Genesis depiction and only one tree in Ezekiel's depiction. Furthermore, both trees in the Genesis story yield fruit; but a cedar cannot do that.

In the Genesis account, there is no explicit reference to a mountain. There is, however, some details that can be taken as an implicit reference to it, namely that the "heads" (headwaters) of the four rivers originated in the area of the garden. From the fact that the same garden theme is used in both stories, which originated from a very old tradition regarding such a garden, we can assume that the Garden of Eden was situated on or near a mountain - the mountain of God.

In the Genesis story, it is mentioned that God walked in the garden. This could imply that He had his abode there - which is also accentuated in Ezekiel's story where we find that the garden is on or near the mountain of God, i.e. where He had his abode.

We also find that both stories include reference to a cherub or cherubim. In the Genesis story, the cherubim guard the gates of paradise; Ezekiel's story is about a particular cherub, the one who "covereth". This could imply that his role was to cover God's face or feet. This cherub became a fallen creature. We can propose that various cherubim were present in the garden and that one of them, clearly a very prominent one, became a fallen creature due to his pride.

How do we explain the differences between the depictions in these two stories? The most important of these is that the garden of the Genesis account lies toward the east whereas Ezekiel's Garden is situated on the Lebanon mountains to the north (Ezek. 31:3). The other difference is that the main trees are different. In Ezekiel's account, the tree became a symbol of the pride which is also ascribed to the fallen cherub and is cut down. To answer this we have to discuss the ancient Semitic tradition regarding such a garden, and the variations to the theme that have crept in throughout the ages.

Ancient traditions

I previously argued that the forefathers of the ancient Israelites brought the traditions that we find in the ancient history (ch. 1-11) in the Book of Genesis with them from their homeland in ancient Sumer (Ur was in Sumer). This includes the garden story. These were the stories that were delivered within the Abrahamic family since the earliest times. In the ancient Middle East, the tradition about the garden of paradise was very old, going back to a very early period. As such, we find the tradition about the garden also in other, extra-Biblical texts, which are much older than the Bible. In this essay, I focus on the Epic of Gilgamesh, the best-known epic in ancient Mesopotamia which dates from Old Babylonian times during the first half of the second millennium BC.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the hero travels to the west to the mountain of the gods. This epic was written in Akkadian, a Semitic language spoken in Sumer. We read how the hero and his companion, who travelled from Sumer to the west, saw the Cedar Mountain, the "dwelling of the gods" in the distance [4]. In Old Babylonian times, early in the second millennium BC, the Cedar Mountain referred to the Amanus mountain range. Later it referred to the Lebanon mountains. According to the story, there was a creature who was the guardian of the forest, called Humbaba (Huwawa). The heroes killed him to gain access to the mountain of the gods and the garden of trees. There they found a very large and beautiful cedar, which they cut down.

There is clearly a great deal of agreement between this early Semitic depiction of the garden of the gods and Ezekiel's depiction of the "garden of God". This garden had its location high in the Cedar Mountains, on or near the mountain of the gods. In both accounts, one cedar is singled out as being very special (the reason being that it was taken as an image of the axis mundi [5]), which was then cut down. The guardian of the forest, Humbaba, also shows some correspondence with the cherubim in the Genesis story who guards the gates of paradise.

In early forerunners of the Epic of Gilgamesh, we find material which dates back to the Uruk period (ca. 3800-2800 BC). One of these texts, which was first written down during the Ur III period (ca. 2150-2050 BC) [6], is called Gilgamesh and Humbaba (Bilgamesh and Huwawa). Here we read how the heroes travelled across seven mountain ranges before they found the cedar. These "seven mountain ranges" were not on the way to the Amanus mountains in the west but on the journey to the distant land of Aratta to the north of Sumer (the Biblical Ararat). The northern land of Aratta is nowadays located in north-western Iran.

These seven mountain ranges are referred to in the legends told about an early king of Uruk, named Enmerkar, who ruled during the last part of the fourth millennium BC. His servant travelled through the seven mountain ranges to the land of Aratta beyond the Zagros mountains [7]. In the epic called Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta we find a beautiful description of the mountain of the gods in the area of Aratta [8]. This means that the mountain of the gods was not originally situated in the west (which reflects developments during the Akkadian period (ca. 2370-2190 BC) when those kings started making long journeys to the Amanus and the Mediterranean Sea in the west), but in the north. And in the early tales about the journeys to that northern land, we find that it was not cedars that grew there, but different trees.

This background helps us to understand the differences between the stories of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2-3 and Ezekiel 28, 31. The story in Ezekiel clearly reflects traditions found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was current at the time of the Babylonian exile. Ezekiel used these when he wrote his narrative. The story in the Book of Genesis, on the other hand, reflects traditions older than the Akkadian period (2350-2150 BC), before the mountain of the gods became associated with the Amanus and later the Lebanon mountains, and the tree of paradise became a cedar [9]. This was still the period when it could be said that the garden's location was in the east (from the land of Canaan). I discuss the early tradition of the tree and its fruit in the next part of the series, which focuses on the serpent).

The geographic location of the garden

We are now in a position to discuss the geographical details given in Genesis 2-3 for the location of the garden. Since the earliest traditions about the mountain of the gods and the garden place these in the northern Zagros mountains, we expect that the geographic details given in Genesis 2 would agree with this. And indeed, this is the area where the headwaters of both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers originate, namely far in the north, in the areas of the Van and Urmia Lakes. But what about the two other rivers mentioned in the Book of Genesis? The Gihon and Pison rivers.

It has been argued that the Gihon is the Gaihun, of which the name was changed to Araxes after the Islamic invasion of the Caucasus, and that the Pison is the Uizhum [10]. The name Gaihun clearly corresponds with Gihon and we can explain the correspondence between the names Uizhum and Pishon by a typical U to P shift. The tributaries of the Gaihun rise in the mountains to the north of the Van and Urmia Lakes and flow eastward into the Caspian Sea. The Uizhum rises from several springs near Mt. Sahand, east of Lake Urmia, as well as in parts of the Zagros near the city of Sanandaj in north-western Iran. It also flows into the Caspian Sea.

There is also a good correspondence between the other details given in the Book of Genesis and the geographic areas through which the rivers flow. The Gaihum, for example, flows through the Kusheh Dagh (Mountain of Kush), in agreement with the Biblical reference to the "land of Kush" (the reference to "Ethiopia" in the King James Bible is not in the original text; it is merely an interpretation). The Uizhum is also called Kezel Uzun ("dark red" or "gold"), in agreement with the Biblical land of Havilah, "where there is gold".

This northern geographic region could have been the area from where the forefathers of the Sumerians and Semites living in Sumer originated (this discussion is beyond the focus of this essay). This would take us back to a time before the first settlers arrived in the southern plains of Sumer (the Biblical "Shinar"). This is the time in which the Bible places Adam and Eve (see part 2 of this series) [11]. It is quite remarkable that the early traditions of the mountain of the gods in the north and the geographical details in the Book of Genesis agree so closely.

This analysis is based on the ancient Semitic tradition about the Garden of Eden found in the Bible. As such, this tradition is grounded in a long tradition that originated in the ancient Middle East - the world from which Abraham and his descendants came. In some recent studies, it has been proposed that the garden might have been in the Great Rift Valley in Africa where homo sapiens is said to have originated. In this regard, the reference to one of the rivers originating in "Ethiopia" is wrongly taken as the place referred to in the Bible.

In this view, the Biblical Adam and Eve are taken as the earliest "mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam" (I discuss this view in some detail in part 2 of the series). As such, they are taken as historical persons who lived about 200 000 years ago; not people who lived 6000 years ago. The problem with this view is that it totally discards the tradition from which the Biblical story originated. It imposes a scientific view on the Bible without considering the Biblical tradition as such. We can therefore not take this view as a good interpretation of the Biblical text.

Conclusion

In this essay, I discuss the garden of Eden. I focus on the two most important depictions of this garden in the Bible, namely in Genesis 2-3 and Ezekiel 28, 31. I show that the most important features of this garden are that the garden was situated on or near the mountain of God, that there was an exceptional tree in the garden, and that cherubim were found there. These features are also found in other Semitic depictions of this garden which is much older than the Bible. This means that the Biblical depiction reflects a very old tradition going back to an early period in the ancient Middle East. We can think that this tradition was handed over from generation to generation in Abraham's family from those early times.

I also explain the differences between the two Biblical depictions of the garden of Eden, namely that Ezekiel locates the garden in Lebanon, not in the east, and presents the exceptionally beautiful tree in the garden as a cedar, not a tree that yields fruit. These differences are easily explained if we understand the changes that happened throughout the ages in Mesopotamia, according to which the earlier tradition which placed the mountain of the gods in the northern Zagros was replaced by one which placed it in the west (in the Amanus and later the Lebanon mountains). This also shows that the Book of Genesis incorporates very old traditions delivered through Abraham's family - before the tree in the garden became associated with a cedar.

Was there really such a historical garden? Obviously, we cannot prove that. But it is clear that the tradition of the garden located on or near the mountain of the gods is very old. An early mountain which was identified as such could have existed in the northern Zagros. The geographical details in the Book of Genesis agree remarkably well with such a location for the mountain [12].

[1] The Hebrew word "eden" is said to have been derived from the root "adhan", which means "to be delighted". It has also been proposed that it could go back to the Sumerian "edin" or the Akkadian "edinu", which means "open plain".
[2] The "stones of fire" could be a reference to the stars. We find a similar depiction of the mountain of God, called the "mountain of the congregation", in Is. 14:13, which is situated "above the stars of God". The "congregation" refers to the congregation of the council of the gods. Here is also a reference to Lucifer, the morning star, who wanted to sit on the mountain of God, and be "like the Most High". Like the cherub in Ezekiel 28, he was driven from the mountain of God.
[3] Die goderaad in Hebreeuse tradisie ("The council of the gods in Hebrew tradition").
[4] I previously argued that the council of the gods, who gathered on the mountain of the gods (or: God), which is found in the Hebrew and Canaanite traditions, is part of a continuous tradition which goes back to the earliest known traditions in Sumer. I have also argued that the father of the gods, who was called El in Semitic tradition and An in Sumerian tradition, is called the "Most High God" in the Hebrew tradition (see Ps. 82:6). We can compare the names El and An with our names God and Dieu (in French). This shows that the Hebrew God El, the father of the gods, was worshipped from the earliest of times. See chapters 5 and 6 in my book, Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel). In Hebrew tradition, those gods in the council who participated in the rebellion were regarded as fallen creatures.
[5] The world axis. This refers to the rotational axis of the earth which is reflected from the poles into the northern and southern starry heavens. For earthly observers this axis is observable in the rotation of the stars; it gives the impression that the cosmos turns on this axis around the earth.
[6] According to the so-called high chronology of Mesopotamia.
[7] The only known geographical reference to Aratta that is found outside the early Sumerian literature, occurs in the accounts of Sargon II of Assyria's eight campaign. He travelled over the seven mountain ranges across the northern Zagros, where he finally arrived at the river called Aratta. This places the land of Aratta (the Biblical Ararat) near Mt. Sahand in northern Iran. The people who lived there was later displaced to the north and they took their traditions with them. It is possible that the holy mountain of Aratta with its garden became well-known all over the ancient world.
[8]  ETCSL translation 2006, 227-235.
[9] I previously mentioned that there is no post-Old-Babylonian material included in the Book of Genesis (see part 2 of this series). This proves that the Mesopotamian material in the book must date back to at least that period (i.e. the time of Abraham). I argued elsewhere that it was brought by the family of Abraham from Sumer to Canaan (see Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel)). The fact that the tree in the garden of Eden is not a cedar is clearly in line with an early origin for the material in this book.
[10] In my opinion David Rohl, following Reginald Walker, makes a very good case in this regard in his book Legend, the Genesis of Civilization (1998, Random House). He associates the plain of Tabriz in northern Iran with the area of the Garden of Eden. The river which runs through this plain is now called Adji Chay, but was previously known as Meidan, which means "Walled-in garden" - which agrees with the meaning of the Greek word "paradeisos" used in the Septuagint for the garden in Genesis 2. This would then be the river which "water(ed) the garden" (Gen. 2:10). All the rivers mentioned in the Book of Genesis originate in the mountains surrounding this area.
[11] I previously showed that the Biblical Adam corresponds with the Sumerian Adapa (see part 2 of the series as well as a more detailed discussion in Abraham en sy God (2012, Griffel). We read about Adapa that he went to the abode of An (God, see [5]), which refers to An's holy mountain. There he had to make certain choices involving the "food of death" (which would bring death) and the "food of life". This could be an implicit reference to a garden situated on or near the mountain of An, in accordance with the very ancient connection between the garden and the mountain of the gods (or: An).
[12] There is a Hebrew tradition according to which another paradise was located in the realm of the dead (see Luk. 23:43). This was also a very old tradition and refers to the abode of the blessed dead. Whereas the original Garden of Eden was situated in the north, near or on the mountain of the gods, this garden was situated at the opposite end of the Mesopotamian world in the Persian Gulf, where the area of Dilmun (since the Akkadian period associated with the island Bahrain) could have represented the abode of the dead. In the Epic of Gilgamesh the hero finds such a beautiful garden, with trees of precious stones and jewels for fruit, on the edge of the Persian Gulf at the barmaid Siduri's abode. 

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. (Posted on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)

The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)) and is a philosopher and scientist (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science, and eschatology.

The Book of Genesis, Intro: The Book of Genesis: The Sumerian Hypothesis
The Book of Genesis, part 1: Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?  
The Book of Genesis, part 2: Adam and Eve: were they the first humans?
The Book of Genesis, part 4: The Serpent of Paradise
The Book of Genesis, part 5: Reconsidering the Fall
The Book of Genesis, part 6: The origins of Satan: the ancient worldview
The Book of Genesis, part 7: Who is Elohim?

The Book of Genesis, Part 8: The "ancient history" of Genesis 4-11: Myth or history?
The Book of Genesis, Part 9: The Great Flood: Did it really happen?
The Book of Genesis, Part 10: Abraham holds the key

Readers are welcome to share the essay with friends and others.