Apologetics: Ruminations on Eden, the Flood, Babel & Archaeology, with a Surprise Ending, Part 7

Dating Eden

Eden in the Fertile Crescent

Suppose we move Eden back to something like 65,000 BC, when humans were first in Mesopotamia — the traditional site of Eden. Or if we’re willing to move Eden to Africa, we can move Eden back to when man was first preparing to move out of Africa and into Asia. But the location of Eden seems pretty specific —

 (Gen 2:14 ESV)  ¹⁴ And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

The Tigris and Euphrates flow through Iraq and meet near the sea. However, here’s a creative article arguing that Eden was in Palestine, near Jerusalem. And that would actually make some sense as the Prophets connect Eden, Jerusalem, the Promised Land, and the new heavens and new earth. And Judea is very much along the path that early humans would have traveled coming out of Africa and into Asia around 65,000 BC — which allows plenty of time for the climate changes needed for Eden’s rivers to have Judean sources.

So if we can push Eden back a bit, and so be Not-So-Young Earth Creationists, Eden, Cain and Abel, and the Flood fit more easily into the time frame. A local, major Flood would be in human memory all over the world if humans only scattered after the Flood.

Over time, as humans continued to migrate into Asia, they reached Babel — Babylon — and build a ziggurat that caused God to scatter them — and they did indeed scatter at that time from that place, as well fits the archaeological evidence. And now a local flood will easily push an ark into the Ararat mountains. (The Bible describes the region, not the mountain.)

Africa?

For Adam and Eve to be the biologic progenitors of all humans everywhere, not just the first humans in relationship with God, we have to place Eden in Africa because the oldest human (not hominid, human) remains are found in Africa. There’s a reference to one river from Eden being in “Cush” (Gen 2:13), meaning Ethiopia, which is a pretty good place to be the first human according to archaeology.

We’re now around 150,000 to 65,000 BC. Eden is in Ethiopia, and Adam and Eve are African, not Semitic. No archaeologist has found evidence of agriculture in Ethiopia that early, but maybe Abel didn’t leave any remains — or maybe they’ll find something one day. It’s not an outrageous stretch since primitive agriculture wouldn’t leave much behind in the way of fossils.

The story shifts after the Flood to Babylon (Babel) as humans migrate to Mesopotamia. Likely by the time of the Flood, the followers of God had migrated up the Nile, across the Sinai, through Palestine, to Iraq — near the Ararat Mountains. Or maybe there are mountains in Ethiopia called “Ararat” [2]?

So this is a structure that would allow Adam and Eve to truly be the first humans, because the earliest signs of human existence are found in Africa — or so we learn from our mitochondria and Y-chromosomes, as well as from archaeology.

Even if they are dated more recently, and placed in Mesopotamia, they would still be the first humans to serve as God’s image.

Eden in Judea

There’s reason to suppose that Eden was actually in Judea. The geology of the theory is fascinating, but I’m not enough of a geologist to confirm the theory – but it’s very cool to think about. And the biblical basis is intriguing –

Genesis 2 describes Eden as the headwaters of four rivers. Today, no such river system exists. Both Ezekiel 47 and Revelation prophesy that a river will flow from Jerusalem. Further, Revelation 22 describes the Tree of Life in Jerusalem. A lengthy defense of this idea appears here. Another author refers to these Jewish traditions:

• The Talmud indicates that Adam was formed at the site of the temple, which implies that Eden and Jerusalem are the same location

• The Talmud states “Adam was created from a pure and holy place, the site of the temple.” (Pinkei d’ Rabbi Eliezer 12  Bereishit Rabbah 14:8 / Talmud Jerusalem Nazir 7:2; 56b) …

• One reference states “Origen, an early church historian writes, “I have received a tradition to the effect that the body of Adam, the first man, was buried upon the spot where Christ was crucified. This tradition was afterward referred to by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Basil of Caesarea, Chrysostom and other later writers. The tomb and skull of Adam, still pointed out in an excavated chamber below the traditional Calvary, marks the survival of this tradition on the spot. This is by far the most ancient explanation of the name Golgotha and, in spite of the absurdity of the original tradition about Adam, is probably the true one.” (“GOLGOTHA” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

This theory is not well known in the Protestant world because we Modernists can’t get past today’s geography, not realizing that thousands of years ago, the  climate could have been dramatically different near the geologically unstable Great Rift Valley, especially with a lower sea level during an ice age or different temperatures.

Qafzeh is a paleoanthropological site south of Nazareth where eleven significant fossilized Homo sapiens skeletons have been found at the main rock shelter. These anatomically modern humans, both adult and infant, are now dated to about 90–100,000 years old, and many of the bones are stained with red ochre, which is conjectured to have been used in the burial process, a significant indicator of ritual behavior and thereby symbolic thought and intelligence.

Think about it. If modern humans existed in Nazareth 100,000 years ago, that predates the theoretical date of the exodus of modern humans from Africa around 65,000 BP. Obviously, the dating is not entirely consistent – which is not all the surprising given the uncertainties of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome dating due to the variability of the rate at which mutations occur (very different from dating using decay rates of radioactive isotopes). Nonetheless, there’s plainly not enough time after 4004 BC for everything to happen that happened. It just won’t fit.

It’s possible that we should prefer the much more tangible evidence of Nazareth to the genetic evidence being gathered today. If so, then the birthplace of Jesus could also be the birthplace of humanity! And Jerusalem is on the site of Eden – so that the presence of God from which Cain fled was centered on the site of the future Holy of Holies, where God would later again have a special presence. The Garden was in Eden, and so Eden may have included much of the Promised Land.

After Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden,  the entrance was guarded by the cherubim (plural for cherub). The mercy seat – the throne of God – in the Holy of Holies was also guarded by cherubim – carved in this case. Cherubim were also a decorative theme throughout the Temple, surely intended to warn people of the absolute holiness of the Almighty.

It’s been noted that the Hebrew of Genesis 2 could consider Eden a region with the Garden (gan) within it. Gan’s primary meaning is “enclosure.” Thus, the Garden was likely fenced or walled – like a city. Had God wanted it on top of a mountain, such as Mount Moriah where the Temple sat, he could have done so. David’s conquest of Jerusalem and establishment of a center of Yahweh worship there could be seen as a step toward the re-establishment of Eden. Certainly, many Jews came to see it exactly that way.

And so this may be best of all theories. Dating could be as early as 115,000 BC (give or take), or whatever moment true modern humans first appeared on earth.

Criticisms

Any date before 12,000 BC suffers from the fact that agriculture could not have appeared much sooner, because agriculture quickly led to towns and cities – which don’t go back before then. Cain is generally thought of as a farmer. However, the text only say that he brought the “fruit of the ground,” which would hardly contradict an existence as a gatherer of wild fruit and vegetables. So maybe it’s anachronistic to think of him as a farmer.

Abel’s ownership of a “flock” clearly implies shepherding, which has been variously dated to begin from 20,000 to 5,000 BC. It’s quite a stretch to imagine shepherding as early at 65,000 or 100,000 BC, as sheep leave behind bones, making it easier for archaeologists to trace than agriculture.

So either –

• Adam and Eve date to around 12,000 BC, and they are the first humans in relationship with God, but not the genetic parents of all humanity;
• God taught Cain and Abel their skills and they were not passed down to the later generations; or
• There were many skipped generations between Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel.

The third choice has some appeal because that would moot concerns about Cain’s wife and city, explain shepherding and agriculture, and avoid having to explain how the worship of God was neglected while Adam still lived.

Summation

As I said, it’s not essential that we pick a theory. Rather, it’s enough that we can imagine a reasonable interpretation of the scriptures that fits with archaeology. We can.

Some will prefer not to, rejecting archaeological findings earlier than 6,000 years ago, for reasons of faith — which is fine. Just don’t call it science. Indeed, it’s not necessary for faith to be validated by science. But faith should not contradict science because the scriptures and the Creation both come from the hand of God.

________________________

[2] The Ararat mountains are called “Urartu” locally. It’s assumed that these are the same as the Ararat mountains mentioned in the Bible. Ethiopia has mountains with similar sounding names, such as Amaro and Aradam. Who knows what these were called at the time of the Flood or when Genesis was written. Egypt had regular commerce with Ethiopia, and so Moses and the Israelites could have reason to know the names of some of their mountains, but Ararat, in modern Turkey, was very far from Egypt. There is no reason for the Israelites to have a word for those mountains in their language. So maybe …