+- Deny Ignorance (https://denyignorance.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://denyignorance.com/Section-Off-Topic)
+--- Forum: Religion, Faith, & Theology (https://denyignorance.com/Section-Religion-Faith-Theology)
+--- Thread: The geography of Eden (/Thread-The-geography-of-Eden)
The geography of Eden - DISRAELI - 05-11-2024
This is a very speculative, non-authoritative, exploration of the more obscure geography of Genesis, making no assumptions about literal inerrancy.
Firstly, the geography of the four rivers of Eden, Genesis ch2 vv10-14. It’s become fashionable to look for ways to locate all of them in Sumer, but the fact that they arise out of Eden ought to be pointing us towards the headwaters.
It’s obvious on a map that the headwaters of two of them, the Tigris and Euphrates, are fairly close together in the region of Lake Van in the northern highlands. Can’t we find two more rivers arising in the same region? We do have the Halys, which flows into the Black Sea, and the Araxes which flows into the Caspian.
We are thrown a little by the mention of Cush. Cush is associated with Egypt in ch10. Kush is known outside the Bible as a name for modern Nubia, and most of the later Bible references are consistent with that location. But if we accept the inference that the Gihon is the Nile, that makes a complete nonsense of the geography of the passage, as can be seen from the works of mediaeval mapmakers.
On the other hand, Ezekiel ch38 v5 makes Cush part of a coalition of northern tribes. And if we look closely at the ch10 reference, we find that Cush is identified as the father of Nimrod, who is firmly tied to the Babylon area. So there may be a confusion here between two peoples or areas with similar names, which is not at all unusual in historical geography. The same confusion could account for Havilah, land of gold, which would otherwise have to be in the Red Sea region.
Therefore Cush is not necessarily an obstacle to identifying Eden with the central portion of the Anatolian-Iranian plateau, in the vicinity of Lake Van and Lake Urmiyyah. I once saw a television documentary in which a man was convinced he had found the site of Eden in a raised valley in the highlands, the important clue being a slope forming a kind of “wall” at the eastern end of the valley. The flaw in his argument was that the wall of Eden is non-Biblical. It comes straight out of Paradise Lost, so that discovery adds nothing to the case.
But the highland plateau is a fitting location for other aspects of the Eden story. It would have had trees. Many modern historians think that cultivation of crops, the curse of Adam, began in that region, as climate change made hunting more difficult. This would have allowed the population to grow, encouraging them to disperse, making that region the place of origin for many peoples in the larger area. Let us make special note of Cain, who moved eastwards. That is, if I am right, onto the Iranian plateau east of the Zagros range.
Now let’s turn to the Flood. Again, the fashion is to assume that Flood stories are based on Sumerian memories of the flooding of the Persian Gulf. But other regions have flood stories too, with other versions of Noah. Greek mythology knows two versions, one for Greece (Deucalion and Pyrrha) and one for Anatolia (Philemon and Baucis). This points to flooding in the Aegean-Black Sea region. Perhaps this could be a long-distance folk-memory of the post-Ice Age event, proposed by some geologists, in which a sudden flood broke down a land barrier between the two seas. I have a pet theory that this could also account for the story of the “clashing islands”, which formed a barrier to the Black Sea in the story of Jason and the Argonauts.
If survivors from the eastern end of the Black Sea coast fled into the highland regions, their descendants could still be there, with folk-memories of flooding, when that region began to develop agriculture. It must be significant that tradition places the landfall of Noah in Ararat. Not the single mountain known by that name in modern times, but a slightly larger mountainous area. This would connect “The Flood” and “The Tree of Life” as elements in the same cultural tradition. In that order, and it’s interesting that the Babylonian version of the Flood story is also an event in the past when Gilgamesh is looking for the Tree of Life.
Another geographical statement is that mankind enters the plain of Shinar (the later Babylonia) “from the east” (ch11 v2). This fits in very well with the likely origins of the Sumerians when they first established themselves at the south-eastern end of Mesopotamia.
Nobody knows exactly where the Sumerians came from. But let us remind ourselves that Cain went east when he left Eden. This sets up the possibility that either the Sumerians themselves or the cultural tradition they learned travelled south-eastwards from the Lake Van region and along the south-western edge of the Iranian plateau before entering the Tigris valley closer to the Persian Gulf end of the Zagros range. In which case one Flood tradition could have started from the Black Sea and climbed up into the highlands to pick up the Tree of Life tradition before being taken down to Sumer to link up with the Flood traditions of the Persian Gulf.
There used to be an Hungarian poster on ATS who was convinced that Hungarian and Sumerian were the same language. I don’t know either of them, so I can’t comment. On the strength of the alleged similarity, he argued that the Sumerians must have established colonies on the Russian steppes. This strikes me as very implausible, but I can just see the possibility of movement in the opposite direction. That is, the distant ancestors of the Sumerians fleeing from the Black Sea southwards, while their proto-Hungarian relatives fled northwards from the opposite coast.
Finally, a word on Ham, Shem, and Japheth. The usual interpretation of ch10 (e.g. the Times Atlas of the Bible) confines Ham to the Nile valley and Canaan and allows Shem to occupy the Tigris-Euphrates plains. But I have already pointed out the inconvenient fact that Nimrod, the infamous ruler of Babylon, is the son of Cush and therefore the grandson of Ham. I suggest, then, that this three-part division is not ethnic but geographical. Ham occupies the Fertile Crescent, BOTH sides, which allows him to become a well-fed race of evil giants (from the perspective of the starved desert-dwellers). Shem occupies the desert to the south, Japheth occupies the highlands in the north as well as the distant islands of Greece.. If the divisions are not ethnic, there is nothing to be gained from trying to connect all this with the genetic history of the rest of the world.
RE: The geography of Eden - FlyersFan - 05-11-2024
There is no Eden. It's just a fictional story that ancient people invented to try to explain how life began on the planet. There is a similar myth in Egyptology of a 'tree of life' and a snake and gods etc etc and it all supposedly took place on the Nile River. Every group of people have their creation myths.
As to Ham, Shem, and Japheth that you mentioned. That also is a fictional story. There was no Noah and no Noahs Ark, so therefore Ham, Shem, and Japheth didn't exist either. The Noahs Ark story is easily and totally debunked.
I don't think the geography of fictional stories is all that important. Sorry. But enjoy your discussion.
RE: The geography of Eden - DISRAELI - 05-11-2024
(05-11-2024, 06:12 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: There is no Eden. It's just a fictional story that ancient people invented to try to explain how life began on the planet. There is a similar myth in Egyptology of a 'tree of life' and a snake and gods etc etc and it all supposedly took place on the Nile River. Every group of people have their creation myths.For me, the discussion doesn't depend on whether there was an Eden (or an ark). I'm not asking myself where it was. I'm asking myself where the writer of Genesis thought it was, and what part historical movements of peoples might have played in the development of the story. To students of history, that question is interesting in itself. I was going to say that at the beginning, but allowed the comment about not following literal inerrancy to take its place.
As to Ham, Shem, and Japheth that you mentioned. That also is a fictional story. There was no Noah and no Noahs Ark, so therefore Ham, Shem, and Japheth didn't exist either. The Noahs Ark story is easily and totally debunked.
I don't think the geography of fictional stories is all that important. Sorry. But enjoy your discussion.
Your comment on Ham, Shem, and Japheth actually agrees with mine, if you look at mine more closely than I think you did. I suggested that these were geographical divisions, not ethnic ones, which is the equivalent of saying they were not historical individuals.
RE: The geography of Eden - Maxmars - 05-11-2024
I probably can't adequately express how much I appreciate his thread.
The Eden account relayed in the Bible has always interested me. I am no biblical scholar, and I lack the classic, focused experience regarding all the pertinent knowledge surrounding the topic. But I felt the intent of the accounts had a function, namely to give rise to the understanding that we, as humans, have had, and lost access to something... in this case a circumstance. Of course, it's all open to shift in retelling, yielding to the vagaries of distant memory.
Meaning no negative criticism, I wished that you might have included some maps and or graphics to further demonstrate the relationships between locations and names. But the telling was crafted well, and I really wanted to thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss it.
I know there are reasons to dismiss this out of hand, and I know that the thirst of faith can have an impact on the posture of the tale. This might engender acceptance or rejection, but either way, I think this subject has merit.
I found myself hoping to hear some account of the 'protections' and 'proscriptions' of the 'still-extant' Eden... but I understand your focus on the consideration of it's physical presence.
The fixation on genealogy asserts itself on nearly all biblical accounts, and is one of the less appealing elements of the retelling to me. I, personally, have nearly always rejected the idea that 'truth' is delineated by bloodline. I consider it an affectation of intent, embedded within the telling. But it still has meaning... if only to reassert that their is always some form of 'us' and 'them' and the idea that 'hierarchy' is important.
How much is history, what part may be metaphor? It is so far removed from today that the matter appears 'open' to interpretation... and most all interpretation is influenced by the subjective.
Thanks.
RE: The geography of Eden - DISRAELI - 05-11-2024
(05-11-2024, 12:11 PM)Maxmars Wrote: I probably can't adequately express how much I appreciate his thread.Sorry, adding maps comes up against my technical skills, and perhaps I was taking my own geographical awareness for granted.
The Eden account relayed in the Bible has always interested me. I am no biblical scholar, and I lack the classic, focused experience regarding all the pertinent knowledge surrounding the topic. But I felt the intent of the accounts had a function, namely to give rise to the understanding that we, as humans, have had, and lost access to something... in this case a circumstance. Of course, it's all open to shift in retelling, yielding to the vagaries of distant memory.
Meaning no negative criticism, I wished that you might have included some maps and or graphics to further demonstrate the relationships between locations and names. But the telling was crafted well, and I really wanted to thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss it.
I know there are reasons to dismiss this out of hand, and I know that the thirst of faith can have an impact on the posture of the tale. This might engender acceptance or rejection, but either way, I think this subject has merit.
I found myself hoping to hear some account of the 'protections' and 'proscriptions' of the 'still-extant' Eden... but I understand your focus on the consideration of it's physical presence.
The fixation on genealogy asserts itself on nearly all biblical accounts, and is one of the less appealing elements of the retelling to me. I, personally, have nearly always rejected the idea that 'truth' is delineated by bloodline. I consider it an affectation of intent, embedded within the telling. But it still has meaning... if only to reassert that their is always some form of 'us' and 'them' and the idea that 'hierarchy' is important.
How much is history, what part may be metaphor? It is so far removed from today that the matter appears 'open' to interpretation... and most all interpretation is influenced by the subjective.
Thanks.
RE: The geography of Eden - Tecate - 05-11-2024
Thanks Disraeli for bringing this thread here!
I have often wondered of the origins of these stories as well and if there is any basis in an historical narrative. That the story itself may have evolved from numerous sources and events that somehow were weaved together has always seemed like the most likely scenario has intrigued me.
James A. Michener’s “The Source” novel shows how one person’s take on human origins can show a plausible explanation.
Although it doesn’t tackle Eden per se, it speaks more to how religion could have evolved.
The story of Eden, would have geographically been situated east of the Zagros Mountains in an area which was once a very fertile plain, and as you had mentioned the Lake Van area has the Tigris and Euphrates rivers headwaters. The Pishon and Cush are so far away that the geography doesn’t even seem to make any sense.
I have never taken any of it literally, but reading your take on it is as plausible as any.
Sorry for the rambling, but the topic is fascinating to me and I have too many questions and thoughts tumbling out at once.
I’m going to digest this more before responding again.
Tecate
