Bible Study Resources

Some scholars say that the Genesis 1 creation account is a literary “polemic” which was meant to refute ancient Near Eastern creation mythologies.[1] Others say the Genesis 1 creation account is radically different and that the similarities are simply coincidental.[2] Furthermore, some even advance that the creation accounts of Babylon have influenced the narratives of the Gospels in Matthew and Mark as well as Paul’s account of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians.[3] This article will examine the similarities and differences between the Israelite creation account of Genesis 1 and the ancient Near Eastern creation myths of Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria, and Canaan.

ISRAELITE CREATION ACCOUNT

Context of the Israelite Creation Account

Moses wrote the book of Genesis after the Israelites had left Egypt while they were in the wilderness. The Israelites had just left their homes and were trying to understand who this mighty and powerful God was that had just brought them out of Egypt. Moses’ description of God and the creation of the world in Genesis told the Israelites where they came from and who created them. In this way, Moses was revealing to Israel what kind of God was forming them into a nation.[4]

Content of Creation in Genesis 1

On day one God creates light from darkness and provides light for his creation (Gen 1:3–5). On day two God separates the waters above from the waters below (Gen 1:6–8). On day three God completes his three-day process of forming the earth for life by separating land from sea and by starting vegetation life (Gen 1:9–13). On day four God replaces the light from creation on day one with light from the sun for day and light from the moon at night (Gen 1:14–19). On day five God fills the waters with swimming creatures and fills the skies with flying creatures, then blesses them with the desire to multiply (Gen 1:20–23). On day six God creates man in his image (Gen 1:26–27), blesses humanity to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28–30), and called all he created very good (Gen 1:26–31). On day seven God completed his creation, ceased from his work, and consecrated the seventh day (Gen 2:1–3).

Structure of Genesis 1 and the Israelite Creation Account

While most exegetical studies of the Israelite creation account focus on the sequence of creation, the structure of Genesis 1 must also be examined. Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement of creation, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”[5] This is the main clause or title given for the chapter. Genesis 1:2 reveals a state of chaos, “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.”This verse contains three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information. We could see these three clauses as the “circumstances” of the earth before creation. This state of chaos reveals that the earth is without shape (Gen 1:2a), without light (Gen 1:2b), and is present with God (Gen 1:2c). This structure is vital to a correct understanding of the Israelite creation account compared to ancient Near Eastern accounts because in Genesis 1 God creates from something. For the sake of this paper, Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement of what follows in Genesis 1:3–2:3, thus something exists in Genesis 1:2 when God begins to create in Genesis 1:3. Genesis 1:3—2:3 contains the narrative sequence.[6]

            Many conservative evangelical scholars have interpreted Genesis 1:3—2:3 as narrative history, not as poetry, parable, prophetic, allegory, or myth. The syntax of Genesis 1:3—2:3 suggests it should be considered historical narrative just like one would read the account of Ezra returning to Judah from Persia, Daniel’s experience in Babylon, or the splitting of Israel among Rehoboam and Jeroboam. The Genesis 1 creation account follows the normal form of historical narrative seen throughout the Old Testament canon. This pattern reveals past events by starting with the verb first (preterite / vayyiqtol / vav plus imperfect consecutive), then subject, then object.[7] For those reasons Genesis 1 is viewed as historical narrative, not part of the wisdom genre and poetic nature of Hebrew syntax often found in the Psalms, Proverbs, and the book of Job.

A Single God Created the Earth Divine Fiat and Ex Nihilo

Systematic theologians assert that the Old Testament teaches one God created the earth divine fiat (by mere command) and ex nihilo (from nothing). In this manner of creation there was no cosmic struggle between God and something else. In the Israelite creation account God is the subject of the creative acts seen in Gen 1:1, 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24; 2:2. He is the single supreme deity in the Israelite creation account. Not only is he the only God, but he existed before creation and outside of that creation.[8] In the Israelite creation account God does not use matter or human beings to create. Instead, Genesis 1, Psalm 33:6-9, and Romans 4:14 all affirm that God merely spoke and creation emerged.

Biblical References to the Creation Account

Various passages throughout the Bible attest to the Genesis creation account as a historical event. When Jesus was asked about the topic of divorce he said that God made human beings “male and female from the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:5-6, NLT). Paul describes God as having “existed before anything else and he holds all creation together” (Col 1:17, NLT). The half-brother of Jesus told believers that God “created all the lights in the heavens” (James 1:17, NLT). Extending the creation account beyond just the Israelites was Melchizedek who blessed Abram by “God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth” (Gen 14:19, NLT). Lastly, Revelation 3:14 describes God’s “new creation” which implies something old which had already been created. In addition to these passages, numerous others point to the biblical account of creation as a historical event.[9]

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CREATION MYTHS

Confusion often arises when looking at ancient Near Eastern creation myths because unlike the Israelites’ single account, many ancient Near Eastern cultures had multiple creation accounts. The myths often varied depending on which city they were told in and which god belonged there.[10]

Egyptian Creation Myths

Some believe that there were three creation myths in Egypt[11] while others believe there were four.[12] More than one creation myth creates contradictions about how the world was created and who created it.[13] Therefore, as far as the Egyptian perspective, “There is no single Egyptian account known to date that describes the complete Egyptian perspective on creation. Instead, we have to put together a mosaic of bits and pieces recorded in various documents.”[14]

            The Egyptian creation myth is “thoroughly devoted to Theogony—birth of the gods as they took their forms in the creation of nature.”[15] At the beginning of creation there was only an “infinite dark, watery, chaotic sea.”[16] The gods mentioned in the Egyptian creation accounts were Nun (who existed in the primordial waters), Atum (who emerged from the waters), Enead who was the manifestation of the creation of the material world (generated by Atum), and Re/Re-Amun (the sun).[17] Later, humanity was created by accident, and at the end of the day the creator god rested. Finally pharaoh was born as the firstborn of Re/Re-Amun.[18] Everything was done in a single day[19] mostly by sneezing, spitting, and masturbation.[20] Man was created in the image of Re, or Khnum fashioned man on a patters wheel with the breath of god (if that god was Re, Hekat, or Aton is unclear) or man sprang from the eye of Atum.[21]

Sumerian Creation Myths

The Sumerian creation myth exists because the gods needed relief from laboring for self sustenance.[22] In this myth the goddess Nammu is the one who made the earth,[23] but the creation of man was merely an afterthought as a result of the gods’ desire for laborers.[24] The resulting creation myth of Sumaria is in close connection with the Babylonian Atrahasis epic and Enuma Elish epic.[25]

Canaanite Creation Myths

There are no clear cosmologies about creation in the Canaanite materials. What is known is that El (the head of the Canaanite pantheon) and his wife, Asherah, were creators. El is described as the creator of the earth, gods, and men.[26] Later, El was eclipsed by his son, Baal, who was the storm god and later a fertility god. While little is known of the Canaanite creation account there were “battles between Baal and the Sea (Yamm) and Death (Mot).[27]

Mesopotamian and Babylonian Creation Myths

Numerous gods are named in the two Mesopotamian and Babylonian creation myths. One of the myths is the Enuma Elish epic. The beginning of creation starts with the primordial waters consisting of two gods: Tiamat (salt water god of the deep) and Apsu (fresh water god). A third god, Mummu, appeared later as “vizier” to Apsu. The fresh water and salt water mixed to make the first generation of gods. As a result of the noise of those new gods Apsu could not sleep so he decided he was going to kill the created gods. However, Ea (the god of rivers and streams) found out about Apsu’s plan to kill the new gods so he put Apsu to sleep and then killed Apsu. Ea then fathered his own gods beginning with Marduk (the god of storm).[28] Marduk is said to have become the king of the remaining gods because he defeated and killed his rival gods.[29] When defeating the god Tiamat Marduk used her body—cut in half—to separate the land and the sky.[30] Mankind was created by mixing flesh and blood of a killed god (or gods)[31] with clay. This formed man and gave the spirit of god to man.[32] The other account of Mesopotamian and Babylonian creation myths is Atrahasis. In the Atrahasis epic the god, Ea, created seven human couples to take over the work of the lesser gods. Those lesser gods were in charge of tilling the land and growing food for the greater gods. When they tired and went on strike, Ea created seven human couples to replace the lesser gods’ role in tilling the ground and growing food.[33]

CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY

Continuity

            The Source of Creation. One of the common features seen in the ancient Near Eastern creation myths and the Israelite account is land emerging from the waters. In the Israelite creation account we have the earth being formless, empty, and darkness covering the deep waters (Gen 1:2). Later, on the third day of creation God allows land to “appear” because the water beneath the sky flowed into one place (Gen 1:9). The Egyptian creation account reveals that land emerged only after the water had receded.[34] Another continuity is that in the Israelite creation account mankind was formed by God; in the ancient Near Eastern myths the gods create humankind with matter from the earth. The Israelite creation says that God made human beings in his image (Gen 1:26–27) and later reveals that he “formed the man from the dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7). The Babylonian account reveals that humans were made from the “clay,” but that clay was mixed with “the blood of Kingu or two Lamga gods (craftsman gods).”[35] 

            The Sequence of Creation. Many of the creation events in ancient Near Eastern myths follow the basic structure of the Israelite creation account. While the overall storyline of the Israelite creation account is different than Egypt’s cosmology, most of the other factors of Egypt’s creation myths and other ancient Near Eastern creation myths follow a similar pattern and theme.[36] James Atwell[37] shows the Enuma Elish (Babylonian) chronology closely follows the Israelite account. Both begin with a divine spirit existing external to matter, the matter was full of darkness, and light came from the gods (Enuma Elish) while God created light (Israel). Next was creation of firmament, then creation of dry land, later creation of luminaries, the creation of man, and finally the gods rest and celebrate (Enuma Elish) and God rests and sanctifies the seventh day (Israelite).[38] Furthermore, Soden and Miller relate God’s rest and sanctification of the seventh day of creation to Egypt’s Memphite Theology (one of three or four different creation cosmologies of Egypt). In the Memphite Theology “Ptah rested when all the creating was done and all the gods were settled.”[39] As seen above, there is similarity in the chronology of the Israelite creation account to Babylonia and one of the Egyptian cosmologies.

            The Substance of Creation. The Israelite creation account also matches the Egyptian creation myths in describing “primordial waters” (or “watery”),[40] which would eventually be formed into the earth.[41] Related to the wateriness of the earth in its precreated condition is also the darkness that covered the earth. That darkness is common in the Enuma Elish[42] and Egyptian creation myths.[43] Another brief continuity occurs in the Egyptian “Hermopolis” creation cosmology where the light came from Atum (the sun-god) before formal creation of the sun.[44] The same concept of “light” before the creation of the sun is in the Israelite creation account when God created light on day one (Gen 1:3) but the sun was not created until day four (Gen 1:14–18). In addition, the Israelite creation account and ancient Near Eastern cosmologies focus on a separation between the heavens and the earth. The Sumerians said that the heavens were separated from the earth by the air-god Enil. The Babylonian Enuma Elish made heaven from the upper part of the slain Tiamat. The Egyptian myth tells of Shu, the air god, pushing up Nut (sky goddess) from Geg (earth god) which eventually separated the earth from the sky.[45] In the Israelite creation account God separated the waters of the heavens (sky) and the waters of the earth (Gen 1:6–8).

Discontinuity

Most conservative evangelical scholars would place Genesis 1 and ancient Near Eastern creation accounts into different literary genres. Most view the Israelite creation account as a literal event.[46] Unlike the ancient Near Eastern myths, the “Israelites’ knowledge of God, therefore, was not founded in the first instance on the numinous awareness of nature, as was the case in polytheism. It was based on historical event.”[47] Furthermore, the “God of Israel has no mythology.”[48] The ancient Near Eastern accounts from Egypt, Sumeria, Canaan, and Babylon are normally placed in the literary genre of myth. An ancient Near Eastern myth has possible historical reference contained within its narrative, but an ancient Near Eastern myth does not expressively affirm the historicity of particular features of its narrative.[49] According to Kenton L. Sparks ancient Near Eastern myth “refers to stories in which the gods are major actors and the setting is either in the early cosmos or in the heavens.”[50] Sparks later elaborates, “We must contend as well with the possibility that ancient myth writers sometimes believed their myths to be inspired and hence factually reliable.”[51] Therefore, before examining the stated discontinuities of the ancient Near Eastern creation myths and Israelite creation account it is important to realize some conservative evangelical scholars believe the Israelite account is talking about factual history while the ancient Near Eastern accounts are myths.

            The Source of Creation. The most striking difference between the Israelite creation account and ancient Near Eastern myths is the God (singular) of Israel versus gods (plural) of the ancient Near East. Almost all ancient Near Eastern creation myths involve a myriad of gods[52] while Israel had one God. Another strong discontinuity is the absence of combat and struggle in the Israelite creation account compared to the constant struggle and combat in the ancient Near Eastern creation myths.[53] With regard to the Israelite creation account “any notion of a combat, struggle, or force is absent in both of these creation acts”[54] As Kenneth Kitchen explains, “Genesis 1:1-2:3 presents a calm, stately vista of creation of the cosmos by one supreme deity, untrammeled by complex mythologies or subplots.”[55]

            The Substance of Creation. Unlike the ancient Near Eastern creation myths, the Israelite creation account did not deify or worship the created matter. In this way, Genesis 1 rejects the Egyptian method of deifying the sky, ground, and air.[56] The Egyptian creation myths saw the material world (created matter) as the “embodiment, physical manifestation, or terrestrial incarnation of the individual gods.”[57] For example, the sun was the god Re, the sky was Nut, the ground was Geb, dry air was Shu, moist humidity was Tefnut, the primordial sea was Nun.[58] The Israelite creation account clearly rejects this deification of the created material world. Instead, according to the Israelite creation account, man was to govern the earth and reign over everything on earth (Gen 1:28). Adding to the differences between this creation account and ancient Near Eastern myths is the relationship established between God and man. The ancient Near Eastern myths had humans being made to serve the gods and do the work that the gods had gone on strike from. Yet, in the Israelite creation account God entrusted humans to reign and govern his creation on his behalf (Gen 1:26, 28).

            Another difference is seen in how the Israelite creation account describes the beginning of the human race with a single couple, Adam and Eve. This description of the beginning of humanity is unique because, “nowhere in the ancient texts are human origins depicted in terms of a single couple being created as progenitors of the entire human race. Consequently, if the biblical text includes that idea, it is not doing so in conformity with its ancient Near Eastern environment.”[59] The closest relation to the Israelite creation account of a single couple at the start of the human race is the Atrahasis epic in which the god Ea created seven human couples. Yet the purpose of creating those couples was to take over the work of the lesser gods’ job of growing food for the greater gods.[60] The relationship between this first couple in the Israelite creation account is also a reminder that God provides for his creation when he says to Adam and Eve, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely” (Gen 2:16).[61]

CONCLUSION

This has been an examination of the Israelite creation account and ancient Near Eastern creation myths. There is a strong similarity among these accounts regarding the sequence of creation. And there are subtle continuities regarding the beginning of creation consisting of water as well as continuity of man being formed with matter from the earth.

            However, there are more discontinuities and stronger contrasts among those discontinuities. The first is that the Israelite creation account is often considered a literal and historical creation account compared to the ancient Near Eastern creation myths. Second, there is one supreme and powerful creator in the Israelite creation account while there are many gods mixed into the ancient Near Eastern creation myths. There is no supernatural struggle in the Israelite creation account because God alone created the world. Third, while the ancient Near Eastern creation myths deify the created matter (water, sun, etc.) as “gods,” the only God in the Isrealite creation account is the God which created the earth. Fourth, humanity is entrusted to rule over God’s creation in the Israelite creation account while humans are often depicted in the ancient Near Eastern myths as servants and laborers to the needs of gods. Fifth, the Israelite creation account starts with a single couple as the beginning of the human race which is completely unique from other ancient Near Eastern accounts.

            In light of the evidence presented in this paper there does appear to be some continuity between the Israelite creation account and ancient Near Eastern myths, but the discontinuities are more common and present stronger contrasts. 

            With that stated, readers need to reconcile how these similarities occurred. Was there an oral history of the creation which followers of Yahweh shared and overtime that oral history was adapted into other cultures? Was Moses taking the ancient Near Eastern creation myths (which would he would have known in Egypt) and attributed them to Yahweh? Or are the similarities merely coincidental? This paper has shown there are some similarities, but how those similarities occurred and what they mean are debated among evangelical scholars.

Bibliography

Arnold, Bill T. and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Atwell, James. “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1.” Journal of Theological Studies 51 (2000): 441-447.

Barton, George. “Were the Biblical Foundations of Christian Theology Derived from Babylonia?” Journal of Biblical Literature 40, no. 20 (1921): 87-103.

Bulkeley, Tim. “God as Mother? Ideas to Clarify Before We Start.” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 17 (2004): 107-118.

Hasel, Gerhard. “Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology.” Evangelical Quarterly 46 (1974): 81-102.

Hoffmeier, James. “Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2 in Light of Egyptian Cosmology.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Society 15 (1983): 39-49.

Johnston, Gordon. “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths.” Bibliotheca Sacra 165 (2008): 178-194.

Kitchen, Kenneth. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

Miller, Johnny and John Soden. In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2012.

NET Bible, Full Notes Edition. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson and Biblical Studies, 2019.

Ross, Allen P. “Genesis.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Sparks, Kenton L. “Genesis 1-11 as Ancient Histography.” In Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither, 110-139. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015.

Walton, John. “A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View.” In Four Views on the Historical Adam, 89–118. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.

Webster, Brian L. The Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Wenham, Gordon. “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory.” In Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither, 73-97. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015.

Wright, George. The Old Testament Against Its Environment. SCN Press, 1962.

---

[1] Gordon Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” Bibliotheca Sacra 165 (2008): 194.

[2] Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 420–435.

[3] George Barton, “Were the Biblical Foundations of Christian Theology Derived from Babylonia?” Journal of Biblical Literature 40, no. 20 (1921): 96.

[4] Allen P. Ross, “Genesis” in Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 27.

[5] Unless otherwise noted, Scripture taken from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission.

[6] NET Bible, Full Notes Edition (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson and Biblical Studies Press, 2019), 2.

[7] Brian L. Webster, The Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 108, 264; Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 86.

[8] Some who do not follow the structure described in the previous section would say God also created ex nihilo because there was nothing before he began to create. Before God began to speak the world into creation (Gen 1:3) the world was formless, empty, and dark (Gen 1:2).

[9] Gen 6:7; Job 40:19; Pss 33:6–9; 102:25-26; 104; 148:1–6; Prov 8:22; Ecc 12:1; Isa 40:28; 43:1, 7; 44:24; 45:8–9; 51:13; 54:16; 65:17; Jer 51:19; John 1:3; Rom 1:20, 25; 4:17; Eph 3:9, 14–15; Col 1:16-7; and Heb 1:2–3.

[10] Tim Bulkeley, “God as Mother? Ideas to Clarify Before We Start,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 17 (2004): 109.

[11] One is Heliopolis, another is Memphis, and the final one is Hermopolis. See James Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” Journal of Theological Studies 51 (2000), 449

[12] Pyramid Texts (PT), Coffin Texts (CT), Book of the Dead, and Shabaka Stone. See Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 181.

[13] Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” 454.

[14] Johnny Miller and John Soden, In the Beginning. . . We Misunderstood (Grand Rapids, MI: 2012), 77.

[15] Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 194.

[16] Miller and Soden, In the Beginning, 78.

[17] Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 182.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Miller and Soden, In the Beginning, 80.

[20] Ibid., 78.

[21] Ibid., 79.

[22] Gerhard Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” Evangelical Quarterly 46 (1974): 90.

[23] Ibid., 83.

[24] Ibid., 90.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Miller and Soden, In the Beginning, 139–140.

[27] Ibid., 142.

[28] Ibid., 114.

[29] Bulkeley, “God as Mother?,” 108.

[30] Ibid. 

[31] “Man is formed from clay mingled with the blood of Kingu or two Lamga gods (craftsman gods).” James Hoffmeier, “Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2 and Egyptian Cosmology,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 15 (1983): 47. Also see George Barton, “Christian Theology from Babylonia?,” 88.

[32] Miller and Soden, In the Beginning, 117.

[33] Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1–11 as Protohistory” in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither, edited Charles Halton (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 85.

[34] Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1 & 2 and Egyptian Cosmology,” 46.

[35] Ibid., 47.

[36] Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 182.

[37] Also see Barton, “Were the Biblical Foundations of Christian Theology Derived from Babylonia?,” 93.

[38] Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” 445.

[39] Miller and Soden, In the Beginning, 93.

[40] Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” 451.

[41] Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1 & 2 and Egyptian Cosmology,” 44; Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 178–179.

[42] Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” 452.

[43] Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 185.

[44] Ibid., 186.

[45] Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,”87. Also see Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” 456.

[46] Gen 6:7; 14:19; Pss 33:6–9; 102:25–26; 104; Isa 40:28; 43:1, 7; 44:24; 45:8–9; 51:13; 54:16; 65:17; Jer 51:19; Mark 10:5–6; John 1:3; Rom 1:20, 25; 4:17; Eph 3:9, 14–15; Col 1:16–17; Heb 1:2-3; James 1:17–18.

[47] George Wright, The Old Testament Against Its Environment (SCM Press, 1962), 22.

[48] Ibid., 26.

[49] Wenham, “Genesis 1–11 as Protohistory,” 84.

[50] Kenton L. Sparks, “Genesis 1–11 as Ancient Histography,” 122–123.

[51] Ibid., 123.

[52] Bulkeley, “God as Mother?,” 110.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” 88. Gordon Johnston also affirms this view saying, “More significantly there is no hint of divine conflict between God the primordial waters in Genesis 1.” Gordon Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Egyptian Myths” 179.

[55] Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 427.

[56] Johnston, “Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths,” 190.

[57] Ibid., 192.

[58] Ibid., 192.

[59] John Walton, “A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View,” in Four Views on the Historical Adam, edited by Matthew Barret and Ardel Caneday (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 2013), 99.

[60] Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory,” 85.

[61] One element of the Israelite creation account and ancient Near Eastern creation myths was examined yet was not determined which side of the evidence to be placed. This was the notion of God’s creation divine fiat (mere command). The Israelite creation account is clear that God merely “said” (Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24) and material creation emerged. While Gordon Johnston (“Genesis and Ancient Creation Myths”, pp. 187–188) and Gerhard Hasel (“Polemic Nature of Genesis Cosmology,” pp. 90–91) each say that creation by mere command is unique only to the Israelite creation account, Miller and Soden (In the Beginning, p. 87) and James Atwell (“Egyptian Source for Genesis 1,” p. 465) believe that creation by mere command was common in ancient Near Eastern myths. Therefore, a decision was not made as to whether creation divine fiat was a continuity or discontinuity. 

The Bible makes it clear that Christ died on cross (Matt 27:32-61; Mark 15:33-47; Luke 23:44-56; John 19:28-42) and three days later Jesus came back to life and left the tomb in which he was buried (Matt 28:1-7; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-10; Acts 1:4-8; 9:1-9; 1 Cor 15:6-8).

I love the Bible and trust it as a reliable and credible witness to events that occurred in the first century. Yet, the Bible is not the only witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Based on my research there are five different categories of sources that contain at least thirteen different independent references to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

ANCIENT HISTORIANS

The first category comes from ancient historians. Tacitus was a first century Roman historian and politician who wrote about a Christian that suffered under Pontius Pilate (the man who sentenced Christ to death).[1] Josephus was a Roman-Jewish historian and military leader. He lived AD 37-97 and said that Jesus died and appeared “alive” again to his disciples.[2] Thallus was a historian who wrote a three-volume history of events in the Mediterranean region. He wrote about the physical events of Jesus’s death just as they were recorded in Luke 23:44-45. Scholars say Thallus wrote in AD 52 while Luke did not write his Gospel until AD 65.[3]

JEWISH SOURCES

A second category Jewish sources. The Talmud was a textbook for Jewish Rabbis on laws and theology that’s dated from AD 70-200. It directly references the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.[4] The Toledoth Jesu is a fifth century alternative history of Jesus that states that Jesus was in a tomb but was resurrected and not at the tomb when people came to see him days after his death.[5]

GENTILE SOURCES

A third category is Gentile sources. Lucian was a Syrian satirist, speaker, and writer that used sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek style. He lived AD 125-180 and said that Jesus was the founder of Christianity and was “crucified” for it.[6] Mara Bar-Seraphone was a Syrian (late first century) who wrote a letter to his son describing how the Jews “executed” Jesus.[7]

GNOSTIC SOURCES

A fourth category is “gnostic” sources which talk about Jesus directly but are much less credible than books that are in the Bible. The Gospel of Truth (second century) referenced Jesus as a historical person who had a “death for many . . . nailed to a tree.”[8] The Treatise on the Resurrection (late second century) says that Jesus died and came back to life. The Gospel of Thomas (second century) records Jesus’s death. The Gospel of Peter describes how Mary and other women went to the tomb of Jesus but he was not there.

LOST SOURCES

The fifth category is “lost” sources which we do not have copies of, but portions of these writings are quoted in writings that we do have. The Acts of Pontius Pilate says that in Jesus’s crucifixion he was pierced in his hands and feet. Phlegon (born in AD 80) wrote that Jesus was alive, died, and arose to life after his death.[9]

By no means is this an exhaustive list (just a simple one compiled by a church pastor). There are other “evidences” that Jesus lived, died, and came back to life. I encourage you to do your own search and investigate the claims of Scripture for yourself.

---

[1] Tacitus, Annals, 15.44.

[2] Josephus, Antinquities 18:3.

[3] Extant Writings, 18 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Julius Africanus in 221 quotes the words fof Thallus.

[4] Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a in the Babylonian Talmud.

[5] I have not been able to find the citation of this directly.

[6] Lucian, Death of Pelegrine, 11-13.

[7] British Museum, Syrian MS, add. 14, 658; cited in Habermas, 200.

[8] Gospel of Truth, probably written by Valentinus. See 30:27-33; 31:4-6; 20:11-14, 25-34.

[9] cited by Origen, 4:455; cf. Habermas, 210; Anderson, 19. Origen 14, Julius Africanus, 18.

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONSIM

Young earth creationism believes the earth was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days with the appearance of age. In other words, God created the universe and our world about 6,000-10,000 years ago. (Views vary depending on potential gaps in genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 10-11.) Most young earth creationists believe God created a “mature” earth with the appearance of age. Because the earth was created “good” and “perfect” there was harmony and not “survival of the fittest” before the fall of Genesis 3.

Strengths

• The Hebrew word yom is literal when used with cardinal and ordinal numbers.
• The phrases “evening” and “morning” make no sense unless there are literal days being described.
• Exodus 20:8-11 teaches Israel to work six days and rest on the seventh day following God’s example. This implies literal days.
• There was no death before the Fall in Genesis 3, therefore time and creation operated very differently.
• Noah’s Flood radically changed the earth, therefore time and aging of the earth was very different than now.
• Statements of Jesus, the Apostles, and Isaiah indicated that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after (Psalm 19:1; 97:6; Job 12:7-10; Mark 10:6; 13:19; Luke 11:50-51; Rom 1:20)
• Historical theology supports this interpretation with 1,800 years of Christian history and 1,400 years of Jewish history
• If we believe in God performing miracles and acting supernaturally, then creating everything we see in seven days is certainly within His potential.
• When the Bible describes the creation of the earth by God it is always as a past action not something that was in progress.
• Hebrew syntax supports a plain-literal interpretation of six days of creation over twenty-four hour periods. Genesis 1-2 does not follow the pattern if Hebrew poetry or allegory.
• If Moses wanted to indicate creation took place over millions or billions of years there are other Hebrew words he would have used.
• God uses words of time to describe time in ways we can understand it (Pss 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8).

Weaknesses

• Young earth creationism does not match what most agnostic and atheistic scientists believe in physical science, life science, experimental science, or historical science teaches.

Other Names

• Immediate Creation
• Recent Creation
• Gap Theory

Further Reading

• Ken Ham, “Young Earth Creationism” in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 19-31.
• Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961)
• Henry Morris, Biblical Creationism (Baker, 1993)
• AC Custance, Without Form and Void (Doorway Papers, 1970)
• Henry Morris and John D. Morris, Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth (Institute for Creation Research, 1989)
• John C. Witcomb, Jr., The Early Earth (rev. ed., Baker, 1986)
• John C. Witcomb, Jr., The World that Perished (Baker, 1988)
• Ken Ham, The Answers Book (rev. ed., Master Books, 2000)

Popular Supporters

• David Jeremiah
• John MacArthur
• J. Vernon McGee
• John Calvin
• Martin Luther

OLD EARTH CREATIONISM

According to Old Earth Creationism life appeared gradually over billions of years and that God miraculously intervened to create earth’s first life. In this view the six days of Genesis 1 are actually six long eras.  Adam and Eve were created 12,000-135,000 years ago during the last ice age. Old Earth Creationism views all humans as descendants of two historical persons, and distinct from Neanderthals and Homo erectus. A key part of Old Earth Creationism is the utilization of what they call “constructive integration” which sees Scripture and science as compliments to each other and not in conflict. They see nature as providing observable, measurable, and verifiable information about God’s supernatural handiwork as each successive act prepares for the next. When “mass speciation” events appear in science it is because of divine intervention. Specifically, God introduces diverse species appropriate for Earth’s changing conditions. Old Earth Creationism believes God’s message and meaning is conveyed by biblical authors through figurative language. According to this view, the universe began in a transcendent event, it unfolds for the benefit of humanity, and is sustained continuously according to nature’s laws. Thus the laws of physics have stayed the same (by that they mean the Fall and Flood did not change science as we see it). Old Earth Creationism does not believe in a literal worldwide Flood and diminishes the effects of the Fall on the environment that supports life.

Strengths

• Believes there are twenty major passages and hundreds of additional verses that provide commentary on the natural realm, which they believe is a scientifically testable model.
• The events that occur on the sixth-day appear to need to take longer than a day (Gen 2:9, 19, 21-22, 23; cf. Gen 29:34-35; 30:20; 46:30; Judg 15:3).
• Place a strong emphasis on Genesis 1-11; Job 37-39; Psalm 104; Proverbs 8
• Seventh-day continuation is not a “day” (Heb 4:4-11), therefore it appears to continue and not “end” like others.
• Time according to God is different than time according to us (Pss 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8).
• God’s eternality compared ours is unmeasurable (Pss 90:2-6; Prov 8:22-31; Ecc 1:3-11; Micah 6:2).
• Statements about the earth’s age seem to imply it is very old (Hab 3:6; 2 Peter 3:5).
• There is an exception to the Hebrew word for day, yom, as “24hr” period of time when it is used with an ordinal number (Hosea 6:2).
• The Sabbath gets implemented as “years” in the Law (Exod 20:10-11; Lev 25:4).
• The “evening” and “morning” statements don’t make sense until the sun was created (Gen 1:5, 8, 13; cf. 14-19)

Weaknesses

• Utilizes poetic passages—allegedly about creation—in Job 38-39, Psalm 104, and Proverbs 8 to reinterpret the historical narrative of Genesis 1-2.
• If God can create supernaturally and miraculously, then it is possible He can create everything not just in six days but instantaneously.
• The Bible does not describe creation as a process.
• The Bible describes the Flood narrative of Genesis 6-8 as worldwide, not local.
• Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 describe time according to our perspective and not God’s perspective.
• Death did not begin until Adam’s sin and humankind’s fall (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12-21)
• A forced reconciliation and realignment of what science teaches with what is in the Bible. This leads to criticism from both Young Earth Creationists and Theistic Creationists.
• Requires a new reading and new interpretation of Genesis 1 (that did not exist until the 1800s) based on the claims of science.
• Requires a reinterpretation of Genesis 1 as scientific beliefs change over time (Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, genetics, big bang, astronomy, etc.)
• Sometimes it appears they are saying more than what the text is saying (Job 37-39; Psalm 104, Prov 8). Specifically, the passages they claim describe “mass speciation” events and “mass extinction” events do not appear to be describing those events (Psalm 104:29-30)
• Most DNA and genetic theory do not believe that humanity descended from one man and one woman (but that “number” is declining).
• Places too much emphasis on general revelation and diminishes the significance of special revelation.
• According to science birds (created on day five of Genesis 1) appeared hundreds of millions of years after land animals (created on day six of Genesis 1)
• According to science seed and fruit bearing plants (created on day three of Genesis 1) appeared hundreds of millions of years after sea creatures (created on day five of Genesis 1).
• The Hebrew word yom is literal when used with cardinal and ordinal numbers.

Other Names

• Progressive Creationism

Further Reading

• Hugh Ross, “Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism” Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 71-100.
• Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution (Bethany House, 1985)
• Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days (NavPress, 2004)
• B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Eerdmans, 1964)
• Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off, 2^nd ed. (RTB Press, 2014)

Popular Supporters

• Ray Stedman

EVOLUTIONARY CREATION

Evolutionary creation holds two beliefs: evolution is real and the Bible is true. In the evolutionary process God chose at times to act supernaturally and evolution is the mechanism that God used to achieve His purposes over billions of years. In Evolutionary Creation all species arose through gradual change and are related by a tree of common ancestry. Our human ancestors were a group of several thousand humans that evolved from apes. In this view the first humans lived 150,000-200,000 years ago. The evolutionary process results in natural selection, microevolution, and macroevolution. Evolutionary Creationists state that the Gospel is the central message of Scripture and that Scripture is authoritative not inerrant. This view rejects a literal interpretation of all aspects of creation described in Scripture. Evolutionary Creationism does not see science as a tool for ascribing truth or reliability of Scripture. It states that the Bible does not make scientific predictions, believes geological evidence does not support a worldwide flood, and believes the basic laws of physics did not change with the Flood or Fall (since those were not literal events).

Strengths

• Human “genome” is similar to chimpanzees and also has extra pointless “junk” in our genome as other animals have too.
• States that the Bible does not intend to use scientific language.
• Believes science and the natural laws that it discovers are a testimony to God’s care of all matter and mechanisms.
• Has support from geological evidence. Annual layers of ice from glaciers have been counted back over 100,000 years in Greenland and over 700,000 years in Antarctica. Annual layers of sedimentary rock formed at the bottom of lakes and shallow seas show millions of years of deposits. Radiometric dating is possible for some atoms that are radioactive and decay over time.  For example, a rock formation in Greenland has been dated to 3.6 billion years old. Rocks returned from the moon have been dated to 4.5 billion years old.
• Has support from astronomical evidence because light takes time to travel. The light we see from Andromeda galaxy (the closest galaxy) takes 2.5 million years to reach us.
• States that Genesis focuses on who and why of creation; not on how and when.

Weaknesses

• While the main focus of Genesis is who God is, there is still a strong focus of how and when it happened. Specifically, there are statements about the order of creation and time it took to make that creation.
• Primary focus is on the Book of Nature and not Book of Scripture.
• Refuses the possibility of supernatural interference.
• Evolutionary Creation is contrary to the clear teaching of Genesis 3:20; Acts 17:26; Romans 5:12-19; and 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 that specifically state all humans descended from one man and one woman, and that our sin nature was inherited from Adam.
• The Bible does not describe creation as in progress.
• Rejects historical doctrine of Christianity that Adam and Eve were literal historical persons.
• Utilizes less clear general revelation to reinterpret special revelation.
• Many scientists—both secular and Christian—question the validity of evolution.
• Adam and Eve were not sole progenitors, thus three possibilities are suggested by Evolutionary Creation. One, Adam and Eve were “ancient representatives” of humanity that God entered into relationship with 200,000 years ago in Africa. Two, Adam and Eve were “recent representatives” living 6,000 years ago in the Ancient Near East. Three, Adam and Eve are viewed not as historical persons but instead as symbolic stories in the genre of the Ancient Near East.
• Evolutionary Creation diminishes the doctrine of humans being made in the image of God, original sin, falsely teaches death before the Fall of Genesis 3, allows for natural evil before the fall of Genesis 3, and allows for a “randomness” of creation.
• Must reinterpret the significance of the Fall of Genesis 3, the Flood of Genesis 6-9, and significance of sin in Romans 5:12-21.
• Animals (specifically fossils) appear long before humans in geological records. Why would there be billions of years of death (fossils) before the Fall of humans and entry of sin and death into the world in Genesis 3.

Other Names

• Theistic Evolution

Further Reading

• Deborah Haarsma, “Evolutionary Creation” in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Zondervan, 2017), pp. 124-153.
• Dennis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose (Monarch, 2008)
• Francis Collins, The Language of God (Free Press, 2006)
• Howard Van Till, Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives of the World’s Formation (Eerdmans, 1990)
• Howard Van Till, The Fourth Day, (Eerdmans, 1986)

Popular Supporters

• Deitrich Bonhoeffer

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Intelligent design advocates that a scientific understanding of what we see requires an intelligent “being” as creator. In other words, there was a guiding influence over evolutionary force, not a process of random selection. This is a new faith-based alternative to evolution, however there is no specific designation to the intelligence except for a “creator” or “god.” This view is an “age-neutral theory” to the earth and universe. It does not take a position on how to interpret the book of Genesis or the age of the earth. Intelligent Design proponents believe there are tell-tale features in digital code in DNA, miniature circuits and machines in cells, as well as constants of physics which all point to an intelligent cause. In summary, the creative action of a conscious and intelligent being is an adequate cause for the origin of the things we see.

Strengths

• DNA shows appearance of design because of the specific way that nucleotide bases are arranged in DNA. They are arranged in an exact way that allows them to properly function.
• Genetic information shows a creator making important changes over time. In other words, there are necessary changes in genetic information that are too complex to be random. An example is “function proteins” being developed that are required for life, yet impossible to have been the result of random development.
• Chemical evolutionary theory and the origin of information shows a creative influence. A living cell is too complex to just appear and it must have had a designer. RNA molecules are arranged in such a complex and complimentary way that they could not have found themselves in their current form without a designer.
• Closely follows the discoveries and interpretations of science, but attributes what it sees to a designer, not randomness.
• There are few evidence-based objections.
• Arguments are consistent with what Scripture teaches in Romans 1:20, Acts 14:15-17, Psalm 19:2, Job 12:7-10.

Weaknesses

• Proudly declares the theory is not based on the Bible, but is instead based on scientific discoveries related to intelligent causes. In other words, Intelligent Design is not derived from a religious text, but an inference from science.
• Intelligent Design proponents might have a variety of interpretations of Genesis 1, or they may have none at all.
• Must reinterpret the significance of the Fall of Genesis 3, the Flood of Genesis 6-9, and significance of sin in Romans 5:12-21.
• Is not specific about the date of the earth or creation.
• Some suggest it is “religion masquerading as science.”
• Is too vague in its belief about a “creator” or “god”
• The Bible is completely left out of all arguments.
• Only focuses on origin of creation and does not address the process of creation.
• No Intelligent Design leaders have given serious consideration or explanation of what God said about creation in Genesis 1-2, the Flood in Genesis 6-9, or the age of the earth.

Further Reading

• Stephen Meyer, “Intelligent Design” in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 177-208.
• Michele Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Free Press, 1996)
• Michele Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (Free Press, 2008)
• Charles Thaxton et al., The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (The Philosophical Library, 1984)
• Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial (InterVarsity, 1991)
• Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (Harper One, 2009)
• Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (Harper One, 2013)

Popular Supporters

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CREATION MYTH

While Genesis 1 is likely literal the structure of Genesis 1 is more theological and artistic than literal. In other words, Moses shaped the theology and history as recorded in Genesis 1 based on the genre of literature that was circulating at the time he wrote the Pentateuch. Some scholars say that the Genesis 1 creation account is a literary “polemic” which was meant to refute Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) creation mythologies of Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria, and Canaan. However, debates within this view are about if Moses took ANE creation myths and attributed them to the God of Israel, or was Moses’ creation story in Genesis 1 the original creation story that other ANE cultures intentionally took and changed to their own culture.

Strengths

• There are similarities in the source of creation. In both ANE creation myths and in Genesis land emerges from the waters. In Israel God made humans in His image and formed the man from the dust of the ground. In Babylon humans were made from the “clay,” but that clay was mixed with “the blood of Kingu or two Lamga gods (craftsman gods).”    
• There are some similarities in the sequence of creation. Many of the creation events in ANE myths follow the basic structure of the Israelite creation account. The Enuma Elish (Babylonian) begins with a divine spirit existing external to matter, the matter was full of darkness, and light came from the gods. Next was creation of firmament, dry land, luminaries, man, then the gods rest and celebrate. God’s rest on the seventh day of creation relates to Egypt’s Memphite Theology where Ptah rested when creating was done and all gods were settled.
• There are some similarities in the substance of creation. The Egyptian creation myths describe “primordial waters”, which would eventually be formed into the earth. Darkness is common in the Enuma Elish and Egyptian creation myths. In the Egyptian “Hermopolis” light came from Atum (the sun-god) before formal creation of the sun. The Sumerians said that the heavens were separated from the earth by the air-god Enil. The Babylonian Enuma Elish made heaven from the upper part of the slain Tiamat. The Egyptian myth tells of Shu, the air god, pushing up Nut (sky goddess) from Geg (earth god) which eventually separated the earth from the sky.

Weaknesses

• The myths often varied depending on which city they were told in and which god belonged there. For example, Egypt had four creation myths.
• There are differences in the source of creation. Almost all ANE creation myths involve a myriad of gods while Israel had one God. In the Israelite creation account there is no combat, struggle, or force, while there was a constant struggle and combat in the ANE creation myths.
• There are differences in the substance of creation. Unlike the ANE creation myths, the Israelite creation account did not deify nor worship the created matter. In this way, Genesis 1 rejects the Egyptian method of deifying the sky, ground, and air. For example, the sun was the god Re, the sky was Nut, the ground was Geb, dry air was Shu, moist humidity was Tefnut, the primordial sea was Nun. The ANE myths had humans being made to serve the gods while in the Israelite creation account God entrusted humans to reign and govern his creation.
• Another difference is the fact that the Israelite creation account describes the beginning of the human race with a single couple, Adam and Eve. There are no ancient texts that describe human origins with a single couple as the beginning of the entire human race.

Other Names

• Archetypal Creation View (of Adam)
• Protohistory
• Historico-Literary Genre
• Genesis as Mythopoeic
• Historico-artistic Creation
• Genesis as Polemic

Further Reading

• Walton, John Walton, “A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View” in Four Views on the Historical Adam (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 89-118.
• Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory” in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015)73-97.
• Miller, Johnny and John Soden. In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2012)
• Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)
• John Walton, Ancient Israelites Literature in It’s Cultural Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989)

Popular Supporters

• Bruce Waltke
• Peter Enns
• Gordon Johnston

How and Why We Have Confidence about Some Old Testament Dates

One of the most difficult subjects of Old Testament studies is biblical chronologies.[1] The authors of Old Testament books wrote to tell the history of Israel from a theological point of view, not necessarily a chronological focus. Therefore, when we try to determine Old Testament dates we need to look at both biblical and non-biblical information, note areas of correlation, and then try to fit that information into a cohesive system.

Firm Dates Known with Certainty in the Old Testament

There are some Old Testament events that can be identified with accuracy. Assyrian and Babylonia chronologies can be correlated with the reign of an Israelite or Judean king and accurate Bible dates can be determined within 10 years between 1,000 BC to 900 BC. After 900 BC the margin for error shrinks to less than a year.[2] This is possible because of the careful records kept by the kings of Assyria, precise records kept by Babylon, as well as a datable astronomical event.

Unfortunately, this type of information is rare and mostly limited to after 1,000 BC. Dates of Abraham’s journey to Canaan (Genesis 12-22) and the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 12-18) are less certain. David Howard, who is an Old Testament professor at Bethel Theological Seminary, has said “the Bible does not have exact synchronic references in these earlier periods, and thus we see wider margins for error in dating such events as the exodus.”[3] Therefore, the farther you reach back into Old Testament history the larger the margin of error is. Conversely, more recent Old Testament historical events possess more confidence in their dates such as the ascension of David, Solomon’s rule, the final fall of Jerusalem, the edict of Cyrus, return of Nehemiah, etc.

One of the dates scholars can have confidence in is the ascension of David to the throne in 1010 BC (2 Sam. 1:1-2; 2:1-4).[4] Another date Bible scholars can be sure of is the date of Solomon’s rule (970-931 BC). Kenneth Kitchen, who served as professor of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool in England, has used Assyrian and Egyptian lists as well as historical records to assign an accurate date to Solomon’s rule that is within one year of accuracy.[5]

Another date we hold with confidence is the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 586 BC. We arrive at this date by starting with the death of King Josiah in 609 BC. Josiah’s death is described in 2 Kings 23:28-30 (as well as 2 Chronicles 35:20-25). A historian from Greece named Herodotus traveled the world and wrote a history of Egypt and Babylon. In his book, Histories, published in 430 BC he records this battle between King Josiah of Judah and Necho of Egypt.[6] The date of this battle is 609 BC.

The date of the battle of Carchemish also helps us firmly establish the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 586 BC. Jeremiah 46:1-12 depicts the battle of Carchemish where Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed the Assyrian and Egyptian forces (the same Egyptian forces that killed Josiah). This battle is recorded in what is called “The Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle” which is housed in the British Museum. The date of the battle of Carchemish is 605 BC.

Next we move on to King Jehoaichin who’s reign ended in Judah in 597 BC. A series of “Babylonian Chronicles” (currently located in the Pergamum Museum in Berlin Germany) were found in the royal archive room of King Nebuchadnezzar near the Ishtar Gate in Babylon. These tablets—dating 595 to 570 BC—record oil and grain given to King Jehoaichin and his sons while they were in captivity in Babylon.

Because of these contemporary records that correlate with biblical events, we hold with confidence that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC. The death of Josiah in 609 BC, the battle of Carchemish in 605 BC, and the end of the reign of Jehoaichin in 597 BC[7] allow us to establish 586 BC as the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem because Zedekiah reigned for 11 years (2 Kings 24:18) until King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon conquered Jerusalem and burnt the temple (2 Kings 25).

I hope you can see we don’t have to be wishy washy with some Old Testament dates. Because of biblical records that correlate to contemporary historical events, we can be certain of many Old Testament events after 1,000 BC. A few important ones it’s good to fix our minds on are the division of Israel into a kingdom in the north and south in 931 BC, the fall of Israel in the north to Assyria in 722 BC, the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem in Judah by the Babylonians in 586 BC, and King Cyrus of Persia’s conquering of Babylon in 539 BC which initiated a decree and return of Jews to the land of Judah.

Sources Used to Establish Biblical Chronologies

As we seek to establish a set of Old Testament dates it’s important to evaluate the sources we use to establish those dates.

Biblical Sources

Two sources are explicitly stated in the Old Testament that record events and establish Old Testament chronologies. These two sources are “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” (1 Kings 14:29) and “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” (1 Kings 14:19). In addition to these two sources in the books of Chronicles and Kings there are many other sources used to establish a biblical chronology. The author of 1 and 2 Chronicles used thirty-two different sources when writing those two books.[8] His sources can be summarized into three categories of official annals, genealogical records, and prophetic recordings. (“The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” and “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” are annals—official court records—kept by the schools of the prophets.)[9] These are the main sources we use to establish reliable Old Testament dates.

Extra-Biblical Sources[10]

Extra biblical materials have not endured the same levels of preservation nor continuous interpretation as the Bible has. Thus we probably should not place a heavy weight on their use. Yet, there are still strong synchronisms that exist between the Babylonia and Assyrian records and the Bible that help us establish reliable dates for Old Testament events.[11]

The nation of Israel was located between Assyria (later Babylonia in the Northeast) and Egypt (in the Southwest). These nations record numerous wars, sieges, and conquering campaigns that they experienced. Because these nations kept detailed records for what they did and when they did them, that information can be reconciled with information in the Old Testament to establish accurate dates for Bible events.[12] These various extra biblical records are records of military campaigns, inscriptions related to a specific victory or dedication, annals which list the major accomplishments of a ruler, and pieces of pottery with inscriptions on them.[13] It is important to remember that these pieces of extra-biblical information supplement the account of the Bible, they do not replace the inspired inerrant text. 

Among some of the most abundant extra-biblical information that helps to establish biblical chronologies are the limmu lists of the nation of Assyria. These are summaries of where and what specific kings did. Historians have provided dates for when they believe these Assyrians kings ruled on the limmu list. Thus, we can use the limmu lists and correlate them with the Assyrian kings that are mentioned in the Bible. (Out of the twenty-two foreign rulers mentioned in 1 and 2 Kings and in 1 and 2 Chronicles, twenty of those kings are attested in ancient near eastern literature.)[14] These lists were records of significant events that occurred each year under that specific king. These lists provide valid information that can be corroborated with the Old Testament and give us confidence when reconstructing the chronology of history that corresponds to biblical history.

I hope your confidence in the dates we set for when Old Testament events happened is strengthened as we look at this information. While we now have a basic understanding of the sources, it’s important to understand the different ways that different countries utilized those sources.

Significant Dating Factors Used to Establish Biblical Chronologies

When establishing a chronology of events in the Old Testament it is important to recognize that neither Judah nor Israel from (931-586 BC) recognized each other’s dating system. (1 Kings 12:16-20 describes how the nation of Israel split into two kingdoms under King Rehoboam in 931 BC.) Each nation wrote its own history using its own dating system. This is one—of many difficulties—that arise when attempting to establish Old Testament chronologies.

Regnal-Year Dating and Co-Regencies

Both Israel and Judah utilized different forms of what is called Regnal-Year Dating. This is a dating system by reference to the years of a king’s reign.[15] Even though both Israel and Judah used regnal-year dating, they utilized this system in different ways. Thankfully the Assyrian and Babylonia kings appear in the Old Testament text (particularly 2 Kings and in Chronicles) which makes it possible to assimilate the regnal dating of the Old Testament with regnal dating of the Assyrian and Babylonian time.[16]

Accession-Year Dating Used by Judah as well as Babylon

Accession-Year Dating is a form of Regnal-Year Dating in which a nation (particularly Babylon and Assyria) counted the year that a new king took his throne as belonging only to the previous king. This meant that the year that a king took the throne was not counted as part of his reign. Therefore his “first year” was actually the second year of reigning as king.

Another way to explain the accession-year system is that it “distinguished a king’s accession year (the incomplete calendar year in which he began to reign) and reckoned by the number of New Year days a king lived in his reign.”[17] This leads to a separate “accession-year” which is excluded from the account of a king’s reign and is rather credited to the previous king whose reign just ended.[18] Accession-year dating was under David and Solomon and continued in Judah after the split of Israel in 931 BC.[19]

Non-Accession-Year Dating Used by Israel and Egypt

Egypt and the Northern Kingdom of Israel recorded what is called Non-Accession-Year Dating. In “Egypt (and elsewhere) the new king reckoned the partial year as his Year 1, disregarding his predecessor. This is the non-accession-year system, or ante-dating. And that’s what the kings of Israel used.”[20] This means that one year would often be counted twice: once for the previous king and once for the new king.[21] Israel in the north used non-accession-year dating starting in 931 BC possibly because it wanted to distinguish itself from Judah in the south (from which it had rebelled) or it might have been used because Jeroboam I (son of Nebat) had spent time in Egypt to escape from King Solomon and learned about that system while there (1 Kings 12:2).[22] Further explanation for the non-accession year system is that “the remainder of a previous king’s last year is counted as the first year of his successor, and then subsequent years are calculated from Nisan to Nisan in Israel, or Tishri to Tishri is Judah.”[23]

Co-Regencies

Another factor that makes creating a biblical chronology difficult is co-regencies. For example, the nation of Judah sometimes made their sons “co-regents” as a way to provide on the job training and to ensure a smooth transition of kingship power.[24] In the nation of Judah we see  Jehoshaphat, Jerhoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Manasseh all began as co-regent kings with their father.[25] Because of co-regencies in both Judah and Babylon (Belshazzar, a king in Babylon also was a co-regent with his father, Nabonidus), another layer of complexity is added to the dating of events.

Co-regencies in Scripture are an issue because “sometimes the number given is from the time a ruler became coregent; sometimes it is from the time he became king. Similarly the total years ruled may or may not include co-regency years and unless this is written into the translation it is not possible to make sense of the figures.”[26] This further adds to confusion, not necessarily errors in the biblical text. “When events are dated during the life of a king or coregent . . . it is a fact—which may not be significant—that these are dated according to his kingship. There are no instances of such events dated from the time of the king’s son became coregent.”[27] Even though this information might appear insignificant, it makes establishing a historical chronology difficult.

Factors That Make “Year” Chronologies Difficult

Another factor that makes chronologies of the Old Testament difficult is that the “calendar year” was different than what is used today. Furthermore, the calendar years used by neighboring nations were different than each other. “This ambiguity in dates [which we see today] existed even in ancient times because neighboring kingdoms used different systems. Years in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah began in different seasons; a year in one kingdom, therefore, straddled two years in the other.”[28] No wonder counting years accurately is so complex!

The nation of Israel used a calendar system that went from the month of Nisan to Adar in the Hebrew calendar (approximately April to March).[29] This calendar was also used by the nation of Babylon.[30] The nation of Judah used a calendar system that went from the month of Tishri to Elul in the Hebrew calendar (approximately September to August).[31] This calendar system started under the reigns of David and Solomon and continued after the split of Israel in 931 BC.[32]

Further complicating this is that the calendar systems of Israel, Judah, Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt used do not correlate to the modern January to December yearly calendar currently practiced in the modern world. Even if these nations all kept exact dates, it is difficult for modern scholars to work backward more than 3,000 years, reconcile the modern calendar system to ancient nation calendaring systems, and reconcile different calendar systems with each other independent of the modern calendaring system.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

While there are many factors involved in the process of setting dates of Old Testament events, I hope what you’ve read gives you a greater appreciation for the work that goes into determining the dates that specific Old Testament events happened. And I hope that you have learned to accept some flexibility if some of these dates differ slightly in different study resources.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boda, Mark and J. Gordon McConville, Editors. Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012.

Comfort, Philip W., and Walter A. Elwell, eds. Tyndale Bible Dictionary: A comprehensive guide to the people, places, and important words of the Bible. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

Drinkard, Joel F., Jr., and E. Ray Clendenen. “Chronology of the Biblical Period.” Edited by Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England, Steve Bond, E. Ray Clendenen, and Trent C. Butler. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.

Gerhald Larsson, “Chronology as a Structural Element in the Old Testament,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, vol. 14, no. 2, (2000): 207-219.

Howard, David. An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1993.

Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” Biblical Archeology Review, September/October 2001, 32-37, 58.

McFall, Leslie. “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles.” Bibleotheca Sacra (Jan-March 1991): 3-45.

Merrill, Eugene. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, 2 Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.

Rusten, E. Michael and Sharon. The Compete Book of When and Where in the Bible. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2005.

“The Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy.” In New Living Translation Study Bible. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2007.Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Vol. 1. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Young, Rodger. “When Was Samaria Captured? The Need for Precision in Biblical Chronologies,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society¸ vol. 47, no. 4 (December 2004): 577-595.

---

[1] Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles,” Bibliotheca Sacra (Jan-March 1991): 42.

[2] David Howard, An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1993), 168-169.

[3] Ibid., 169.

[4] Ibid., 167.

[5] Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” Biblical Archeology Review, (September/October 2001), 34.

[6] Herodotus also records many details of the Persian Empire that can be correlated with details recorded in the Bible in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Jeremiah

[7] Philip W. Comfort and Walter A. Elwell, eds., Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 277.

[8] David Howard, Introduction to the Old Testament, 272.

[9] Rodger Young, “When Was Samaria Captured? The Need for Precision in Biblical Chronologies”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society¸ vol. 47, no. 4 (December 2004): 586.

[10] I firmly believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency, and authority of Scripture, thus it is difficult to place a high emphasis on extra-biblical materials

[11] David Howard, Introduction to the Old Testament, 168.

[12] Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 32-33.

[13] Philip W. Comfort and Walter A. Elwell, eds., Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 272.

[14] Gordon Johnston, “OT in the Public Square: Part Four—Historicity of the Divided Monarch Period” (slide 169) in OT 103 Elements of Hebrew, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2015 .

[15] “The Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in New Living Translation Study Bible, (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2007), 562.

[16] Ibid.

[17] “Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide,” 7.

[18] Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 34.

[19] “Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in NLT Study Bible, 563 quoted from Edward R. Thiele, “The Mysterious Number of the Hebrew Kings,” 3^rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1983), 47-51.

[20] Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 34.

[21] “Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in NLT Study Bible, 563.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide,” 7.

[24] “Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in NLT Study Bible, 564.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide,” 7. Emphasis added.

[27] Ibid., 41.

[28] Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 35.

[29] “Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide,” 7 and Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 35.

[30] “Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in NLT Study Bible, 563.

[31] “Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide,”7 and Kenneth Kitchen, “How Do We Know When Solomon Ruled,” 35.

[32] “Chronology of Israel’s Monarchy,” in NLT Study Bible, 563.