Blue Cord

A new book out by Alan Bond and Mark Hempsell entitled A Sumerian Observation of the Köfels’ Impact Event claims that an Assyrian tablet from around 700 BCE is a copy of a Sumerian tablet that recorded a sighting of the impact of a asteroid [sic, not “meteor”] that hit in the Alps on June 29, 3123 BCE. The story has been reported in several news outlets, including a piece at Fox News.

In and of itself, the claim is not surprising. Mesopotamian astronomers kept excellent records and very detailed notes on astronomical events. The Ammisaduqa Venus tablets, for instance, contain notes on the appearance of Venus in the morning and evening skies in the Old Babylonian Period (around the 17th century BCE). These observations are precise enough to be correlated with calculations of planetary positions during that time, which makes them one of the lynch pins in chronology for that period.¹

I find three problems with Bond and Hempsell’s claims. One is that they try to connect this asteroid with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and a number of other cataclysmic events recorded in ancient documents. According to the Fox News story:

[Hempsell] said the size and route of the asteroid meant that it was likely to have crashed into the Austrian Alps at Köfels. As it traveled close to the ground it would have left a trail of destruction from supersonic shock waves and then slammed into the Earth with a cataclysmic impact.

Debris consisting of up to two-thirds of the asteroid would have been hurled back along its route and a flash reaching temperatures of 400 Centigrade (752 Fahrenheit) would have been created, killing anyone in its path.

Even if we assume for the moment that Sodom and Gomorrah were real cities that actually were destroyed at some point (a rather large assumption), a number of details from the Sodom and Gomorrah story don’t match with the Köfels event. First, this event happened in 3123 BCE, whereas the Sodom and Gomorrah story in the Bible is placed somewhere in the early 2nd millennium BCE. Second, the path of destruction would have taken out a lot more than just five cities around the Dead Sea. If the conditions were as Hempsell described them, then the path of destruction would have run across the Karak Plateau in Moab, over the Jordan valley, and up across the Central Hill Country of Palestine. This is a much larger area than was covered in the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

The second issue stems from the claim that the planisphere is a copy of a text from 3123 BCE. Sumerian writing is in its earliest stage in 3100 BCE. I find it hard to believe that we have such a detailed text from this time period. We don’t start getting numerous text in Sumerian until later centuries, and true astronomical observations don’t really begin until the 2nd millennium BCE. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this text records the Köfels impact, but it seems highly unlikely to me.²

Third, the tablet notes that the Sumerian astronomer says the object looked like “a white stone bowl approaching.” If the asteroid’s path took it on a low trajectory over the Dead Sea area on its way toward the Alps, an observer in Sumeria would not have seen it “approaching.” Instead, it would have moved low across the southwestern horizon and would not have appeared to approach. The description of object as a bowl also does not match the trail of smoke and debris that would have been left by an 1 km wide asteroid.

Obviously I cannot give a complete critique of their work until I read the book, but I find their theories to be highly suspect. Both Bond and Hempsell are scientists, not Assyriologists, and their lack of training in the ANE shows through. I suspect they would have similar critiques of my work if I ever chose to publish a book on physics, which is why I don’t publish academic books outside my field. Although their theories may be given credibility by those who are eager to latch on to any evidence that suggests the Bible is historically accurate, I doubt they will be accepted by most scholars.

Hat tip: Claude Mariottini.

1. Because of my interest in astronomy, I did some work with these tablets when I was a grad student at Johns Hopkins. [back]
2. Someone who is a specialist in Sumerian could speak to this better than I could. [back]

As part of my writing for International Biblical Studies Writing Month (held over for a second month due to popular demand), I am writing an exegetical essay on Isaiah 65:17-25 for the Feasting on the Word lectionary series. I came across an interesting aspect of the passage that I thought I would discuss.

It is widely recognized that Isaiah 65:25 alludes to Isaiah 11:6-9. Isaiah 65:25a states:

The wolf and the lamb will graze together; the lion will eat straw like the ox; and the serpent will have dust for its food.¹

It occurs to me that this is a rather odd statement. The first two phrases quoted above envision a return to the conditions of the Garden of Eden. The imagery is right at home in this passage, which envisions God creating a new heavens and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17). It also matches the heavenly vision of Isaiah 11:6-9.

But what is going on with the serpent? In Isaiah 11:8, the child will play with the asp and the adder without being hurt. This would make us think that the serpent eating dust is in contrast to its previous predilection. But Genesis 3:14 (which was probably known to Third Isaiah) states that eating dust is the serpent’s punishment. This would suggest that while the other animals are returning to the peaceful existence of the Garden of Eden, the serpent still bears its punishment. This doesn’t match with the thrust of the verse or with the material to which it alludes in Isaiah 11:6-9.

Blenkinsopp offers the following suggestion:

[The author] was apparently convinced that, having been cursed from the very beginning, snakes are the one exception to this ideal scene of harmony in the animal world. The snake is therefore excluded from this transformation of the natural world, this return to the first creation, in which humans and animals are to live in harmony and none will kill for food.²

This explanation leaves me less than satisfied. After all, nothing states that the serpent is not going to live in harmony. It won’t be killing for food, since it will eat dust. And the main animosity in Genesis 3 is between the serpent and humans, not between serpents and other animals.

But I still don’t have a satisfactory explanation for what is going on with the serpent. Does Isaiah 65:25 see this as a positive or negative for the serpent? Is the serpent going to eat dust instead of attacking humans? Or is the serpents fate contrasted with the fate of the other animals through a reiteration of the curse in Genesis 3:14? What is going on?

Anyone have any ideas?

1. My translation. [back]
2. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 55-66, Anchor Bible 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 290. [back]

The class I am teaching this semester is a one semester introduction to the Bible. I have always found it hard to teach the Bible in one year, but cramming it into one semester is just nuts. In order to get everything in, I have to teach the patriarchs in just one session. That session happened to be today. Ordinarily I would have 65 minutes per class. But today is Martin Luther King, Jr., Day, so all of our classes have been shortened to 50 minutes. Poor Isaac only got mentioned in one PowerPoint slide!

Just when I thought my treatment of the patriarchs couldn’t get any more compressed than it already was . . .

On the other hand, I did coin the adjective “birthrightalicious” to refer to the soup Jacob gave to Esau for his birthright, so the day is not a total loss.

Steve Cook and John Hobbins both replied to my post on H in Genesis. I wanted to address their comments.

Steve is right, of course, in pointing out that Knohl does not completely reject the idea of H in Genesis. In addition to p.103, n.150, which Steve notes, Knohl also says on p.60 that parts of Genesis 17 may belong to HS. This is a far cry, however, from attributing large amounts of narrative to H as John and Jim Getz have done.

John asks how I explain Ezekiel when I date H to the post–exilic period. The answer is that I see a development of tradition from PT, through Ezekiel, to HS. Ezekiel is, in effect, writing Torah, especially in Ezekiel 40-48. But according to the authors of the Pentateuch, all Torah is given at Sinai. This leads to HS taking many of the ideas of Ezekiel and writing them into the Pentateuch. For one example of this, see my post on P in the book of Numbers.

John also criticizes van Seters for seeing J as entirely post–D, but I don’t think this is an entirely accurate reading of van Seters. J the author certainly worked post–D according to van Seters, but I am sure he doesn’t deny that J drew upon older traditions (and even if van Seters denies this, I don’t). Although I am not directly familiar with Blum’s work on the Jacob stories, I would have no problem seeing a pre–exilic version of this story. It probably had several versions, some that are oral and some that are written. This does not change the fact that J as an author is post–D.

Finally, John thanked me for keeping this topic going, but I wanted to thank those who have responded (and hopefully will continue to respond) to this thread. As you know, I am currently not working in academics, so my only colleagues are those in the biblioblogosphere. Thanks to all of you for providing the intellectual stimuli I need to challenge my thinking on this topic.

Jim Getz and John Hobbins both replied to my previous post on whether the narratives in Genesis are from P or H (or better, PT or HS). I wanted to respond to their responses.

I would be interested in hearing what Knohl has to say on the subject of the narratives being from H. In The Sanctuary of Silence, he attributes all of Genesis to PT in one paragraph on p.60. He states, “In most of [Genesis] we find no linguistic features typical of HS; thus, we may assign them to PT, as is commonly accepted.” If he has rethought this, I would like to hear his arguments.

I would love to hear what Jim’s colleague has to say in her dissertation. If you don’t mind, please ask her to drop a comment on my blog if she has the time.

Jim points out that the Covenant Code is earlier than material in D, P, and H. I would agree, but I don’t think anyone would assign it to J. J may have been the one who edited it into Exodus, but it was around before that.

As for van Seters, there is a great deal on which he can be criticized and places where I disagree with him, but I think his main point that J is post-D is solid. At the very least, it certainly cannot be assigned to the 10th century any longer. This is a conclusion that has been reached by a number of scholars in Europe.

John points towards Milgrom. I quickly looked through his Anchor Bible commentary and his Fortress Press commentary (both on Leviticus) and didn’t see anything that suggested he assigned the narratives in Genesis to HS. Milgrom, like Knohl, sees P and H as being pre-exilic. He sees H as being later than JE, D, and P. I agree with him on P being pre-exilic, but I would date H to the post-exilic period, and thus still later than what used to be called J.

One final question to both Jim and John: If we assign the narratives to H, what then is left of P? Wouldn’t H have then taken over pretty much all of the Priestly Source? If that is the case, then all we have done is change the letter we use to refer to the Priestly Source.