The Cultural Divide Between the Ancient Near East and the Wealth of Modern Knowledge/Information -- Where Do We Get Our Answers From Today? What Expands Our Minds the Most Today?

Ancient Israelites used to rely heavily on biblical writings for information about the world, such writings constituted a Holy Answer Book to questions both large and small:

How did heaven and earth and the things in them come to be? See the Creation story.

Why do the sexes love each other so much? Why do women experience great pain during childbirth? Why does it take so much effort to grow crops to feed ourselves instead of us being able to live in a luxurious garden with fruit and green plants we can pluck and eat at will? Why do snakes go on their bellies? Why do humans hate them so much? Where did death come from? Why do humans have the god-like attribute of great knowledge but return to the dust like animals instead of enjoying the other god-like attribute, immortality? Why do humans wear clothes? See the Garden of Eden story.

Where do rainbows come from? See the Flood story.

Will there ever be another Flood like the one in Noahʼs day? —a question of grave concern to people who believed that creation arose in the midst of primeval waters and continued to be surrounded on all sides by water that was held back by divine power, and should that divine power release its grip then creation would be reduced again to its original watery “empty and void” state. See the Creation and Flood stories.

Why are there so many different languages and tribes spread out upon the earth? See the Tower of Babel story.

How did Israel come to have this glorious land of Canaan? See the Exodus story.

Non-Israelite nations invented their own legendary answers as to why the world was the way it was. Where do rainbows come from? A Babylonian legend in The Epic of Gilgamesh says rainbows are the lapis lazuli necklace of Ishtar that she placed in the sky to remind her never to flood the world again. Why do spiders spin webs? Because a seamstress named Arachne challenged the Greek goddess Athena to a spinning contest which the mortal won, but was a little too sassy about it, so the goddess changed her into the very first spider, and said, “O.K., now you can spin all you want.”

Additional answers provided by Israelite legends include the following:

Why are there two great lights (literal Heb. “great lamps”) in the sky that appear and disappear at regular intervals? God provided them so we can measure the time between religious festivals (the Hebrew word for “seasons” in Genesis 1 is used in the Pentateuch to denote religious festivals). The Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish, explains the lights in the sky the same way, as timekeepers put there by their high god, Marduk, so that humans can tell when the next religious festival in his honor was due to be celebrated.

Why is every seventh day a sacred day of rest? Because God rested on the seventh day of creation.

Biblical writings also provided answers to questions like, Why are we at odds with a particular nation? Because itʼs in their blood, their eponymous ancestors behaved badly toward us so itʼs little wonder that their descendants still do. Why did we kill and enslave people living in the land of Canaan? Because the alleged son of a son of Noah, named “Canaan” was allegedly cursed along with all of his descendants, the Canaanites, to be the slaves to Noahʼs other sons.

Hermann Gunkel (1862—1932), a German Old Testament scholar, wrote The Legends of Genesis, the first part of his massive commentary on Genesis, in which he points out many cases of OT authors attempting to produce answers to questions of both a global and tribal nature, “The Varieties Of Legends In Genesis”

“The answers to such questions constitute the real content of the respective legends…

“Why has Japhet such an extended territory? Why do the children of Lot dwell in the inhospitable East? How does it come that Reuben has lost his birthright? Why is Gilead the border between Israel and the Aramæans? Why does Beersheba belong to us and not to the people of Gerar? Why is Shechem in possession of Joseph? Why have we a right to the holy places at Shechem and Machpelah? Why has Ishmael become a Bedouin people with just this territory and this God? How does it come that the Egyptian peasants have to bear the heavy tax of the fifth, while the fields of the priests are exempt? The usual nature of the answer given to these questions by our legends is that the present relations are due to some transaction of the patriarchs: the tribal ancestor bought the holy place, and accordingly it belongs to us, his heirs; the ancestors of Israel and Aram established Gilead as their mutual boundary, and so on. A favorite way is to find the explanation in a miraculous utterance of God or some of the patriarchs, and the legend has to tell how this miraculous utterance came to be made in olden times. And this sort of explanation was regarded as completely satisfactory, so that there came to be later a distinct literary variety of ‘charm’ or ‘blessing.’”

“Along with the above we find etymological legends or features of legends, as it were, beginnings of the science of language… Ancient Israel spent much thought upon the origin and the real meaning of the names of races, mountains, wells, sanctuaries, and cities. To them names were not so unimportant as to us, for they were convinced that names were somehow closely related to the things. It was quite impossible in many cases for the ancient people to give the correct explanation, for names were, with Israel as with other nations, among the most ancient possessions of the people, coming down from extinct races or from far away stages of the national language… Early Israel as a matter of course explains such names without any scientific spirit and wholly on the basis of the language as it stood. It identifies the old name with a modern one which sounds more or less like it, and proceeds to tell a little story explaining why this particular word was uttered under these circumstances and was adopted as the name. We too have our popular etymologies. How many there are who believe that the noble river which runs down between New Hampshire and Vermont and across Massachusetts and Connecticut is so named because it ‘connects’ the first two and ‘cuts’ the latter two states! Manhattan Island, it is said, was named from the exclamation of a savage who was struck by the size of a Dutch hat worn by an early burgher, ‘Man hat on!’… Similar legends are numerous in Genesis and in later works. The city of Babel is named from the fact that God there confused human tongues (balal, Gen 11: 9); Jacob is interpreted as ‘heelholder’ because at birth he held his brother, whom he robbed of the birthright, by the heel (Gen 25:26); Zoar means ‘trifle,’ because Lot said appealingly, ‘It is only a trifle’ (Gen 19:20,22); Beersheba is ‘the well of seven,’ because Abraham there gave Abimelech seven lambs (21:28 ff.); Isaac (Jishak) is said to have his name from the fact that his mother laughed (sahak) when his birth was foretold to her (18:12), and so forth.

“In order to realize the utter naĩveté of most of these interpretations, consider that the Hebrew legend calmly explains the Babylonian name Babel from the Hebrew vocabulary, and that the writers are often satisfied with merely approximate similarities of sounds: for instance, “Cain” (Kajin) sounds like the Hebrew for “gotten” (kaniti, ‘I have acquired/gotten,’ hence the legend arose that when Cain was born to Eve she said, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord” (Gen 4:1); Reuben from rah beonji, ‘he hath regarded my misery’ (Gen 29:32), etc. Every student of Hebrew knows that these are not satisfactory etymologies…

“More important than these etymological legends are those whose purpose is to explain the regulations of religious ceremonials… [For instance, circumcision was common in the ancient world but we Israelites] perform the rite of circumcision in memory of an alleged covenant between our God and our eponymous ancestor Abraham, and also in memory of a story involving Moses, whose firstborn was circumcised as a redemption for Moses whose blood God demanded (Ex 4:24 ff.)… The stone at Bethel was first anointed by Jacob because it was his pillow in the night when God appeared to him (Gen 28.11 ff.), therefore we continue to anoint it today. At Jeruel—the name of the scene of the near-sacrifice of Isaac, Gen 22:1-19—God at first demanded of Abraham his child, but afterward accepted a ram, so we likewise sacrifice animals to redeem our first born. And so on…

“Why is this particular place and this sacred memorial so especially sacred? The regular answer to this question was, Because in this place the divinity appeared to our ancestor. In commemoration of this theophany we worship God in this place. Now in the history of religion it is of great significance that the ceremonial legend comes from a time when religious feeling no longer perceived as self-evident the divinity of the locality and the natural monument and had forgotten the significance of the sacred ceremony. Accordingly the legend has to supply an explanation of how it came about that the God and the tribal ancestor met in this particular place. Abraham happened to be sitting under the tree in the noonday heat just as the men appeared to him, and for this reason the tree is sacred (Gen 19:1 ff.). The well in the desert, Lacha-roi, became the sanctuary of Ishmael because his mother in her flight into the desert met at this well the God who comforted her (Gen 16:7 ff.). Jacob happened to be passing the night in a certain place and resting his head upon a stone when he saw the heavenly ladder; therefore this stone is our sanctuary (Gen 28:10 ff). Moses chanced to come with his flocks to the holy mountain and the thorn bush (Ex 3:1 ff.). Probably every one of the greater sanctuaries of Israel had some similar legend of its origin.

“Other sorts of legends… undertake to explain the origin of a locality. Whence comes the Dead Sea with its dreadful desert? The region was cursed by God on account of the terrible sin of its inhabitants. Whence comes the pillar of salt yonder with its resemblance to a woman? That is a woman, Lotʼs wife, turned into a pillar of salt in punishment for attempting to spy out the mystery of God (Gen 19:26). But whence does it come that the bit of territory about Zoar is an exception to the general desolation? Because God spared it as a refuge for Lot (19:17-22).”

“Answers” like those above are no longer assumed to be true.

We moderns have learned the benefits of investigating questions using all possible comparative historical, linguistic, and scientific means, even leaving questions open if those means fail us.

Instead of relying primarily on biblical writings to supply answers, moderns rely on electronic devices that connect us with countless scholarly resources, a worldwide library of ancient and modern writings and images at our fingertips, including sights from space and deep inside matter. Such devices show us the outermost regions of the cosmos as well as whatʼs inside our bodies, illustrating how it works, and even tell us the weather a week in advance. Such devices teach as well as entertain (functions more often served in the past by biblical stories). They also keep us in touch with one another. They have become humanityʼs new place to turn to, like Bibles used to be. Thereʼs much more to read about today and learn than what the Bible says.

Ever since investigations of nature via observation and experimentation, and later, since the invention of telescopes and microscopes, we have turned more toward the cosmos as something that can continually expand our minds and lead to never ending exploration. Studying the book of nature has proven to be a far more fascinating and mind-expanding experience for far more educated people today, than, say, studying the books of the Bible.

We continue to discover new Lego-like ways to stick atoms together and produced new chemicals, new organisms, as well as new machines, new computing devices and robots.

We continue to discover new ways to smash together sub-atomic particles and explore the results.

We continue to discover new ways to gaze upon and measure the effects of stellar explosions, the effects of galaxies colliding with one another, even the effects of entire clusters of galaxies colliding with one another, to discover new energies and forces at work and how they interact.

We continue to discover new ways to study the past, as well as new ways to think about the cosmos and its possible futures.

We also continue to discover new Lego-like ways to stick together stories and characters from the worldʼs writings both past and present to forge fascinating new ones.

Those are what expand the minds of educated moderns today.

Or, as Robert G. Ingersoll, Americaʼs “Great Agnostic” put it to conservative Christians in his day, “We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your moldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this yearʼs fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.” (“The Gods,” 1872)

Israelites and Canaanites. How Different Were They?

Conservative Christians admit that the divinely inspired laws of the Babylonian King, Hammurabi, predate the alleged time when Moses received divinely inspired laws. The Laws of Hammurabi were believed to have been directly inspired or handed down by a god. A picture shows King Hammurabi receiving them, or receiving inspiration directly from a god standing beside him, the sun god Shamash. Later on the Israelites claimed that their leader, Moses, received laws from Yahweh.

Proto-Canaanite script, with its predecessor and main offshoot. From F.M. Cross, “The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet,” Eretz Israel, 8. Jerusalem, 1967

There were also stories about gods directing people how they wanted their temples built that preceded tales in the Bible about Yahweh directing a king of Israel how His temple was to be built. See Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology. The author is a professor at a conservative Christian seminary who concludes that “Satan” was making ancient people do the things that Satan knew in advance that God was going to make his people do later. So the professorʼs hypothesis is that Satan was counterfeiting Godʼs moves in advance. Without employing such a hypothesis itʼs obvious that much of the OT simply fits its milieu, its time, place and culture. Niehausʼ book was quite a source of frustration for a Christian at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary who wrote a paper critiquing it, and concluded the following:

“Niehaus frames his book with bookend chapters that state clearly what he is setting out to show, in particular that demonic activity may be attributing to the similarities seen in the almost parallel appearing texts of other ANE cultures. However, for the reader who comes to the text in most cases from a faith background, Niehaus does not offer an easy path at all to reach the conclusion that God has indeed shown Himself unique and sovereign against the backdrop of the(not real) gods of the neighbors of His covenant people Israel. The majority of the book leaves the reader unengaged as they are not shown a true contrast to what they want to know to be biblical supremacy, showing the covenantal love of the Creator of the universe for His children. Instead, the feeling a reader may walk away with is one of frustration with the lack of differentiation.”

---

Even conservative Christians who date the time of Moses as early as possible, are forced to admit that many aspects of these ancient Israelite tales reflect earlier ideas in the ancient Near East, i.e., earlier creation stories, earlier stories of receiving laws from a god, and earlier stories of babies left in rivers who grow up to be great leaders. The “baby left in a river story” of Moses is similar to that of Sumerian king Sargon I left in a caulked basket in the Euphrates. Even the ancient Greeks had a story about the founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus, being left in the Tiber but without a basket.

In William Deverʼs book, What Did the Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, he writes that archaeological investigations of Moses and the Exodus have been

“discarded as a fruitless pursuit… the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C., where many scholars think the Biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region.”

About Leviticus and Numbers he writes that these are

“clearly additions to the ‘pre-history’ by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the ‘promised land,’ and other literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying much less historical.”

Dever writes that

“the whole ‘Exodus-Conquest’ cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term ‘myth’: perhaps ‘historical fiction,’ but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs.”

What Did the Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It is not easy reading. But Dever recommends an anthology by the Biblical Archaeology Society, published by Prentice Hall entitled Ancient Israel, edited by Hershel Shanks — a book that is very readable. Those testifying for Deverʼs book (on the back cover) are: Paul D. Hanson, Professor of Divinity and Old Testament at Harvard University; David Noel Freedman, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of Michigan; Philip M. King, Professor at Boston College and author of Jeremiah; William W. Hallo, Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature at Yale University; and Bernhard W. Anderson, Professor of Old Testament, Boston University and Professor Emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Like Dever, the above scholars are not a bunch of minimalists nor radical revisionists. But their opinions demonstrate that a literalistic inerrantistic reading of Exodus is not widely held.

See for Instance

• Archaeology and the Exodus by Rabbi Ken Spiro

• As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Whilting

• Another good book is, It Ainʼt Necessarily So by Matthew Sturgis which is an excellent introduction to the current state of archaeological discovery, focusing on its divergence from traditional biblical interpretation.

• In short, the Pentateuch reads like a story “about” Moses, written in the third person, and from the point of view of later editors (as demonstrated by many little phrases scattered throughout the Pentateuch) rather than being a story written entirely by Moses. In fact, whomever wrote the Pentateuch, they did not make any great effort to disguise the fact that Moses “wrote” only select portions, not the whole books, just sections mentions within them. See my online article

• Myth of a Massive Exodus of Hebrews from Egypt and their Overnight Genocidal Conquest

• The Cultural Divide Between the Ancient Near East and Today

• Exaggerations of Biblical Proportions

---

Archaeologically speaking, the change from “Canaanite” to “Israelite” appears to have been gradual, more evolutionary than revolutionary. Did full scale massacres occur? Or are the stories in the book of Joshua yet another instance of biblical hyperbole? Note especially how “Canaanit-ish” the ancient Israelites were, or, how much Canaanite thought and culture lived on via the Israelites:

The Hebrew language is in fact a “language of Canaan,” as says the prophet (Isaiah 19:18), a conclusion amply confirmed by ancient inscriptions. In scholarly terms, Hebrew is a “southern dialect of the Canaanite language.” From its earliest appearance until the Babylonian destruction, Hebrew was written in the Canaanite alphabet.

As with language and the alphabet, so with culture generally: Ancient Israelite culture was in many respects a subset of Canaanite culture. The most powerful and extensive demonstration of this last statement comes from the body of literature uncovered at the site of Ugarit.

The Canaanite King Kirta of the Ugaritic epic with the same name, was called out by his own son who is shown speaking like a Hebrew prophet calling out rulers for their lack of solicitude for widows, orphans, and the poor:

• When raiders lead raids,
• and creditors detain (debtors),
• You let your hands fall slack:
• you do not judge the widowʼs case,
• you do not make a decision regarding the oppressed,
• you do not cast out those who prey upon the poor.
• Before you, you do not feed the orphan,
• behind your back the widow” (vi 49-51).
• — Context of Scripture 1.102 vi 25-53

Another clay tablet reveals something of the Canaanitesʼ family values:

ʽStarting from today I Yaremano give up all my properties to my wife Baydawe and two sons Yataleeno and Yanhamo. If one of my sons treats his mother Baydawe meanly, he must pay five hundred pieces of silver for the king. Beyond that he should take off his shirt, leave it on the doorʼs lock and go into the street. But the one who treats his mother Baydawe with respect and consideration, his mother will give him all the properties.ʼ

SOURCE

---

The Israelites shared with their neighbors the eastward orientation of their tabernacle and temple, the placement of important cultic objects within them, the designation of areas of increasing holiness, rules for access to the Holy Place and Holy of Holies, as well as practices like circumcision and sacrificial offerings. [Dr. Bealeʼs admissions, and heʼs a biblical inerrantist and Evangelical Christian]

They agreed with their ancient neighbors that it was important to appease a high divinity via building a temple, saying prayers, giving praises, having priests and sacrifices, all important to a nationʼs blessing and protection granted from its high god. For instance, after Babylon had been plundered by the king of Assyria, the next king of Babylon interpreted the invasion as a punishment sent by Babylonʼs high god who had been angered by his peopleʼs lack of righteous behavior and lack of worship of Marduk:

“[The citizens of Babylon] had oppressed the weak, and handed the weak into the power of the strong. Inside the city there was tyranny, receiving of bribes, people plundering each otherʼs things, sons cursing fathers in the street, slaves cursing masters, they put an end to offerings [to the gods], they laid hands on the property of the temple of the gods, and sold silver, gold and precious stones. . . . Marduk [the high god of Babylon] grew angry and devised evil to overwhelm the land and destroy the peoples,”
—cf. W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (London: Oxford University Press, 1960), p. 5.

Ancient cultures also praised their high moral gods in ways very similar to how the Hebrewʼs praised theirs. In a ritual for the Babylonian New Year festival, the Babylonian high god, Marduk, was invoked in this fashion:

• “My lord is my god, my lord is my ruler, is there any lord apart from him?”

• Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II prayed at his accession to Marduk:

  “Everlasting lord, master of all that exists, grant to the king, whom you love, and whose name you name, all that is pleasant to you. Keep him on the right way…You have created me and entrusted to me the dominion over all peoples. O lord, let me according to your grace, which you pour over them all, love your exalted might, and create in my heart fear of your divinity.”

• And in the Babylonian creation story, Enuma Elish, the high moral god Marduk is depicted as:

  “The trust of the land, city and people. The people shall praise him [Marduk] forever…At his name the gods shall tremble and quake…Who administers justice, uproots twisted testimony, In whose place falsehood and truth are distinguished…Who uprooted all enemies… snuffed out all wicked ones…his name shall be the truth!” (Tablet VI:135—36, 146 and VII:39—40, 43, 45, 54).

  He [Marduk] shall be ʽLord of All the Godsʼ…No one among the gods shall [make himself equal] to him.
  —Enuma Elish Tablet VI:141 and VII:14

• He [Marduk] established the holy heavens… creator of the earth above the waters, establisher of things on high…who made the worldʼs regions…He created “places” and fashioned the netherworld.
  —Enuma Elish Tablet VII:16, 83, 89, 135

• He [Marduk] patterned the days of the year…established the positions of Enlil and Ea [referring to the rotation of stars in the sky]…made the moon appear, entrusted (to him) the night…assigned to the crown jewel of nighttime to mark the day (of the month)…[Marduk] d[efined?] the celestial signs [for religious festivals]…the doorbolt of sunrise…the watches of night and day.
  —Enuma Elish Tablet V:3, 5, 8, 12—13, 23, 44, 46 [Compare Genesis 1 that tells of Yahweh creating the sun and moon for “signs and seasons,” literally for religious festivals in Yahwehʼs honor, same as in the earlier tale in Enuma Elish. The same Hebrew word translated as “seasons” appears elsewhere in the Pentateuch meaning religious festivals.]

• He [Marduk] made mankind…creatures with the breath of life…creator of all people.
  —Enuma Elish Tablet VI:33,129 & VII:89

• He [Marduk] shall be the shepherd of the [Mesopotamians], his creatures.
  —Enuma Elish Tablet VI:107

• Creation, destruction, absolution, punishment: Each shall be at his [Mardukʼs] command.
  —Enuma Elish Tablet VI:131-32

• His [Mardukʼs] word is truth, what he says is not changed, Not one god has annulled his utterance.
  —Enuma Elish Tablet VII:151—52

• Word of him [Marduk] shall endure, not to be forgotten.
  —Enuma Elish Tablet VII:31—2

• Let them ever speak of his [Mardukʼs] exaltation, let them sing his praises!
  —Enuma Elish Tablet VII:24

• His [Mardukʼs] beneficent roar shall thunder over the earth.
  —Enuma Elish Tablet VII:120

• [Marduk,] who crossed vast Tiamat [sea goddess] back and forth in his wrath, Spanning her like a bridge at the place of single combat.
  —Enuma Elish Tablet VII:74

• He [Marduk], profound of wisdom, ingenious in perception, Whose heart is so deep that none of the gods can comprehend it.
  —Enuma Elish Tablet VII:117—18

[Quotations from Enuma Elish trans. by Benjamin R. Foster, From Distant Days: Myths, Tales and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia (Bethesda: CDL Press, 1995)]

There are Bible verses that are very similar to all of the praises of Marduk above, including treading down the waves of the sea and defeating monsters.

Further Reading

• Canaanite Religion, Israelite Religion

  As well as this piece:

• The Rise of Monotheism and Israelʼs Theological Worldview [Key Articles That Sum Up What Scholars Are Discussing]

Coming This Fall, “The Exodus Conspiracy” — Dr. Lennart Moller resurrects Ron Wyatt's photograph of a gilded chariot wheel

Ron Wyattʼs photo of a “gilded chariot wheel” allegedly from the Egyptian army that chased the Hebrews as they fled during the Exodus.

An email has begun proliferating this year titled, “The Red Sea Crossing,” or, “Parting of the Red Sea,” or, “Chariot Wheels Found in Red Sea,” and it is being passed around so much with so little investigation that snopes.com has begun a page on the email and its claims. I suspect that the email is part of an advertising campaign for a film due out in Fall 2008, starring a creationist named Dr. Lennart Moller (not an archeologist, but a biologist) and titled, “The Exodus Conspiracy”

A previous film made for TV by the same company has already popularized the alleged “golden/gilded chariot wheel” that the late Ron Wyatt (another non-archeologist) “discovered in the Red Sea,” where “Pharaohʼs” chariots were allegedly swallowed up when two huge walls of water slammed together on either sides of them. (See the Bibleʼs Exodus tale.)

The made for TV film also featured Dr. Lennart Moller and was titled, “The Exodus Revealed” and one portion of it featured not the actual “gilded wheel” photographed by Wyatt but a digital “recreation” of it

Announcer: “While most of the possible artifacts found off the coast of Nuweiba are covered with coral, one significant discovery was not.”

Dr. Lennart Moller: “There is one find at the Nuweiba location that is of great interest, and that is the gilded wheel. [digital ‘recreation’ appears on screen, based on photo taken by Ron Wyatt] It is a wooden basic structure of the wheel and it is covered with gold or electrum, a mixture of silver and gold, and corals have not been able to grow on it. [really? why not? see questions below] Itʼs been very well preserved, although itʼs very fragile. It seems like the wooden content has been dissolved. So I mean you could break it if you tried to remove it.”

Announcer: “After its discovery the fragile wheel-shaped veneer was photographed, then left in place on the sea floor. Later analysis revealed that its dimensions and design resembled four-spoked chariot wheels painted on an 18th Dynasty tomb wall near the biblical date of the Exodus.”

Note that Moller does not say he discovered this “gilded wheel,” nor that he saw it, photographed it, nor touched it. There is no undersea footage of the “gilded wheel” in the film but merely a digital “reconstruction” of a photograph taken by Wyatt in the 1970s. But note that although almost no coral is shown touching this bright shiny wheel, based on Wyattʼs photo, still there are plenty of thick corals growing on one another and seen all over the actual seabed of the Red Sea as shown in the film. Neither does Wyattʼs original photo provide clear evidence as to whether the small piece of coral seen on the wheel simply was placed there or not, it doesnʼt seem particularly well attached, not compared with the vast conglomerations of corals in the general area. And contra a statement made by Dr. Moller in the film, there does not appear to be any reason why coral should not be able to grow on an object made of gold, silver or a mixture of both, as any archeologist can demonstrate who has dug up objects made of all sorts of ancient precious metals from the sea with coral growing on them.

Even a Christian on the web has pointed out:

“Can coral grow on gold? Yes. Coral is not a plant, it is an animal, and it does not get its nutrients from the soil or rock it grows on. Instead, it eats zooplankton and other small marine bugs, and it gets its calcium, amino acids, etc. from the surrounding sea water. To structurally support themselves, corals grow next to each other and harden together, forming reefs. Thus they could grow on anything!! It doesnʼt matter. Coral also uses photosynthesis to make sugars out of sunlight. The only way they wouldnʼt grow on gold is if it were toxic to coral. I do not think this is the case, since gold has little or no affinity for binding oxygen, carbon, or nitrogen. The only thing it really has an affinity for is sulfur. So if sulfur is necessary for coral to live, then perhaps…. The only thing that my pharmacology book says gold inhibits is mycobacterium tuberculosis, nothing else. Besides the point, however, Iʼm all for historical evidence of the Bible, but this guyʼs argument is so ridiculously flawed that itʼs an embarrassment to believers.”

Also, after 3,500 years of water flowing into the Red Sea and carrying sand and silt along with it, thatʼs the deepest that such a wheel has become buried? It looks like itʼs barely beneath the sand. Why is this “gilded wheel” not covered by several feet of silt and sand after 3,500 years?

Neither do Wyattʼs and Mollerʼs separate tales add up concerning such a gilded wheel. On the one hand Wyatt claimed in the 1970s to have photographed such a wheel and then “presented it” to Nassif Mohammed Hassan who worked at the Cairo museum whom Wyatt has on tape saying that it “resembled an ancient Egyptian chariot wheel.” (However what studies did Hassan made of the wheel if any? Did he actually handle it? What evidence is there that Hassan was “presented with” anything more than just a photograph of the wheel?) Then Hassan died a few years later. So heʼs no longer available for questioning. Now compare Mollerʼs story in his video which speaks about the “gilded chariot wheel” as if it were extremely fragile, made of 3,500 year old “wood covered with gold or electrum, a mixture of silver and gold. And itʼs very fragile. It seems like the wooden content has been dissolved. So you could break it if you tried to remove it,” and the announcer described it as nothing more than a “fragile wheel-shaped veneer.” So if Moller is right, how did Wyatt “remove” such a “fragile wheel-shaped veneer” and “present” it to the person at the museum without breaking it?*

*Maybe Moller interprets Wyattʼs story as merely the story of a photograph “presented” to Hassan, not “the wheel” itself?

Even the few photographs taken by Wyatt are not explicitly stated to be of just one wheel or of two different gilded chariot wheels. But even if there was one 3,500 year old gilded wheel solid enough to be lifted out of the sea and presented to Hassan, and a second gilded wheel in the Red Sea yet undiscovered and too fragile to excavate -- then in either case Godʼs providence or chance seems to have made it impossible to investigate either “wheel” story via direct investigation of the alleged “wheels,” nor via interviewing Wyatt or Hassan.

In fact there is no evidence other than Wyattʼs photograph of how large the alleged “gilded wheel” was, and so it could have been smaller than a chariot wheel because it is difficult to judge an objects size in a photograph unless you place something right next to the object like a yardstick, coin, or other object of known size. Also how do we know for sure that the object was made of gold? It might have been made merely of shiny brass and be a far younger object that recently was tossed into the water, so young that it lay near the surface, was still shiny enough to catch Wyattʼs eye, and also young enough such that coral had not had time to cement itself on it. (See the other modern day wheel shaped objects pictured further below.)

Below are links to another portion of the made-for-TV-film that features footage of coral formations and focuses only on those that one might imagine might have been formed around decaying chariot wheels:
Mt. Sinai, Moses & the Exodus - Part 8 of 10

Even in a conservative Christian news source like Worldnetdaily.com, Wyattʼs own wife is reported as urging "caution" before jumping to conclusions, and admits a lot of coral looks like “wheels” or other alleged chariot parts. The article, titled, “Pharaohʼs chariots found in Red Sea?” also admits that the one “golden chariot wheel” that Wyatt allegedly discovered cannot be found anywhere.

SEVEN Criticisms of Wyattʼs Claim that he discovered and photographed a 3,500 year old “Egyptian Chariot Wheel”

1. While the image could be better, the above photo doesnʼt show any of the type of segmenting that the chariot in the earlier museum photo exhibits. Nor does it seem to have the types of joins shown in drawings of Egyptian chariot wheels. Someone else has already mentioned that the hub of the ocean “wheel” is greatly different then the one in the museum. The style seems more modern and looks as if the edges are milled to be beveled.

2. As to the coral formations. I donʼt think anyone has brought up that coral often is spherical and or radial. I havenʼt seen any convincing arguments that the formations arenʼt natural. Keep in mind that different types of coral grow on top of each other. So given enough coral, time, and space all sorts of shapes are possible.

3. Cnidarians are simple, radially symmetrical, animals. Radial symmetry means that the body is a hub, like a bicycle wheel, and tentacles are spokes coming out of it.

4. Iʼm at a loss as to how a Saudi Law prevents anyone on the Egypt side of the sea from bringing up objects [am I missing something here?]. If they do not bring up items out of respect/fear for Saudi Law, then how did they bring up the bone?

5. Even if it turns out that the formations arenʼt natural it doesnʼt mean theyʼre chariot wheels. There is certainly more than one ship that has been lost in the Red Sea. Google: shipwreck “red sea” 5,790 matches.

6. The film features an examination of the “spokes” of various wheel-shaped coral formations and the discovery of positive metal detector readings and rust being associated with the coral. But 1446 BC is too early for extensive use of iron and Egyptian chariots didnʼt use much metal. The spokes were wooden. Small amounts of iron had been available to the Egyptians for a long time but we should not be seeing much, if any, at an 18th Dynasty site. We really do need better evidence for the Exodus than counting the number of spokes a coral formation appears to have. Iron Age I starts at 1200 BCE See also this and this about the history of metal usage. “Iron was first employed as a technology of war about 1300 B.C. by the Hittites. Within a hundred years the secret of iron making and cold forging had spread at least to Palestine and Egypt and, perhaps, to Mesopotamia as well.”

7. Comparison of Wyattʼs golden chariot wheel…
   

…with some modern day objects found on ships and other machines.

Review Of Dr. Mollerʼs Book, The Exodus Case, which was published in 2002 and inspired the made-for-TV-film, and the move to be released Fall 2008:

Lennart Moller specializes in the earth hazards of air pollutants and the damage to DNA that they cause. Since 2001, he has been a professor of environmental medicine in the department of bioscience at Karolinska Institutet, one of Europeʼs largest medical universities and Swedenʼs main center for medical training and research. Beside his academic duties, Moller is an active member of Evangeliska Fosterlands-Stiftelsen, founded in 1856, a missionary organization within the Church of Sweden. He has edited and authored books on ethics and Gospel exegesis and recently a volume on biblical archaeology, The Exodus Case.

This book is the fruit of extensive travels in the Near East and Egypt. Its stated main purpose is to test a hypothesis: that the biblical texts of Genesis 11:27 through Exodus 40:38 are historically correct. A secondary purpose is to evaluate and expand upon the works of the late Ron Wyatt (1933-1999)… There are disturbing signs already in the hookʼs introduction. First, it is naive to judge these long texts, preserved through thousands of years of oral and written traditions, as either true or false in their entirety. Academic historians evaluate discrete factual statements, not entire books at one go. But Moller emphasizes that he is neither a theologian, a historian, nor an archaeologist. In fact, he underlines that he does not know what these disciplines believe regarding the questions he takes on. Moller feels that he can thereby offer a fresh perspective.

Then there are the references to Ron Wyatt. If ever there was a true native of Daniken Laird, it was Wyatt. His writings on biblical archaeology are such extreme flights of fancy that even many creationist debaters dismiss them as wild imaginings.

While ostensibly scientific, Mollerʼs perspective is at the same time explicitly anti rational (p. 15). We should not be too sure of ourselves and our powers of reasoning. Only God is perfect, says Moller, and humankind is frail and weak…

Moller sets out on his biblical trek through time and space from Abraham in Ur to Moses on Mount Sinai.. He searches intensively for anything that fits with it. The idea that the selected texts are historically true is not a hypothesis for Moller, it is the basic axiom of his investigation. To the extent that he takes his pseudo-Popperian philosophy of science seriously at all, Moller appears to feel that the task of disproving the hypothesis is the readerʼs job, not his.

Moller stomps in brandishing revealed truth… The book interfoliates a Bible summary with absolutely vertiginous speculations in archaeology, history, geology, and onomastics (the study of the origins and forms of words). Gomorrah was located on the plain between the hilltop stronghold of Masada and the Dead Sea. The reason that there is now only a gypsum formation to be seen there is that the wicked city was built of limestone and destroyed in a rain of burning sulphur: limestone + sulphur = gypsum! Joseph, son of Jacob, is identical with Imhotep, the architect of the Stepped Pyramid at Saqqara. This identification moves the Third Dynasty a thousand years forward in time from its accepted date. This does not appear to trouble Moller, as he feels that the dynastic chronology of Egypt contains serious uncertainties. Moses is identical with Pharaoh Tutmosis II, as indicated by, among other things, the fact that the Pharaoh is depicted with a hooked nose, suggesting a Hebrew heritage! And so on. Wherever Moller goes, what he sees turns out to be relevant to his search. He finally finds Mount Sinai…

Author Of The Above Review: Martin Rundkvist, review, is an archaeologist specializing in the pre- and protohistory of Scandinavia. He is a member of the board of the Swedish skeptic organization, Vetenskap och Folkbildning, and co-editor of the associationʼs quarterly, Folkvett. He lives in the suburbs of Stockholm, Sweden, 400 meters from a Viking-period cemetery.

---

Detailed Documentation Of Wyattʼs Questionable And Fraudulent Claims And Activities

• Wyatt Archaeological Research — Fraud Documentation
• Ron Wyattʼs archeological claims
• Ron Wyatts supernatural claims
• Whoʼs Who in the World of Ron Wyatt?

A Review of The Exodus Revealed
Summary: The Exodus Revealed video, directed by Lad Allen and funded by Discovery (Institute?) Media Productions, is based on The Exodus Case book by Lennart Moller, which is based on the “discoveries” of Ron Wyatt. Both the video and the book include photos of a gold wheel supposedly found in the Gulf of Aqaba, presented as proof that the Bibleʼs Red Sea crossing story is true. But a TV producerʼs wife “was told by one of Ron Wyattʼs sons that the chariot wheels that Ron supposedly discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba were planted there by Ron.” Also, John Baumgardner, who is a Christian and initially believed Wyatt and inspected Wyattʼs Noahʼs ark “discovery”, later wrote that “I am almost 100% certain that Ron ‘planted’ them [rivets on the Ark].” Despite this and much more evidence that Ron Wyatt was a crazy liar, both Lennart Moller and Lad Allen were insidiously dishonest in promoting Wyattʼs “findings” without disclosing Wyattʼs history of fraud. [See the link below for more on Wyatt, much more.]

(I know the fellow who wrote the investigative review above, and even met some of relatives who live in Greenville, S.C. The family was home-schooled and taught young-earth creationist arguments. Two or three of the sisters attended Bob Jones University. Today half of the authorʼs siblings have left the fold.)

Wyatt Archaeological Research: Too “Good” To Be True? Yes!

Letter from Joe Zias on the “discoveries of Ron Wyatt,” including mention of the alleged chariot wheel (Zias is Curator of Anthropology/Archaeology, Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586, Jerusalem, Tel. 972-2-292624)

Lastly, I exchanged a few emails with Pinkowski who runs the Wyatt museum, and who informed me that, “In the 22 years that Ron Wyatt performed this wonderful work for the Lord, he always maintained a very humble personality. It would have been very easy for him to become proud or boastful, but Ron did not do that. Both Moses and Ron Wyatt were extremely humble men. When asked “why” he was chosen to do this work, Ron replied: ‘If 10 different people found 10 different major archaeological finds, people could say, ‘Well, they were lucky, or smart, etc.,’ but for one person to find all of these things is not humanly possible. Not even the most brilliant and celebrated. But God uses ‘The simple things to confound the wise.’ In choosing a simple, average person, He leaves no room for doubt as to ‘who’ is actually doing these things. Perhaps He chose me because I was willing — I really donʼt know. But I can say that there is no one on earth who could be more grateful than I to be allowed to work with these things.’”

What faith Pinkowski has in the alleged authenticity of every one of Wyattʼs alleged “discoveries,” none of which have ever been verified by legitimate archaeologists. Wyatt always seemed to get a glimpse of something and then it promptly vanishes, like the gilded wheel, or the Phoenician style column found on the Saudi coastline and which contained in Phoenician letters (Archaic Hebrew) the words: Mizraim (Egypt ); Solomon; Edom; death; Pharaoh; Moses; and Yahweh; or “the Blood of Christ” on the “Judgment Seat” beneath the Temple site in Jerusalem which only Wyatt saw. Other evidence/claims of Wyatt likewise vanish after closer examination. Even those who at first supported his claims to have found Noahʼs ark no longer believed him after examining the evidence at the site further, including young-earth creationists belonging to major young-earth organizations.

The Above Quotations Arranged And Edited By Edward T. Babinski