Hebrew Pantheon of The First Fathers.



The historical record of mankind in the third millennium before Christ bears the stamp of Noah's family and of the events and structures outlined in Genesis 9-11. The purpose of monogenetic study is to consolidate the Biblical explanation of human origins by generating a historical science based on the family of Noah. The goal is to create a coherent Christian synthesis of the disjointed data of antiquarian study. This goal was pursued by a variety of authors between 1650 and 1820: Samuel Bochart, Paul Pezron, William Stukeley, Jacob Bryant, Sir William Jones, George Faber, and others. My logic resembles theirs. The difference between my work and theirs lies in the data furnished by archaeology since the discovery of the Sumerians around 1880. The challenge of my work is to combine their logic with the essential information unavailable to them. An obvious question is why this work has not been done by others. There are several answers. The most basic is that Biblical monogenesis has been unpopular in historical science since the 1880's, largely through the influence of Darwinism. Another reason concerns the issue of eccentricity. Bryant, Pezron, and others were often perceived as eccentric. Biblical monogenesis tends to breed eccentricity because of its extraordinarily daring implications. For example, a self-evident feature of any monogenetic scheme is the role of incest, inasmuch as all males and females are members of the same universal family; but incest is just one of a series of bizarre logical consequences of Biblical monogenesis. The most important of these concerns the degree and type of political authority to be found in Noah's postdiluvian family. The political factor distinguishes my viewpoint, first from the Darwinian anthropologists, but ultimately from the whole tenor of empirical scholarship in the modern democratic era. To the conservatives, Noah is the passive recipient of divine instruction and of a salvation experience but is not an agent of charismatic political power. In other words, Noah has ben conceived as a pious but hapless old man in a bathrobe. Whether or not it compromises with Darwinism, the gradualist approach to antiquity strikes me as unworthy of a Bible which stresses dispensational revolutions and displays of power. Noah survived the Flood in order to build a world; and worlds are not built without the intervention of great political and creative power. Noah's family were the human building blocks of the nations and were the most powerful ruling house in the history of mankind, prototypes of the Emperors of Agade and the Pharaohs of Egypt. In fact, this understates the case. Noah's family was a kind of solar nucleus to all the primary linguistic stocks of mankind. These stocks are to Noah what the twelve tribes of Israel were to Jacob, except that Noah's postdiluvian longevity of 350 years enabled him to witness their growth from individual families to large tribes or nations, each capable of generating its own independent civilization. The Sumerian Kinglist refers to the descent of "Namlugal" or "kingship" out of Heaven at the outset of the postdiluvian era. This document attests to the historical reality of the dispensation of human government. By defining the earliest origin of "kingship," one also defines the principle of charismatic despotism which will one day characterize the millennial reign of Jesus Christ, the "monos-despotes" of the Book of Jude. This phrase "monos-despotes" is especially significant for the apocalyptic link between Christ and the Noahic world. Aside from naming a divine despotism, it also highlights the monistic character of basic Christianity: the belief that all truth is summed in one person. Monism is the key attitude distinguishing Jacob Bryant or myself (Dr. John Pilkey) from the empirical scholars who have dominated historical science since the mid-nineteeth century. Now eccentric ideas are a dime a dozen. By "eccentric ideas" I mean facile speculative work lacking the refinement of approved methods of verification. Interpretive monism always means facility, the quick easy answer based on favorite doctrines. Empiricism implies solid scientific labor, even if that labor is "ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth." We all admire hard work and tend to despise mere opinion. But respect for observational labor should not cloud the issue of when and how interppretations should be rendered The descent of the nations from Noah is an interpretive crux intimately related to the evangelical Gospel. A creedal focal point of evangelicalism is the propostion of John 3:16 that "God so loved the world." The word "world" in this verse has an equivocal value relative to the "love of the world" which is enmity with God ( 1 John 2:15). These two radically different uses of the word "world" depend precisely on the issue raised by monogenetic study. The evil "world" of 1 John is the Gentile scheme of things in its status quo, abstracted from Noah and from any knowledge of Noah. The "world" of John 3:16 is the whole body of mankind, descendents of the survivors of the Flood, persons who owe their very existence to the fact that Noah "found grace in the eyes of the Lord." To trace the nations concretely from Noah is to consolidate the usage of John 3:16 and to picture mankind as former recipients of salvation fit for the evangelical mystery of regeneration. Without completing this task we leave the "world" in the anonymous, profane condition through which Satan controls the lives of lost souls. In the field of history, we concede the battle to the enemy. In the final analysis, the Genesis-10 study is an attempt to advance the cause of holiness at the expense of profanity by countering the view that the world of mankind is the anonymous result of natural causes. The goal of monogenetic study is to consolidate, in scientific terms, the Biblical view that this world owes its existence to the sacred history of Noah. My sense of authority to interpret what archaeologists observe is the immediate result of my sense of the authority of the Gospel to save souls. I would describe my work and any other persons' work in this area, not as a strategy to win souls, but as a neglected dimension of evangelical Christian testimony. It is no coincidence that Bryant's work, as eccentric (or unsuccessful ) as it may appear, was highly prized by the definitive evangelical John Wesley.

John D. Pilkey




















JOHN's EMAIL: Questions:
John Davis Pilkey
(785) 242-4545

ORDER This book on DISK! $19.95