Can we make an educated guess as to the location of the Garden of Eden? Some argue that Noah’s flood altered the landscape so dramatically that it erased any trace of Eden forever. Others say the book of Genesis, written by Moses long after the flood, contains a specific description of the Garden’s location, even mentioning landmarks like the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Why would Moses, living centuries after such a cataclysmic event, provide details about Eden’s geography if those landmarks were no longer recognizable or relevant?
There are two possibilities: either Moses was describing the geography of Eden before the flood, or he was providing a description based on the post-flood world. Both interpretations offer insight, but the evidence suggests one is more likely than the other.
Option 1: Moses was describing pre-flood geography
One interpretation is that Moses was describing the geography of Eden as it existed before the flood. In this view, Moses, writing under divine inspiration, had access to knowledge of the pre-flood world, including its rivers and landmarks. While the flood undoubtedly reshaped the Earth’s surface, the text of Genesis could be preserving a memory of the world as it was before this destruction. The Tigris and Euphrates, which exist today, may be altered remnants of the pre-flood rivers mentioned in the Genesis account, their original courses forever changed by the flood’s upheavals.
This interpretation is consistent with Genesis 2:10-14, where a single river flows out of Eden and then splits into four headwaters: the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates. While the identity of the Pishon and Gihon is unknown, the mention of the Tigris and Euphrates is significant. These rivers still exist today, though their courses and confluences differ from the description in Genesis.
This view allows for the possibility that Moses was describing a world that no longer exists in its original form. Although the flood changed the landscape, it didn’t erase every landmark, and the names of the rivers, along with some remnants of their paths, could have survived. This would explain why Moses mentioned rivers that, though altered, were still recognizable.
Option 2: Moses was describing post-flood geography
The second possibility is that Moses was describing the geography as it existed after the flood. In this view, the flood reshaped the landscape, but left recognizable features for Moses to reference in his writing. Since the Tigris and Euphrates rivers existed in his day, some argue that Moses could have been offering a description based on the post-flood world.
Although the Pishon and Gihon rivers are unknown now, they may have been identifiable in Moses’ day. Some speculate that the Wadi al-Rummah in Saudi Arabia may have been the Pishon, and the Karun River in Iran may be the Gihon.1 Although the Wadi al Rummah is presently a dried up river bed, “studies in the region suggest that this river probably dried up sometime between 3200 and 2000 BC.”2 Both of these are tributaries to the Shatt al-Arab River which empties into the Persian Gulf. Some interpreters have proposed that the Garden of Eden straddled the Shatt al-Arab just north of the Persian Gulf.
However, this theory faces a major obstacle: the Genesis account describes a single river that splits into four. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers we observe today do not stem from a single river; they are independent waterways. This raises the question of how Moses’s description fits with the post-flood geography.
E. A. Speiser’s interpretation about the Garden of Eden
One prominent attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with the post-flood geography comes from E.A. Speiser. He suggested that “the term ‘heads’ can have nothing to do with streams into which the river breaks up after it leaves Eden, but designates instead four separate branches which have merged within Eden. There is thus no basis for detouring the Gihon to Ethiopia, not to mention the search for the Pishon in various remote regions of the world.”3 This view sees the rivers as converging in Eden rather than dividing.
However, Speiser’s theory is unconvincing. The Hebrew verb yipared used in Genesis 2:10 clearly refers to a division of a river, meaning the river splits after it leaves Eden. This is further supported by the Septuagint (LXX), the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which uses the Greek verb διαχωρίζεται (to divide), confirming the traditional reading. This suggests that the ancient Jewish interpreters, who translated the Hebrew into Greek, understood the passage in a similar way to how most modern translations present it: a single river that divides into four after leaving Eden. The idea of the rivers converging rather than dividing contradicts both the Hebrew text and the ancient Jewish understanding of the passage.
Option 2 does not appear to be describing a post flood geography. Even if some interpreters identify the Pishon and Gihon as the Wadi al-Rummah and the Karun River, these rivers would need to reverse their current flow to match the Genesis account of their dividing.
Pre-Flood or Post-Flood? Weighing the options
Given the difficulties with reconciling the post-flood geography with Moses’s description, the pre-flood interpretation appears more plausible. The catastrophic nature of the flood would have drastically altered the Earth’s surface, including river systems. The Tigris and Euphrates likely persisted in some form, though the flood altered their paths. Moses’ mention of these rivers could reflect their pre-flood counterparts, explaining why they no longer matched the post-flood Genesis description.
The post-flood theory struggles to account for the biblical narrative, especially when it comes to the flow and division of the rivers. While the Tigris and Euphrates still exist, their courses don’t align with the Genesis description of a single river splitting into four. Advocates of Speiser’s interpretation are attempting to shoehorn the Genesis text into a post-flood geographical model. This approach seems both contrived and unnecessary.
Conclusion: Pre-flood geography is the more likely explanation
While it is impossible to determine the exact location of the Garden of Eden today, the evidence strongly supports the interpretation that Moses was describing the pre-flood world. The flood would have reshaped the Earth, but remnants of the original rivers, including the Tigris and Euphrates, survived in altered form. Speiser’s attempt to reconcile the Hebrew text with the modern flow of the rivers is not convincing, and the pre-flood geography better explains the biblical account. Although we may never pinpoint Eden’s exact location, the pre-flood interpretation offers the most consistent explanation for both the biblical text and the geography we observe today.
References
- Hamblin, Dora Jane. “Has the Garden of Eden Been Located at Last?” Smithsonian Magazine 18, no. 2 (May 1987).
- Hoffmeier, James Karl. The Archaeology of the Bible. Oxford: Lion Scholar, Lion Hudson Limited, 2019.
- Speiser, E. A., ed. Genesis. 1. Yale Univ. Press impr. The Anchor Yale Bible 1. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2008.