The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate
by Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton
Part 2- Propositions 7&8

We are blogging through the book: The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate by Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton.  Today we will look at Part 2- Background: Ancient Near Eastern Texts- Proposition 7: Ancient Mesopotamia Also Has Stories of a Worldwide Flood, and Proposition 8: The Biblical Flood Account Shares Similarities and Differences with Ancient Near Eastern Flood Accounts.  Every serious student of the Bible is aware that there are other flood stories from the Ancient Near East.  The debate has always been about their significance and relationship to the biblical story.

The Eridu Genesis is an ancient Sumerian Text which describes the creation of the world, the invention of all ancient cities and the Great Flood that swept across the land. The Eridu Genesis, which is believed to have been composed circa 2,300 BCE, is the earliest known account of the Great Flood.  The story begins with the god Enki (also known as Ea) warning Ziusudra, king of Shuruppak of a coming flood being brought about by the gods Anu and Enlil, who are angered that mankind is too noisy.  Enki counsels Ziusudra to build an ark.  The flood lasts seven days and seven nights and after the waters recede Ziusudra offers sacrifice to the gods, who then make him immortal.  The flood is also mentioned in the Sumerian Kings List, which divides the kings into pre- and post-flood dynasties.

The Akkadian version of the story is known as the Atrahasis Epic, named after the hero, Atrahasis, who is comparable to Noah.  The god Enlil decides to wipe out humanity because they have grown too populous and noisy.  The god Enki decides to defy Enlil and help Atrahasis and warns him to build an ark and place animals as well as his family in it.

The best known Babylonian version of the flood story is found in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic.  Gilgamesh is the Priest-King of the city of Uruk. He is a tyrannical king who works his people to death and takes what he wants from them. He kills the young men at will and uses the women as he pleases. The people of Uruk cry out to the gods for help so that they can have peace.   The gods hear them and instruct Anu, the goddess of creation, to make a twin for Gilgamesh, someone who is strong enough to stand up to him and who will ultimately save him. Anu makes Enkidu, a hairy wild man who lives in the wilderness with the animals.  The two meet in the streets of Uruk and a great fight breaks out between them. Gilgamesh is triumphant but his encounter with Enkidu changes him. They become companions.

They go on an epic journey together.  Gilgamesh catches the eye of Ishtar. She tells him to become her lover, promising great riches and rewards in return. Gilgamesh rejects Ishtar, telling her he is aware of her reputation as a scornful lover.  Ishtar is outraged and convinces her father, Anu, to punish Gilgamesh. The gods decide that one of the heroes must die for their behavior. They choose Enkidu. Enkidu falls ill and suffers for twelve days before finally dying. Gilgamesh is shattered. He has witnessed death and is now terrified of his own mortality. He seeks to escape it.  Gilgamesh decides to seek out Utnapishtim, the one human granted immortality by the gods.  Gilgamesh eventually finds Utnapishtim, who tells him the story of the flood.  The gods are angry because humans are too noisy and one god warns Utnapishtim, who builds an ark.  Eventually, the storm ends and the waters recede leaving the ark on Mount Nimush (or Nisir).  Utnapishtim releases 3 birds; a dove who finds no perch, a swallow who finds no perch, and finally a raven who did not return.  Utnapishtim offers sacrifice and is rewarded immortality, but tells Gilgamesh that was a special circumstance.  Chastened and humbled Gilgamesh returns to Uruk and becomes a better king.

The following table summarizes the 3 Babylonian/Sumerian stories, the biblical story, along with one by Berossus who was a Hellenistic-era Babylonian writer, a Greek version, and the flood story that appears in the Quran.

Similarities in the ANE flood stories and the biblical one from this source:

1. A divine decision is made to send a punishing Flood;
2. One chosen man is told to save self, family and creatures by building a boat;
3. A great Flood destroys the rest of the people;
4. The boat grounds on a mountain;
5. Birds are sent forth to determine availability of habitable land;
6. The hero sacrifices to deity;
7. Mankind is renewed upon earth.

Particularly noticeable in the comparative differences between the ANE accounts and the biblical one is the dramatic difference in the depiction of the divine realm—what the gods are like as well as how they administer the cosmos:

1. The Mesopotamian gods’ tire of the noisiness of mankind, while in Genesis, God sees the corruption and universal wickedness of mankind.
2. The Mesopotamian assembly of gods is at pains to conceal their Flood plan entirely from mankind (this is not evident in Genesis at all).
3. In the Mesopotamian epics, the saving of the hero is entirely by the deceit of one god, while in Genesis, God from the first tells Noah plainly that judgment is coming, and he alone has been judged faithful and so must build a boat.
4. The size and type of craft in “Gilgamesh” is a vast cube, perhaps even a great floating ziggurat, while that in Genesis has far more the proportions of a real craft.
5. The duration of the Flood differs in the Mesopotamian and Biblical accounts. “Atrahasis” has seven days and seven nights of storm and tempest, as does the Sumerian version; “Gilgamesh” has six (or seven) days and nights, with subsidence of the waters beginning on the seventh day; none of the Mesopotamian narratives gives any idea of how long the Floodwaters took to subside thereafter. In contrast, Genesis has an entirely consistent, more detailed time-scale. After seven days’ warning, the storm and floods rage for 40 days, then the waters stay for 150 days before beginning to sink, and further intervals follow until the earth is dry a year and ten days from the time the cataclysm began (Gen 7:11; 8:14).
6. In the Mesopotamian versions, the inhabitants of the boat include also a pilot and craftsmen, etc.; in Genesis one finds only Noah and his immediate family.
7. The details of sending out birds differ entirely in “Gilgamesh,” Berossus, and Genesis 8:7ff.; this is lost in “Atrahasis “ (if ever it was present).
8. The Mesopotamian hero leaves the boat of his own accord and then offers a sacrifice to win the acceptance of the gods. By contrast, Noah stays in the boat until God summons him forth and then presents what is virtually a sacrifice of thanksgiving, following which divine blessing is expressed without regret.
9. Replenishment of the land or earth is partly through renewed divine activity in “Atrahasis” but simply and naturally through the survivors themselves in Genesis.

The Mesopotamian gods administered by means of a divine council, and that concept is not entirely foreign to biblical thinking (Job 1-2, 1 Kings 22, Isaiah 6).  But the divine council in the bible is not a community of peers; Yahweh stands alone as the sole divine agent.  Walton and Longman note that the gods in the ANE were motivated by what they call the “Great Symbiosis”.  The gods created people because they were tired of menial labor to meet their own needs.  Once people were created to serve this way it became necessary for the gods to provide the people with rain and protection from calamities so the people could provide sacrifice or sustenance for the gods.  It was a codependent relationship, whereas Yahweh needed nothing and his provision flowed from his grace.  The idea of a Great Symbiosis is constantly refuted in the Old Testament and has no role in the interpretation of the flood.

It sounds strange to modern ears that the ANE gods wanted to destroy mankind because they were too noisy, but the Akkadian words translated as noise also carry the ideas of:

• Outcry or complaints for hard work
• Hubris or rebellion
• Continuing petitions for relief
• Impious, irreverent, insolent, or wicked behavior
• Violent behavior
• Inevitable increase in noise from overpopulation
• Partying
• Disruption of order.

So there is some similarity there to Yahweh bringing the flood to restore cosmic order disrupted by the moral deprivations of human behavior.

As far as the extent of the flood, the Mesopotamian accounts are mostly vague.  Utnapishtim sees distant shores so maybe not all land totally submerged.  Atrahasis indicated total destruction was called for by the gods and Gilgamesh observes after the flood, “all the people turned to clay”.  As we discussed last time, the biblical account describes worldwide extent and all humans but Noah and his family are drowned as well as “every creature that had the breath of life”.  The length of the flood in the ANE accounts are seven days and nights while the biblical account has 40 days and 40 nights of rain and flooding lasting a year, probably hyperbole signifying the massive scope of the cataclysm.

The ANE heroes are portrayed as royal lineage while the biblical account is reserved about Noah, and he is silent in the flood account; indicating the text makes him a bit player and Yahweh the main actor.  In the Genesis account, Noah is not portrayed as interacting with other people; it isn’t until 2^nd Temple accounts that Noah is shown making lengthy and impassioned speeches; which is where the New Testament picks it up (2 Peter 2:5).  Walton and Longman note that it is from our modern culture we assume the population was skeptical; the ancients would have more likely readily accepted the announcement of an impending flood and would have clamored to get onboard rather than ridiculing Noah; contrary to almost all modern preaching on the subject.

The cosmic mechanisms of the flood in the Mesopotamian accounts do not include the two large bodies of water—the water above the firmament and the waters beneath the earth.  Walton and Longman conclude that the flood is not presented as a cosmic event of the same proportion or magnitude as found in the description of Genesis.

Walton and Longman conclude that it is better to explain the similarities and differences between the biblical and Mesopotamian flood traditions not in terms of borrowing but rather in terms of Mesopotamia and Israel floating in the same cultural river.  That makes much more sense than the biblical skeptic’s charge that Israel simply adopted or borrowed the Babylonian story.  Walton and Longman believe the origin of the story goes way back to a period before the invention of writing, and therefore, the advent of literature.  I agree, and we will explore this notion in more detail when we get to Proposition 14.  The flood happened in the distant past, and stories about the flood were thus passed down orally for generations from those who descended from the time the flood actually occurred.  The similarities in the telling of the flood story between Eridu Genesis, Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, and the biblical account may be explained not necessarily by literary borrowing  but by the fact that this story has been passed down from generation to generation by those who float in the same cultural river.

Another way to think about the similarities and differences is to acknowledge that the Israelites are embedded in an ancient near east culture and that God speaks to them there.  God gives them revelation that transcends the culture, but He speaks to them within the culture.  This is not a matter of imposing the ancient near east on the Bible (the Bible IS an ANE literary document after all); rather, it involves the acknowledgement that they are within the ancient near east.  It’s our responsibility to understand the flood story within its original context.

The flood account is a good example of misunderstanding what the text is actually saying when trying to read the narrative from our modern cultural river.  We have to read it as an ancient text in order to fully appreciate the purpose of the narrative. Otherwise we are distracted by our modern questions we bring to the text and fail to understand the authoritative teaching the biblical author was inspired to present.

The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate
by Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton
Part 1- Proposition 6

We are blogging through the book: The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate by Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton.  Today we will look at Proposition 6- Genesis Depicts the Flood as a Global Event.  Walton and Longman note that some scholars, who feel the force of the lack of any geological evidence for a worldwide flood, want to argue that the flood was a local event and that the biblical text describes it as such.  They admit that such an interpretation is plausible as it takes both the Bible and the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) seriously.  Usually these scholars point out that אָ֫רֶץ or eretz, translated as “earth” in the King James might be more accurately translated as “land”.  Likewise, שָׁמַ֫יִם or shamayim translated as “heavens” could also be translated as “skies”, and הָר or har translated as “mountain” can also be translated as simply “hill”.  So, for example, Genesis 7:17-20 could read:

17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth land, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth land. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth land, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth land, and all the high mountains hills under the entire heavens sky were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains hills to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

Another variant of this view is that, from Noah’s (or any ancient Mesopotamian dweller) perspective, a sufficiently large regional flood would have been perceived as the whole earth flooding.  Carol Hill, one of the geologists who contributed to The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth , which I reviewed starting here, put forth this view in this article .  She stated:

The picture that emerges from all of the biblical and non-biblical evidence is that Noah’s Flood was confined to Mesopotamia, extending over a vast alluvial plain as far as the eye could see, from horizon to horizon (under the “whole heaven” or sky). The top of all the hills (ziggurats?) were covered by this flood, and all people and animals were drowned except for Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark.  The flood was a real, historical event that covered—not the whole world— but the whole of Noah’s world.

Conceivably, if a major typhoon came up the Persian Gulf, while at the same time, a major hurricane-size storm blew in across Turkey from the Mediterranean, then most of the combined floodplains of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers could have flooded at the same time, especially if one or both storm systems stalled like happened with Hurricane Harvey.

A rare event to be sure, but the recent Hurricane Harvey caused flooding in Houston at the 1,000-year flood recurrence interval, so not at all out of the realm of possibility.  Carol Hill has an article,  in Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith Journal that actually discusses how that might happen.  The Mesopotamian basin is exceedingly flat; the surface of the plain inland 240 miles is only 60 feet above sea level.

I have given this viewpoint considerable credibility in my thinking, but Walton and Longman have convinced me it is not the best interpretation of the biblical account.  The language used in the flood story does not support the idea that the flood was only a local, even if widespread flood.  They believe this conclusion is inescapable even if the initial reporter whose account was the basis for the flood story thought a local flood was a worldwide flood.  Walton and Longman have a list of elements of the story that leads them to conclude the flood in Genesis is being described hyperbolically as a worldwide flood.

1. Human sin is pervasive, encompassing all humans, not just those in a local area.
2. God regretted making human beings on the earth, not just those in a local area.
3. The flood as God’s judgment is the first part of re-creation. In the creation account, God moves the cosmos from non-order to order.  The first phase should be pictured as a watery blob, which over six creation days is brought into a functional order.  The flood is a reversal of order to non-order, with the ultimate goal of reestablishing order.  In this scenario the flood would need to be worldwide.
4. The need to take pairs (and in some cases seven pairs) of animals including birds, on board indicates a worldwide flood, not just a local flood.
5. The size of the boat indicates flood waters beyond the imagination of a local flood.
6. That “all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened” (Gen. 7:11) indicates a worldwide flood.
7. The height of the waters as fifteen cubits (23 feet) over the mountains (Gen. 7:20), and the only mountains mentioned being the sizeable “mountains of Ararat” (Gen. 8:4), point to a global flood.

They say: Thus it is our conclusion that Genesis 6-8 describes a worldwide, not a local flood.  This conclusion leaves us with what at first read, at least from our twenty-first-century Western perspective, is an error or at least a contradiction.  The Bible describes a worldwide flood, yet absolutely no geological evidence supports a worldwide flood.  While some people believe that this means that science must be wrong if the Bible is right, we believe the science is right, then it leads us to a better interpretation of the biblical material, the interpretation that gets us to the original intent of the biblical author.

This viewpoint is persuasive to me. It respects the inspiration of scripture without burdening that inspiration with violations of clear instances of physically verifiable facts.  I have been asked why, if I believe other miracle accounts of the Bible, especially the resurrection of Jesus, why I should balk at a miraculous description of a worldwide flood.  It’s a fair question.  One which we delved into at some length in the “Miracles and Science” series of posts.   The account of the flood in the Bible is not given as the description of a miracle, sign, or wonder.  It is a story.  The question is whether it is meant to be taken as a straight-forward historical account, or as a rhetorically influenced hyperbolic account that makes a theological point.  So far, Walton and Longman are making the case for the latter, and by the time we reach the end of this book, a very strong case indeed.