Interpretations of the Flood 9004112537, 9789004112537

Citation preview

INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FLOOD

THEMES IN

BIBLICAL NARRATIVE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS Ediwrial Board

PHIUP S. ALEXANDER - GERARD P. LUTTIKHUIZEN Assistant Editor FREEK VAN DER STEEN

Advisory Board WOLFGANG BIENERT - JAMES L. KUGEL FLORENTINO GARCiA MARTINEZ - JAMES R. MUELLER - ED NOORT

VOLUME I

INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FLOOD EDITED BY

FLORENTINO GARCiA MARTINEZ AND

GERARD P. LlJITIKHUIZEN

BRILL LEIDEN . BOSTON· KOLN

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Interpretations of the flood / edited by Florentino Garcia Martinez and Ger ard P. Luttikhuizen. p. em. - (Themes in biblical narrative ; v. I) Based on pape rs originally presented at a conference, University of Groningen, 1996. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 900411 2537 (alk. paper) 1. Deluge-Congresses. 2. Bible. o.r. Genesis VI, 5-IX , 17- Criticism, interpretation, etc. -H istory--Congresses. I. Ga rd a Martinez, Florentino. II. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. III. Series. BS658.I58 1998 222'.1106-dc21 98-40735 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnalune Interpretations of the flood / ed. by Florentino Garda Martinez and Gerard P. Luttikhu izen. - Leiden ; Boston ; Koln : Brill, 1999 (Themes in biblical narrative ; Vol. 1) ISBN 90-04-11253-7

ISSN 1388-3909 ISBN 9004 11253 7 © Copyright 1998

~

Koninklijke Brill NY, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in a'!Y form or ~ a'!Y means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy ing, recording or otherwise, without prior written permissionfrom the publisher. A uthonzation to photocopy items for internal orpersonal use is granted ~ Brillprovided that the appropnate fees are paid direct!y to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PR INTED IN T HE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS Editorial Statement Preface List of Abbreviations The Stories of the Gre at Flood: Notes on Gen 6:5-9:17 in its Context of the Ancient Near East E. NOORT Near Eastern and Native Traditions in Apollodorus' Account of the Flood J,N. BREMMER The Noah Story: Was it Known to the Greeks? A. HILHORST The Interpretation of the Flood Story in the Book of Jubilees J,T.A.G.M. VAN RUITEN Interpretations of the Flood in the Dead Sea Scrolls F. GARCiA MARTINEZ Biblical Narrative in Gnostic Revision: The Story of Noah and the Flood in Classic Gnostic Mythology G.P. LUTfIKHUIZEN The Lesson of the Flood: ?~::lQ in Rabbinic Tradition W J. VAN BEKKUM Noah, the Ark, and the Flood in Early Christian Theology: The Ship of the Church in the Making H.S. BENJAMINS The Flood and the Scientific Revolution: Thomas Burnet's System of Natural Providence

R.

VI VII

x ..

39 56

66

86

109 124

134

150

VERMIJ

Where will the Water Stick? Considerations of a Psychoanalyst about the Stories of the Flood P.M.G.P. VANDERMEERSCH

167

References to Ancient Texts

195

EDITORIAL STATEMENT The purpose of the proposed series is to publish studies dealing with early interpretations of Biblical narrative materials. The focus is on the narrative, more than on other Biblical traditions. The series, however, also considers narrative elements in legal, sapiential and hymnic traditions. Studies of backgrounds and sources of Biblical stories as well as comparative studies are included as far as they provide the textual base of early Bible interpretations. Furthermore the series deals with the study of historical receptions, rather than with the discussion of problems of present-day Bible interpretation. It includes Ancient and Medieval Jewish and Christian interpretations, whether from mainstream currents or from other circles such as Qumran, Gnostic groups, Jewish mysticism, etc. Extensions to modern Bible receptions and discussions of hermeneutical questions are welcomed if they are related explicitly to the study of early receptions of Biblical texts and traditions. The contributions to the series will be written by specialists in the relevant literary corpora. The series will include congress volumes and monographs and aims on a broad audience of scholars and advanced students of theology, linguistics and literature .

PREFACE On l7-l8June, 1996, the research group "Early Jewish and Christian Traditions" of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the University of Groningen held a small conference on "Interpretations of the Flood" in order to present some samples of the current research of its members. The research group is formed by a team of specialists in classical and semitic languages and cultures, biblical studies, Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, and Gnostic and early-Christian literature. The group has a long and strong tradition, and has been recognized by several quality assessment committees as one of the best research groups in the field of religious studies in the Netherlands . Recently the team has joined the Rudolf Agricola Institute, the Groningen Institute for the Humanities. The actual research is centred on the interpretation of biblical texts in early Jewish and early Christian traditions, both within mainstream Judaism and Christianity and within marginal or sectarian communities. The topic of the conference, the traditions around Noah and the Flood, was chosen because the biblical Flood narrative is closely related to similar traditions in the surrounding cultures and because it has left clear traces in diverse Jewish and Christian writings. It was agreed that the members of the research group would look at Flood traditions appearing within the literary corpus they are working with, or would examine the biblical narrative as it is interpreted or transformed by the particular communities which are the object of their studies. Instead of limiting the discussion to a debate within the research group, it was decided to open it to other members of the Theology Department, to the members of the Rudolf Agricola Institute, and to other interested parties. The conference began with an analysis of the Flood stories appearing in Sumerian and Babylonian texts and with an assessment of their importance to the understanding of the biblical narrative. This opening lecture was followed by two papers dedicated to the study of Flood traditions within Greek literature; the first was intended to discern the oriental and native elements that contributed to the formation of the Greek stories of the Flood, while the second aimed

Vlll

PREFACE

at ascertaining the extent to which the biblical tradition was known to the Greeks and influenced the Greek stories. Three lectures were dedicated to the analysis of the biblical Flood narrative outside the main trajectories of earlyJudaism and Christianity. Two of them studied transformations of the biblical Flood tradition within two particular Jewish groups, the group behind the Book of Jubilees and the community which authored the Dead Sea Scrolls. The third was dedicated to the revision of the biblical story in Gnostic mythology. Two lectures presented the way in which the Flood narrative has been operative within mainstream Judaism and Christianity, one by analyzing some of the interpretations occurring in rabbinic literature, the other by showing how the Flood was interpreted in patristic writings. In order to underline the interdisciplinary character of the approach and to show the importance of the selected topic through the centuries, two other members of the Rudolf Agricola Institute were invited to reflect upon the Flood tradition. Rienk Vermij presented one example of the treatment of the biblical Flood story during the period of the Scientific Revolution, and Patrick Vandermeersch looked into the stories of the Flood from the perspective of a twentieth century psychoanalyst . The original contributions were in Dutch, except the first one which was held in German in deference to Professor Klaus Koch , who attended the conference and to whom the opening lecture was dedicat ed. This volume contains English versions of all the lectures of the conferen ce, duly rewritten and amended taking into account the observations made during the discussions. The result is a monographic treatment of traditions of the Hood which, we hope , may interest a larger audience. It is a pleasant duty to thank the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies as well as the Rudolf Agricola Institute of the University of Groningen for all the help provided to allow the organization of the conference and the publication of the proceedings in their present form. It is also a pleasure to thank the participants in the conference; their contribution to the discussions after the presentation of each paper has greatly improved the final results. We are deeply indebted to Professors A.S. van der Woude and M.A. Wes who agreed to act as chairmen of the two sessions of the conference , and who presided over the discussions with their proverbial skill.

PREFACE

IX

Furthermore we express our thanks to Janneke Bekhof an Harold Schorren who adapted the contributions for publication in this volume and prepared the list of abbreviations and references to ancient texts. We are grateful to Brill Publishers in Leiden for presenting this book as first volume in their new series 17zemes in Biblical Narrative; Jewish and Christian Traditions. Florentino Garcia Martinez Gerard P. Luttikhuizen

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABD AGJU AHw AnBib AOS AThANT BETHL BG Bi e Or Bib BKAT BN BOT BSt BZAW CBET CBM CBS CBQ CBQMS CD

CIJ

COT CSCO CSEL DDD

DJD

DSD DSS EHS .T En FgrH FRLANT

Gilg HKL JBL JBTh J. Hell. Stud.

lIS

JQR JSHRZ JSJ JSOT JSOTS JSPSS JSSM Jub

The Anchor Bible Dictionary Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Akkadisches Handworterbuch Analecta Biblica American Oriental Studies Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Berolinensis Gnosticus Bibbia e Oriente Biblica Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament Biblische Notizen Boeken van het Oude Testament Biblische Studien Beiheft zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catalogue of the Babylonian Museum (Universi!;Museum Philn.delphia) Catalogue of the Babylonian Section (Universi!; Museum Philadelphia) The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Cairo Damascus Document Codex lJammurapi Commentaar op het Oude Te stament Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Dictionary of Deities and Demon s in the Bible Discoveries in the Judean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Dead Sea Scrolls Europaische Hochschulschriften. Theologie Enoch Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gilgamesh Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur Journal of Biblical Literature Jahrbuch fur biblische Theologie Jounal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Jewish Studies The Jewish Quarterly Review Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rornischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies, Monograph Series Jubilees

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

KuD LIMC

LXX

MDOG MH MS MT MW Nag Hamm. NHS OBO Or NS PAM PBS PEQ POT P.Oxy PP PVTG I Q ap Gen 4Qdi bHam 4QMess Ar 4QparaGe nExod 4QpGe n 4QprFetes RAC RB Rev.Adam RevQ RS SBLSCS SBS SC SJLA SPB STDJ TAPA ThB TRE T UAT UF VT WdF

WBC

WMANT ZA ZAW ZPE

Xl

Kerygm a und Dogma Lexicon Ico nogra phicum M ytholo gicae Classicae Septu agint Mitteilungen der deu tschen Orient-Gesellschaft Mu seum H elveticum Mediaeval Studies Masoretic T ext Merkelbach-West Nag H amm ad i Nag Hammad i Studies Orbis biblicus et orie ntalis Orientalia, Nova Series Palestine Archaeol ogical Mu seum Publications of the Bab ylonian Section (Universiry Museum Phila-

delphia)

Palestine Explo ration Quarterly De Pred iking van het Oude T estam ent Pap yrus O xyrhyn chus Principia Philosophi ae Pseud epigrapha Veteris Testam enti Graece I QGen esis Apo cryphon 4QWords of the Luminaries 4QElect of God 4Q Paraphrase of Genesis a nd Exodus 4Qpeshe r Gen esis 4QPestivai Prayers Reallexikon fur Antike und Christen tum Revue Biblique The Revelation of Ada m Revue de Qumran Ras Shamra Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Sources chretiennes Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Studia Post-Biblica Studies on the T exts of the Desert of Judah T ransactions of th e American Philological Association Theologische Blatte r Theologische Realenzyklopadic T exte aus der Umw elt des A1ten Testaments Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testam entum Wege der Forschun g Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftli che Monographien zum A1ten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fU r Assyriologie Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fur Pap yrologie und Epigraphik

THE STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD: NOTES ON GEN 6:5-9: 17 IN ITS CONTEXT OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST En NooRT In honour

if Klaus

Koch on the occasion

if his seventieth birthdol

1.0. A Systematu Approach 1.1. 77ze Material This symposium will focus primarily on the reception history of the flood narratives. While we later want to pay close attention to the reception of Gen 6-9 in Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, the New Testament, Gnosticism, Rabbinic literature, ancient Greece and the patristic tradition, an initial paper on the relationship between the Genesis texts and their ancient oriental antecedents is warranted," Without a doubt, the various Flood stories in Genesis provide the basis for many later retellings, but they were themselves stamped by the traditional tales about the deluge that were told throughout the Ancient East. Included in this tradition are: the Sumerian flood narrative with Ziusudra as its hero," the Old Babylonian Atram-Hasis

I This lecture, given at a symposium in which Klaus Koch participated, is dedicated to this friend and colleague from Hamburg, who turned seventy on October 4, 1996. A student of Gerhard van Rad, Koch's interests in the history of religion soon led him to pursue his own independent line of inquiry. He has published many articles, about the Flood even in Dutch , and the range of his efforts is indicated by the fact that another of his flood-narrativ e studies was published in India, a country which has also benefited from his enthusiastic teaching. 2 For an indication of the extent to which flood stories were spread throughout the ancient world, see the attached bibliography. 3 The Catalogue of the Babylonian Museum/Section (CBM/CBS), Un iversity Museum Philadelphia, 10673; A. Poebel, Historical and Grammatical Texts (Publications of the Babylonian Section [PBS] 5; Philadelphia, 1914). Bibliography: R. Borger, Handbuch (HKL I; Berlin, 1967) 411; (HKL II; Berlin, 1975) 232. Comm entary: Civil, "Flood Story", 138-145 ; G. Pettinato , Das alumentalische Menschenbild unddie sumerischen und akkadischen SchiJpjUngsmythen (Heidelberg, 1971) 97ff.; Jacobsen, "Eridu Genesis", 513ff.j J acobsen, Harps, 145ff.; Kramer and Maier, Myths, 128ff.; Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, Iff.; Romer, Flutgeschichte, 448ff.

2

ED NOORT

myth," the famou s eleventh tablet of the Gilgam esh epic, in which Utnapishtim gives a first-person account about how he alone is rescued from the flood ," and finally the narrative included by the Babylonian priest Berossus" in his Book Bal3uArovuxlCU, in which King Xisuthrus is the lone survivor. Although there have been several attempts to demonstrate the unity of the Biblical Flood stories/ the resulting arguments are not convincing." As a starting poi nt for this study, I will therefore examine two distinct Old T estam ent versions: one coming from the Yahwistic source (J), and ano ther attributable the Priestly writer (P).9 Clearly, both accounts were integrated by the last redactor into a narrative unity, and this integrated redaction deserves to be carefully examined not only becau se of its importance in the Biblical account of the primordial age'? but also because of the fact that it provides the ba sis for the subsequent reception history of the flood narratives. As an example of this reception , one need only consider the translation the LXX as an autonomous work, a rendition that closely resembles the Masoretic text. I I In contrast to its ensuing prominence in oth er writings, the significance of the Flood story in 4 T he editio n used here is based on an Old Babylonian poem tha t is preserved on three tablets and that probably originated in Sippar (Von Soden , "AtrarnchasisMythos", 6 12ff.). In addition, a second Old Babylonian version, which, given the existence of fragments in Nineve and Ugarit, as well as in a much later Assyrian recension, must have existed. The present version, written by Nur-Ajja, dates from the twelfth century of the Ammisaduqa (1647- 25 BC). O n the history of the cuneiform text, see Von Soden , "Atra mchasis-Mythos", 6 17; Lambert and Millard, Atra-Hasis. In addition, see Von Soden, "T afel", 50 - 94; his "Konflikte", 1- 33; and Dalley, Myths .from Mesopotamia, Iff. 5 The Old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic found in the Sinleqe-unnini redaction (ca. 1200 BC) alread y looks back on an app roximately seven-hundredyear-old Gilgamesh tradition. Besides the Old-Babylonian account , Akkadian, Hittite and Hurrite versions also exist. For a bibliography of both the primary texts and the secondary literature, see Borger, HKL I, 555; II, 292. Additionally, see Ob erhuber, Gilgamesch; Tigay, Evolution. Background information on the edition used in this study can be found in Hecker, "Gilgamesch-Epos", 64-8ff. , 728ff. Ii For a discussion of the text and its variants, see Lamb ert and Millard, AtmHasis, 134-7; J-N. Bremm er, "Near Eastern and Native Traditions", included in this volume. 7 Wenham, "Coherence", 336-348. K Emerton , "Examination", VT 37 (1987) 401- 20; VT 38 (1988) 1- 21. 9 For a detailed overview of the two sources, see C. Westermann, Genesis ]-]1 (BKAT 1/1; Neukirchen/V1uyn, 1974) 532ff. IU P.D. Miller, Jr., Genesis I-Xl: Studies in Structure and Theme (jSOTSuppl. 8; Sheffield, 1978) 32ff. II M. Rosel, Uberseteung als Vollmdung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta (BZAW 22; Berlin/New York, 1994) 158-200.

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

3

the Old Testament itself is limited. A reference to the Noah story occurs in the oath that YHWH makes in Isa 54:9-10,1 2 in which Deutero-Isaiah cites the Priestly account." Brief allusions to the Flood can also be found in the apocryphal books: Tobit 4: 12,14 Ecclesiasticus 44:17-18 15 and The Wisdom of Solomon 4:10.

1.2. Derivation and Place

of Origin

A great deal of ink has been spent in the debate over the interdependence of the various flood narratives. The deluge of publications has continued without interruption since George Smith , in a now famous presentation before the December 3, 1872 meeting of the Society of Biblical Archaeology ," introduced the initial fragments of the eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh and first made it possible to compare the Biblical and the Mesopotamian texts. Noah's Flood also played a role in the notorious Babel-Bible debate," in which Assyriologists and Old Testament scholars, with views ranging from liberal to the ultra-orthodox, fiercely defended their own versions of the truth. Additionally, many amateur scholars, geologists," climatologists, paleontologists'? and archaeologists'" took part in the dispute." As a 12 "T ruly, this reminds me of Noah's Flood; as I then swore that the Deluge should never again flood the earth , so I now swear never again to be angry with you, never again to reproach you". 13 This argument was originally made by BJ. van der Merwe in Penlateuch-tradisies in die prediking van Deuterojesojau (Dissertation, Groningen, 1955) 74-89. The view is restated in W.A.M. Beuken, J esoja deel lib (POT; Nijkerk, 1982) 257. I ~ The book indicates that Noah , Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are Tobias ancestors. 15 Noah is presented in the same way as in the Priestly Code. He was a perfect and righteous individual (Gen 6:9). On account of his righteousness, a remnant of all life was saved from tile Flood, as a bryt 'uilm was concluded with him (Gen 9: 16). 16 G. Smith, Transactions ofthe Society ofBiblical Archaeology (Vol. 2; 1873); G. Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis (1875); J .N. Bremmer in this volume. 17 F. Delitzsch, "Babel und Bibe!", a paper presented in Berlin on J anuary 13, 1902. Thi s and other lectures were published as "Babel und Bibel" I (1902), II (1904) and III (1904). For an analysis of this debate and its importance in the history of Biblical scholarship, see W. Klatt: Hermann Gunkel: Zu einer Theologie der &ligionsgeschuhte und zur Entstehung tier flrmgeschuhtluhen Methode (FRIA NT 100; Gorringen 1969); HJ. Krau s, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Etforschung des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen, 31 982) 309-14; K. Johanning, Der Bibei-Babel-Streu: Eine forschungsgeschichtliclze Studie (EHS.T 343; Frankfurt a.M., 1989); C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: Die "Geschichte seiner ErfiJrschung neben einer Auswertung (CBET 9; Kampen, 1994) 1181: 18 A. and E. T ollmann , Und die Sin!flut gab es doch: Vom Mythos zur historischen Wahrheit (Munich, 1993). 19 Sauer, "View", 366 - 98. 20 Mallowan, "Noah's Flood", 62-82. 2 1 The best known of these participants was Leonard Woolley, who discovered

4

ED NOORT

result, all points of view can be found in the scholarly literature; from those which make the Biblical text into a direct transcription of originally Babylonian material to those which value the Genesis story as an fully autonomous composition; from those which posit an underlying historical and datable flood to those which appreciate the "deluge" as a purely literary topos. Without going into any detail about this rather longwinded discussion, two premises can be mentioned here: 1.2.1. Despite a global diffusion of flood narratives and the apparently overabundance of catastrophic floods and fires in early history, the tales with which we are concerned originated in the area of South Mesopotamia. They do not refer back to any real devastating catastrophe. Local experiences were consolidated into a narrative tradition about the world-wide destruction of all human life. The global dissemination of this tradition can only be understood in psycho-religious terms." 1.2.2. The derivative nature of the Biblical Flood narrative or rather the existence of an antecedent Mesopotamian tradition for the early forms of the Biblical story is undeniable. However, the extent to which the later narrative is derived from the earlier tradition remains uncertain. A direct form of literary influence cannot be asserted, as the distinctive features of the respective narratives are too plentiful to allow such an affirmation. All one can say is that the Biblical accounts must have been influenced by the Mesopotamian oral tradition or by a pre-existing series of such orally transmitted traditions. in 1929, at a depth of 3.7 meters beneath the city of Ur , a layer of what was for him water deposited sediment. He immediately telegraphed London saying: "I found the Flood!" When St. Langdon shortly thereafter unearthed an alluvial layer in Kish, a discussion arose about which one of the two had "excavated" the "real" Biblical Deluge. Even if the alluvial stratum in Ur was actually deposited by water (petrochemical research indicates that it could have also been created by sand storms), the failure to find alluvial deposits in Tell Obd, a site that is only six kilometers away and that dates from the same period would suggest that the sediments in Ur were not produced by a global flood. In addition , the alluvial strata in other Mesopotamian cities were deposited at various times and during periods that were, geologically speaking, remarkably dissimilar. 22 The historian of religion can only observe that, in many cultures, the primeval beginning and primordial state of existence are separated from the reality of contemporary experience by a (series of) world catastrophe(s). There is a similar barrier erected between the present and the end of time, which are separated by a final judgment, the coming of a new age, etc. To go beyond such observations, it is important to consult psychologists of religion. See, for example, P. Vandermeersch's contribution to the present volume.

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

5

In attempting to resolve this question of influence, it is important to consider the following eight points.P 1.2.2.1. The written forms of the various narratives provide us with a first and most reliable set of dates. The transcribed version of the Sumerian story dates from around 1600 BC, the written Atram-Hasis from approximately 1650 BC and the Gilgamesh tablets from ca. 1200 BC . 24 With the Yahwistic account.P we enter the early Monarchical Period, and for the Priestly narrative, we must plunge deep into the first Millennium until we reach 550 BC. 26 These dates by themselves indicate a probable Mesopotamian influence on the Biblical stories. One could, of course, argue that the date of transcription tells us nothing about the origin of the history of tradition. For the relationship between the Biblical and Mesopotamian traditions, such an objection is, however, irrelevant. Given the little that we know about Israel 's emergence in Canaan, it would be quite impossible to presume either an Israelite or an appropriated Canaanite tradition that extended far back to an original source existing in the second millennium BC . The argument must , however all the same, be kept in mind when discussing the interaction between the Mesopotamian traditions themselves. As early as the twenty-sixth century BC, the name of Gilgamesh appears in a list of gods. In the third dynasty of Dr, he was worshipped 23 See A. He idel, The Gilgamesh Epic and the Old Testament Parallels (London, 1970 [1946]). 24 See the appendix and footnotes 3-5. 25 According to the classical system of dating, the Yahwistic version was written during the flowering of Solomon's reign (ca. 950 BC). The arguments for this date can be found in W.H. Schmidt, Eirifiihrung in das Alte Testament (Berlin/New York, 51995) 78r. Using nearly the same arguments, one can also suggest a date in the early eighth century BC, a view that is illustrated by H. SeebaB "Pentateuch," (TRE XXVI 1/2; Berlin/New York 1996) 194ff. In the case of the early date, a sharp distinction between the corpus and the redaction of the Yahwist materials must, however, be made. The Yahwistic corpus should be understood as a process, an understanding that is absent from the recent trends stemming from H.H. Schmid and given their most illustrious expression in J. van Seter's elaborately detailed work. According to Van Seters, the Yahwistic writer lived during the exile or the early post-exile period . His main thesis, in which he links the Yahwist with Greek writings (e.g, those by Hesiod) and later Oriental traditions, is ju st as hypothetical as theimost detailed analyses of redactional history are. See C. Levin, Der ]ahwist (FRLANT 157; Gottingen , 1993); M. Rose, Deuteronomist and]ahwist (AT hANT 67; Zurich, 1981); H.H . Schmid, Der sogenannte ]ahwist (Zurich, 1976); J. Van Seters, In Search of History (New Haven, 1983); J. Van Seters, The life of Moses (C BET 10; Kampen, 1994). 26 See Zenger , Goues Bogen; Rutersworden , "Bogen", 247-63; Turner, "Rainbow", 119-24.

6

ED NOORT

and poems about him began to appear. The important role that the Gilgamesh tradition played in Old Babylonian period (19th-17th c. Be) is demonstrated in the Hittite and Hurrite narratives, both of which contain noteworthy differences from the later Twelve Tablets Epos . However, it is still difficult to say which of Atram-Hasis or Gilgamesh is actually older . When compared to the eleventh tablet of Gilgamesh, it would appear that Atram-Hasis was the first to be given a written epic form. In relation to either of them, the Sumerian version is much younger. Based on this second series of dates, the chronological sequence would appear to be: Atram-Atram-Hasis, Gilgamesh, the Sumerian version, the Yahwistic narrative and the Priestly account. 1.2.2.2. In Atram-Hasis as well as in Gilgamesh (and in the Sumerian version), Enlil is the active leader of the gods and Anu his somewhat less colourful accomplice. Their opponent is Enki/Ea. Consequently, the connection of the flood narrative with Enlil must have originated during the time that the old Sumerian god Anu was rendered more or less inactive but still before the later Babylonian leader of the gods, Marduk, became dominant. In the later creation myth known as Enuma Elish, Marduk is the hero who defeats Tiamat and is enthroned as king of the gods. In the flood stories, Enlil retains his full powers. The question arises: when did Marduk's elevation and Enlil's degradation begin to occur? A passage in Hammurabi's legal code provides us with a clue. The current prologue begins: ''When lofty Anu , king of the Anunnaki, and Enlil, lord of heaven and earth, ruler over the country's destinies, appointed Marduk, first born son of Ea, to rule on behalf of Enlil over all humanity, made him great among the Igigi, called Babylon by its exalted name . . .",21 According to this account, Anu and Enlil have conferred their power on Marduk and the city of Babylon. Another version, which undoubtedly represents the older tradition, does not mention Marduk at all, nor does it refer to Babylon. The city to which this text refers is Nippur, the old capital. It can therefore be concluded that the Hammurapi codex gives us a clear indication of when the change occurred. The older version, associated with Enlil and Nippur, is, after Hammurapi 's conquest of the old capital, replaced by another version in which Marduk and Babylon are exonerated. The transition in the 27

CH I, 1-16.

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

7

status of the gods occurs when Hammurapi builds Babylonia into a world power. The flood tales in Atram-Hasis and Gilgarnesh belong to the same period as the older version of the prologue from the codex. Hammurapi's reign in the eighteenth century Be is, consequently, a period ante quem. 1.2.2.3. The flood narratives are set in the social and cultural environment of Babylonia. Unlike in Egypt, where the Nile's inundations are entirely predictable, and unlike in the mountainous regions of Palestine, the area that was known as Babylonia is prone to catastrophic disasters resulting from the irregular flood waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and the southern storm s that blowout of the Persian Gulf. Such a place provides a natural habitat for the development of flood myths. They are nati ve to that region rather than to Palestine. Insofar as P is concerned, evidence of this Babylonian heritage is relatively easy to detect. Such a cultural inheritance is demonstrated by the polemic against the Babylonian gods in Gen 1:14-18 and by the way in which the Creation and Flood stories are linked . For P, the Flood is the inversion of Creation. The Deluge occurs because the large springs of the deep-lying underworld ocean break to the surface at the same time as heaven's sluice gates are opened and the heavenly ocean is allowed to return to the earth. The account presents a mirror image of the events of Creation in which the primeval ocean is confined by God's salutary act. Still, the whole relationship presents a form of cosmogonic imagery that is not unique to the Bible and can also be found in Enuma Elish. The Flood depicted in the Yahwistic narrative also mirrors the Creation story, but the basic principles of this rendition are completely opposed to those on which the Priestly account is based. Creation takes place because YHWH makes it rain and a watery mist dampens the earth." Water is, in this version , a symbol of salvation and the desecrated earth represents affliction. As a result, it would seem that J would prefer to destroy the world with a fire rather than with a flood. Perhaps the tales about Sodom and Gomerrah retain a few traces of such a tradition. Lot's daughters trick thei r father into making them pregnant because "there are no other men left in the land". 29 The implication is that the narrative takes place 28

29

Gen 2:5f. Gen 19:31.

8

ED NOORT

during a primeval state of existence, in which there is no other possibility of conceiving children ." The insertion of such a fossil narrative into the part of the Yahwistic corpus dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah suggests that several primordial narratives were being freely adapted to suit a new context. Nevertheless, the Yahwist includes a Flood story and not a world consuming fire. The link to the Mesopotamian tradition of the flood should not, therefore, be underestimated. Additionally, the fact that the Gilgamesh tradition was known in Canaan can be demonstrated by considering the Megiddo fragment of the Gilgamesh story." A spicy anecdote about this important piece of text involves the way that it was discovered: it was found in the waste pile of an excavation after its excavators had completely overlooked it. Since such a Gilgamesh fragment could be found even in Emar (Syria), the epic must have been handed down to people living in the region of Canaan/Israel. As if to confirm this hypothesis, J contains passages that correspond to parts of Atram-Hasis and Gilgamesh (the sacrifice, the bird episode), correspondences which can only be explained by assuming that the Yahwistic account reiterates older narratives. A similar respect for past conventions would also explain why J situates postdiluvian humanity in Babylonia." Anyone living in Israel who told a story about the primordial age was bound by traditions of the Ancient Near East to such a degree that he could not leave the Flood out of his account. 1.2.2.4. The bird episode provides another example of the ways in which Israelite tradition was influenced by Babylonian culture. Although the bird in the Yahwistic narrative (three times a dove) differs from the types that appear in the Akkadian versions, the structures and goals of the Biblical account are identical to those of its anteced-

30 Exegesis correctly points to the fact that the original fonn of the tale does not make Moabites and Amonites into figures of derision but gives an account of how humanity survives as a result of the active intervention of Lot's two daughters. See H. Gunkel, Genesis (Gottingen, 81969) 218;J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Ear!y J ewish and Ear!y Christian Traditions (CBET I; Kampen, 1990) 45. 31 The fragment was discovered in 1955 and contains one of Enkidu's dreams and a description of his fatal sickness. It is a variant of tablet VII of the twelvetablet epic (Ni neve), Th e edition by A. Goetze and S. Levy appea red in 'Atiqot 2 Ueru salem, 1959) 121-128. 32 See the story about the Tower of Babel (Gen II) .

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

9

ents. Moreover, the peculiar rudimentary narrative about the raven.P which entirely fulfils the narrative purpose of the subsequent story about the dove, can only be explained by viewing it as a recapitulation of some previously existing material. 1.2.2.5. Gen 8:21, "when YHWH smelled the delightful odour,...", is parallel to the corresponding passages in Atram-Hasis and Gilgamesh, which respectively state: "the gods smelled the sweet odour . . ."34 and "the odour [was smelled by the god]s . . ." .35 Although God's detection of sacrificial odours is reported in other Old Testament passages" and although the idea in itself is not foreign to the Old Testament, it is presented here at the same place in the story in which the Akkadian narratives are concerned with similar motifs. It is unimportant that the intentions of the various texts are different, as these are coloured by the theology of their respective sources . 1.2.2.6. A further indication of an underlying Babylonian heritage is found in the Priestly narrative, when P gives the directions for building the ark . The ark must be sealed with pitch (lfr),37 a practice that would be unusual in Israel. However, the Babylonians had been working with pitch (kupru) since a very early moment in their history. Israelite unfamiliarity with this technique can be seen in j, when the narrator of the Tower of Babel story seems to marvel at the strange Babylonian methods of tower construction: "And they used bricks for stones and asphalt for mortarl'P" 1.2.2.7. Finally, there are the (antithetical) connections in the respective narrative structures. These textual links conform in so many ways that the autonomy of the Israelite narratives would seem improbable. This narrative network starts with the rationale for the Flood and the decision to destroy the world , it permeates the accounts of how the flood waters are unleashed, intensified and allayed, and it even reaches into the conclusion of the episode, in which a sacrifice is made and a view of the postdiluvian future given.

33 34

3.\ 36 37 38

Gen 8:7. Gilg. XI 160. Atram-Hasts III v 34. Lev 26:31; Am 5:21; 1 Sam 26:19. Gen 6:14. Gen 11:3.

10

ED NOORT

1.2.2.8. The distinctive nature of the narrative tradition that influences both the Near Eastern and the Biblical Flood stories becomes evident by comparing these accounts with corresponding Indian narratives." In the Satapatha Brahmana, Manu, the hero in this account of the deluge, bridges the divide between epochs. After him, a differently structured human society comes into being. He is warned by a fish of the impending cataclysm. In return for taking care of the fish, the animal charges Manu with the building of a boat. The flood occurs; Manu survives in his vessel and ultimately comes aground on a mountain in the Himalayas that, since then, has been named "Manu's descent". The narrative has aetiologic characteristics, but emphasises Manu's obedience. Since he obeys the homed fish's command, he is saved. The whole tale is embedded in ritual. As a result of performing a sacrifice, Manu is granted a daughter, and the continuity of humanity is, in that way, preserved." The story is a simple one. Guilt does not play any role at all, despite the fact that the narrative sequence includes a justly destructive inundation, the warning of a single individual, the building of a vessel and the rebirth of humanity. In the Mahabharata, the story is narratively embellished. Manu, in this version, acquires some of the characteristics that P gives Noah; he is a completely righteous man, who proves his righteousness in the ways that he lives (as an ascetic) and acts. In every respect, Manu unquestioningly obeys everything that the fish requests of him, initially by sheltering the terrified animal in a water jug and finally by returning it to the ocean. Only then and, unlike the fish in the Satapatha Brahmana, not right at the beginning of the story does the fish in the Mahabharata foretell the coming of the flood and explain to Manu how he can save himself. In addition, only after the boat has run aground in the Himalayas does the fish reveal himself to be the god Brahma." This story is not, in any precise sense, concerned with the theme of human guilt, neither does humanity's wickedness serve as the justification for the advent of the deluge. The theme of guilt only appears in the most general sense, when the narrative is named "the purana of the fish that purifies all evil" Satapatha Brahmana 1.8.1-6; Mahabharata 3.185.1-£ 1. Satapatha Brahmana 1.8.1-6; Egge1ing, Sacred Books, 216ff.; Max Muller, History, 386ff. .1 Mahabharata 185, 1-61; Van Buitenen, Mahabharata, 582 ~585 . 39

40

STORIES OF TIIE GREAT FLOOD

11

or when the fish recognises that the time had then come "to cleanse the world". In fact, the various ages in Indian mythology all end with similar great disasters. Initially, the catastrophes do not appear to be any kind of punishment; instead, each is "an inevitable natural occurrence, corresponding to the great flood that takes place at the end of every era"." Not until the end of the "Kali Age" does Vishnu incarnate himself as Kalkin in order to destroy sinful humanity by drowning it in the flood waters that become his instrument of destruction. Despite these obvious differences, the possibility of a linking narrative tradition that connects either version of the Manu story to the Mesopotamian accounts of the flood can not be entirely discounted. K. Koch'" bases his argument for a Mesopotamian influence on the Indian flood tales on the following points: a) There is a great chronological distance between the Mesopotamian myths and the Indian stories," which makes a wide dissemination of the Mesopotamian traditions possible, and the geographical and chronological transmission of the Gilgamesh material confirms that such a dispersal did indeed occur . One might even add that an early-historical connection between Mesopotamia and India has received archeological support. As early as the middle of the third millennium BC, an urban culture existed in the Indus valley. It was centered in Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, and it possessed traditions that had remarkable parallels with Sumerian cultural practices . Conversely, Indian seals and small pieces of jewelry have been found in Tell Asmar, Susa, Ur, Kish, Lagash, Tepe Gawra and Mari. It can be assumed that, between 2500-1500 BC,45 the two cultures enjoyed some form of reciprocal exchange. t" The horned god, the "Lord of the animals" , and the Gilgamcsh motif provide iconographic evidence for such a relationship. A renewed contact between the Near East and South India did undoubtedly have a similar influence on South-Indian culture." There is also evidence of such exchanges in later periods. In Roman O 'F1aherty, Origins, 35. Koch, "Deluge Story", 19ff. 44 Satapatha Brahm ana was written somewhere between the fourth and second centuries Be; Mahabharata dates from the fifth century AD. 45 H . Goetz, lndien: Fiinf Jahrtausende indischer Kunst (Bade n-Baden", 1965) 22f.; M. Wheeler, De Indus-beschamng tegen de achtergrond van de lndische cultuur-geschiedenis, uanof ca. 3000 tot 300 u. C. (Amsterdam/ Brussels, 1967) IOff. 46 A.L. Oppenheim, "The Sea-Faring Merchants ofUr," JAOS 74 (1954) 6-17. 47 H. Goetz (lndien, 3 1) points to the parallels between Siva/Parvati, the moon 42

H

12

ED NOORT

times, the earlier established sea trade routes facilitated a brisk commercial trade, and the resulting exchange of cultural materials became the source of those traditions that postulated a very early arrival of Jews 48 and Christians'? in India. b) In both Mesopotamian and Indian tales of the deluge, the flood hero (alone?) is saved, and with him humanity and the world of the gods begins anew. c) In both traditions, a deity reveals to the flood hero that the cataclysm is coming and advises him to build a ship. d) In Mesopotamia, there is the tradition of the seven antediluvian apkallu, who furnish humankind with art, science and the crafts. In India, the seven rishis do this. One might additionally add that the craftsmen also survive in the Gilgamesh version." e) In the Satapatha Brahmana, the flood episode begins very abruptly in the eighth adhyaya of the first kanda. Additionally, the speech of a Hotri-priest comes after the flood, when all humans have supposedly been drowned. A similar inconsistency occurs when Manu re-creates the gods. Such contradictions suggest that various traditional elements had been reworked." Given the strength of these arguments, it can be assumed that the two versions of the flood story in the Satapatha Brahmana and the Mahabharata were likely influenced by Mesopotamian traditions. Such is not, however, the case for all the traditional flood narratives in India. The folk tales of the orally transmitted tribal and regional tales and the flood narratives associated with the shrine of Dviirakii52 contain such important deviations from the above mentioned parallels that independent traditions must be postulated. In some cases, the myth of the golden age and of the flood are combined with the question of guilt. For the Santals, the world begins with an act of god and "the goddess of the mountain " in Ur, as well as to the similarities between the ceramic pottery from Tepe Hissar and some South Indian articles. 48 The Jews in Cochin (Kerala) trace their ancestry back to a group that was expatriated after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Evidence of a Jewish community in the third century AD has been found. 49 According to the oral tradition of the Thomean Christians, Thomas was supposedly active in Kerala as early as the period between 52 and 72 AD. He established seven communities there and was finally murdered south of Madras. It is not impossible that this tradition contains a kernel of truth . Yet the available evidence only allows us to date the existence of Christian communities in India from the third century AD. 50 Perhaps here is a surviving remnant of the tradition for which Koch is looking. See his "Deluge Story", 20. 51 Koch, "Deluge Story", 18. 52 O'Flaherty, Origins, 261-71.

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

13

incest between a brother and sister to whom Maran Buru gives rice beer to drink and who, after taking the drink, engage in sexual intercourse. As they then learn about shame, they are consoled by Maran Buru. Their progeny are, however, wicked and corrupt. They neither heed Thakur's (the creator's) warnings nor his calls to conversion. When a rain of fire lasting seven days and nights lays everything to waste, alone the original siblings, Pilcu Haram and Pilcu Budhi, are given shelter in a mountain cave.P As all the humans and the animals are killed and only the two of them survive," it is noteworthy that the couple who were responsible for degrading creation in the first place are precisely the two beings who are later granted salvation. This symmetry of events makes the condemnation of sexuality or incest into a secondary motif, even though the negative consequences of this act are clearly illustrated by the behaviour of the descendants, This mixture of motifs can also be found in other tribal cultures. The Kols tell how the flood was caused by human wickedness, incest and the renunciation of the gods." Another set of regional tales deals with overpopulation, a theme which plays a major role in Ancient Near Eastern myths and which is connected in those accounts with the original immortality of mankind. For its part, the Indian narrative tradition recounts how all humans were originally immortal, but they became too numerous; they fought among themselves and acted wickedly until one day, when Khazangpa was angered, he said, "All men in the world must die". Only two individuals survived, and with them a new human race was begun. 56 The Karias tell a similar tale. Ponomosor, the highest being, created the world and its human inhabitants. The human populations grew to be abundant and soon there was too little to eat. Pomosor gave them more food, but they deeply offended him by cutting some fruit trees down . In response, he sent a flood in order to destroy humanity. When humanity annoyed him yet again, he dispatched a rain of fire. This time only a few survived." The narrative associates overpopulation with a food

Archer, Hill, 262ff. Archer points to possible Christian influences in O'Flaherty's work (Origins, 36) because an old Santa! dictated the myth to a Christian missionary. 55 Elwin, Myths, 20, 24. 56 N.E. Parry, The Lakhers (London, 1932) 488f.; O'Flaherty, Origins, 247. 57 S.C. and R.C. Roy, The Karias (Ranchi, 1937) 414ff.; O 'Flaherty, Origins, 247. 53 54

14

ED NOORT

shortage that leads humanity to desecrate the forbidden mythical trees. The flood is sent to punish this sacrilege. Other texts" that link flood and (renewed) creation in the ways in which they are linked in the Near Eastern myths focus on the problem of human rebirth. Siblings are always the ones that survive, and the deity must perform some pretty neat tricks in order to make them have sexual intercourse.59 In this way, the situation is comparable to the story about Lot's daughters in Gen 19. The incestuous relationship is not denounced, as it is in the context of the Biblical story; instead, incest is an element underlying the new beginning that will eventually develop into the contemporary world of experience. It is astonishing how frequently humanity is regenerated from a pair of siblings and, more precisely, from a brother-sister relationship. Insofar as the narrative function is concerned, a primeval pair could just as well be a married couple. Although these narratives include many of the motifs that we also know from the classical flood stories, they are used differently or placed in other contexts. The catastrophe can come in the form of a flood but also in the form of a fire storm . Very different reasons are given to explain the offence of which humanity is guilty. A boat can be the instrument of salvation, but so can a mountain cave or even a gourd. Occasionally, the bird episode also resurfaces. The differences between the individual narratives and the general motifs are sometimes so important that the Indian flood stories offer us a very good example of, on the one hand, a partially derivative and reworked narrative tradition and, on the other hand, an autonomously developed one. In what must have been a comparable way, the basic elements and topoi of the flood episodes were brought ready-made into Israel. The theology evolved within this traditional framework, a development which resulted in an independent commentary and which assigned the flood narratives their own place in the respective corpora. This underlying assumption has influenced the systematic approach taken in this paper.

58

59

Elwin, Myths, 33£, 41, 44£ Elwin, Myths, 44£

STORIES OF TIlE GREAT FLOOD

15

1.3. the Approach In the dispute about the derivation of the Biblical Flood narratives, research has often become bogged down in the details. However useful it may be to refer to the dove, swallow and raven in the bird episode of Gilgamesh (Gilg. XI I45ff.), the raven and doves in the parallel Biblical verses (Gen 8:7-12), the use of kupru to seal the ark in Gilg. XI 54, the corresponding use of lfr in Gen 6:14, the statement "When YHWH smelled the delightful odour [of the offering]" in Gen 8:21 and the comparable expressions in Gilg. XI 160 or Atram-Hasis III v 34, these references only illuminate the details underlying the individual nodes of a narrative network. They contribute to an exclusively atomistic treatment of the tradition. To go beyond this level, a comparative history of religion is required, one which examines the structures and intentions of the respective narratives, as well as their interconnections with the larger contexts enveloping each text. The task is to place each narrative in its own cultural environment. It is an undertaking that requires us to attend to the role of the flood in the totality of the Atram-Hasis Myth and in the structure of the entire Gilgamesh epic. Additionally, we must consider the place and function of the Flood stories in the entire Yahwistic account of the primordial age and within the structure of an equally complete Priestly text. In the latter case, it is assumed that the primeval history in P represents an independent source and not a redaction." Only then can the similarities and differences between the narratives from the Ancient Near East and the Biblical versions, as well as among the various narratives from the different Old Testament sources, be given appropriate consideration.

60 This issue is discussed by F.M. Cross in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge/Mass., 1973) 293ff. In addition, see S. T engstrom, Die Toledotformel und die literarische Struktur der priesterlichen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (CB.OT 17; Stockholm, 1982); Zenger, Goues Bogen; P. Weimar, "Struktur und Komposition der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung" , EN 23 (1983) 81-143; K. Koch, "P-k ein Redaktor", VT37 (1987) 446-67; M. Vervenne, "T he 'P' Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction?" in C. Brekelmans and J. Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies (BETHL 94; Leuven, 1990) 67-90; T. Pola, Die urspriinglithe Priesterschrifl (WMANT 70; Neukirchen, 1994).

16

ED NOORT

2.0. Individual Topics

2.1. TIe Role of the Deity In the Indian flood narratives, the Gods are clearly actors in the unfolding drama, but the schedule of the predetermined aeons turns the flood into an event that is---so to speak-preordained even for them . Although Brahma, Vishnu and the gods of the local traditions are the instigators of the flood, the stress falls on their roles as the saviours of humanity. They indicate to the survivors how they might survive, be it in a ship or a mountain cave, and they actively participate in the process of re-creating the world after the flood. Even when they, like Brahma in the Manu story, recede into the background and cede the task of restoring creation to the surviving humans, the deity stands as the guarantor for the success of the human endeavor." In the assignment of roles, the Mesopotamian flood narratives display all the advantages of a polytheistic account. Enlil, the leader of the gods, and the colourless Anu decide "rashly to bring about a deluge" in order to extinguish the human race .62 Their opponent is the wise Enki/Ea, who shows himself to be the divine saviour of mankind; for he uses cunning and deceit to circumvent'" the oath sworn by the gods" and to allow a man and his wife to survive. The rest of the gods are situated somewhere between these two poles. Under the leadership of the mother goddess Mami , Nindu or Beletili, they make a complaint in which the consequences of Enlil's actions are made clear." All the traditional elements are therefore present in this account: the instigation of the flood, the act of deliverance and the complaints about the world's destruction, a devastation that has its repercussions for divine as well as human beings. Since the flood also destroys the gods places of worship, it is not an event that affects only humanity. Mahabharata 185.1-61. Atram-Hasis III iv 42f.; Gilgamesh XI 168f. The formulation is meant to be taken as a definitive judgment. In the plot , it is first given expression as part of the reaction of the anxious gods to the overflowing flood waters: Atram-Hasts III iii 23ff.; Gilgamesh XI 113ff. Since the flood has destro yed everything, the gods have been robbed of their source of food (i.e. the offerings from the humans). 63 Ziusudra iv 3ff.; Atram-Hasis III i 20ff.; Gilgamesh XI 20ff. 64 Ziusudra iii IS' ; Atram-Hasis II vii 38ff.; Gilgamesh XI ISff. 65 Ziusudra III IS'ff.; Atram-Hasls iii 32ff.; Gilgam esh XI 116ff. 61

62

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

17

In addition to these conventional elements, the Mesopotamian flood stories contain a quite distinctive feature: Enlil's anger over the fact that one person has survived." His anger is abated when a compromise is found , in which humanity's numbers will be reduced by inflicting it with smaller plagues. In this way, the ambiguity of the flood traditions is apparent in the gods actions. Punishment is accompanied by regret: regret that the flood occurred, regret that one man was spared. Since a monolatrous Yahwism undoubtedly characterises the Yahwist narrative and since a monotheism is evident in the Priestly rendition, the Old Testament has much more difficulty with the assignment of roles and the resulting discernible ambiguity. In dealing with the flood, either Biblical text can only speak about YHWH or Elohim . J accepts the ambiguity inherent in the narrative tradition and surpasses it in the way that he treats YHWH's dismay and remorse about having to unleash a Flood." In the end, human survival is given divine assurance." but the change from one extreme to another is not easy to understand. YHWH has come to "accept" humanity's evil inclinations, and will not again endanger the world order. Furthermore, human maliciousness will no longer affect YHWH's ability to be God. Clearly, J radically abandons any attempts to reduce human populations, such as those undertaken by the Mesopotamian gods. Although the traditions about the sacrifice and YHWH's reaction when he smells the delightful odour were consciously incorporated into the Yahwistic account, the all embracing promise to grant humanity the time and climate needed to thrive in the region is inserted precisely into this passage . The Priestly writer overcomes the ambiguity in another way. In his version, God has no remorse about killing anyone except for Noah, the purely righteous man. It is with this pious man that Elohim enters into a covenant; in fact, the making of this covenant becomes the focal point of the entire Flood story. The one and only God wishes, immediately after the Flood, to become a God bound by agreements with man. In addition, P clearly rejects any suggestion that humanity's numbers should be further reduced. In the place in which the Mesopotamian gods discuss the additional measures that 66 67

68

Atram-Hasis vi 5f.; Gilgamesh Xl 170ft: Gen 6:5ft: Gen B:21f.

18

ED NOORT

may be taken in order to reduce the human population, P introduces a renewed, unrestricted mandate to be fruitful and multiply . He also transforms the rainbow motif, which the Mesopotamian version'" portrays as a colourful lapis-lazuli stone worn around the neck of the mother goddess," into a sign that Elohim makes in order to remind himself of his pact with humanity: "When the bow is erected in the douds, I will look upon it in order to remember the eternal covenant between God and all living things ..., which exist on earth ... never again to unleash a Flood"." Given these structural features , the Priestly material validates Westermann's view that the Flood story is essentially a narrative about those who were spared. P uses the flood narrative in order to have Elohim enter into an eternal covenant. The Deluge is only the occasion for achieving Elohim's real aim: to be a God who has binding relationships with the world and its human populations.

2.2. Creation and the Flood The incomplete text of the Sumerian flood narrative does not allow us to affirm any direct relationship between the creation of humanity and the catastrophic deluge . After we are told, in the first column, how both humans and animals were created," over thirty-seven lines of the text are illegible. The text then continues by narrating how the kingdom of heaven descends to the earth. Following a further gap of some thirty-seven lines, the text recommences in column three with the story of Nindu's complaint and the flood. Any suggestion that this text links creation with the flood must , consequently, remain a speculation. The situation is different in the Atram-Hasis epic, in which the flood narrative and human creation are directly related to each other. In the primordial age, the gods themselves were forced to undertake the life-sustaining public work on the Babylonian canal system." In Kilmer, "Symbolism", 175-180. Gilgamesh XI 164. 11 Gen 9:13-16. 12 "When Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag had created the dark headed ones, they let the animals (that come) out of the ground (come) in great numbers out of the earth; they let the animals, the quadrupeds who live on the steppe, appear there" (Col. I, 12'-14'; Romer, "Flutgeschichte", 450f.). 13 The irrigation systems, which not only distributed the water of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers but also helped to drain and desalify the land, were viewed as 69

10

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

19

order to avoid this labour, the group known as the so-called Great Annuna(ku) gods delegated the task to the group, who are specified only as the Igigu gods: "The great Annunaku wanted to let the seven Igigu carry the burden [by thernselvesj't.?" The Annunaku then divided up the realms of power among themselves by drawing lots." The Igigu dug not only the canals but also the Tigris and .the Euphrates rivers." After 2500 years , the Igigu are no longer willing to continue the heavy work. They decide to go on strike and to undertake a revolt. Their actions catch the sleeping Enlil by surprise, and they are able to lay siege to him . After a period of negotiations, a settlement is reached; a third group, the humans, must be created so that they can do the work: "Create primordial man so that he can bear the yokel?" Mami (Nintu), "the midwife of the gods", implements the decision. Gestu'e, the god who "possesses good planning skills'?" is slaughtered, and his flesh and blood are combined with loam to produce the mixture from which the (androgynous) ur-human Edimmu is made." As a result of this recipe , humanity does not acquire any wisdom but only the skill required to complete its designated task. For 1200 years, humans undertake the work originally assigned to the gods until human beings become so numerous that they disturb Enlil's sleep." By means of various plagues, ague, hunger, etc., attempts are made to reduce humanity's numbers, but AtramHasts, the hero of the myth who is given no further introduction and who acts on Enki's advice, is able to prevent the worst from happening." In response Enlil resorts to the ultimate measure and decides to put an end to the activities of men with a flood. The period of time spanning human creation and its destruction by the flood is used to convey various motifs. The work, which makes something that the gods had constructed. Before the existence of any humans, this public work was already being done. 14 Atram-Hasis 1,5f. 75 Atram-Hasis 1,11-12. Anu, the old Sumerian chief god, received (only) the heavenly realm; Enlil, the leader of the gods, became his dynamically active "successor", with the assistance of Ninurta, the god of war, and Ennugi. Enlil's opponent, the god of wisdom who is known as Enki/Ea, was granted the underworld fresh water ocean as his domain (i 14-18). 76 1,22-26. 77 1,195. 78 I,223ff. 79 1,228 . 80 1,352ff. 81 1,365ff.

20

ED NOORT

life on the Mesopotamian plains possible and which had to be done from the very beginning, is, after a three-stage process, ultimately assigned to humanity. At first, a rather undifferentiated group of gods do the work themselves. Then the work is assigned to the Igigu, and finally man is created in order to undertake it. Although Albertz is correct to point out that the Atram-Hasis epic emphasises the drudgery of work," the above progression clearly demonstrates that human existence and culturally organised work belong together. Man's responsibility for the maintenance of his environment is inherent in his nature. It is an obligation that constitutes both the duty and the goal of the human race. The drudgery of work is also a dominant theme in the Yahwistic text, although there it is given a different sense.P The original duties of man are l'bd 't-h'dmh, "to cultivate the earth" ," and gn-Cdn lCbdh wlJrnrh, "to cultivate and preserve Gan Eden" .8 5 Both formulations have, in fact, no negative connotations. Only in the words of punishment pronounced in Gen 3 are labor, futility and pain associated with work . In this way, the Biblical text displays its structural distinctiveness . The Atram-Hasis myth represents labour, the negative side of work, as something that originates with creation. The drudgery of man's daily experience is inherent to him and is even the reason that humans were first created. For J, labour does not become man's companion until he has transgressed God's commandment. In retrospect, this implies that the toil and troubles experienced in everyday work were not seen as part of the creator's original intentions. In the Atram-Hasis myth, the flood is not caused by a crisis in the public works. Humanity never comes to rebel in the way that the Igigu do. The crisis is instigated by the increased number of humans resulting, in effect, from the fact that the social ordering of work created better living conditions. However, the suggestion that overpopulation motivated the deluge is presented separately from the rest of the text. The importance of this rnotif''" becomes clear at the end of the epic when the gods, after the flood, take measures to ensure that human populations do not grow uncontrollably." 82

83 84

85 86

87

Albertz, "Kulturarbeit", 56. Albertz, "Kulturarbeit", 55. Gen 2:5. Gen 2:15. A.D. Kilmer , "O verpopulation" , 160-77; Albertz, "Kulturarbeit", 53. III vi 41ff.

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

21

This concern about the size of the human population reveals another distinctive feature of the Biblical texts. The Priestly account of Creation emphasises the fertility and the procreativity of the human race. Although the act of Creation in Gen 1:27, U!J'br' 'lhym 't -h'dm bslmui, "And God created man in his own image", is separate from the blessing in which God instructs humans to multiply, it is precisely this separation that accentuates the positive features of human procreation: wybrk 'tm 'l1zym ioymr lhm 'l1zym prw wrbw wmfw ' t-h'rs, "And God blessed them and said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth' ''. 88 The blessing is made concrete by the subsequent instruction to propagate, and the next Priestly passage, which does not occur until Gen 5, elaborates how , given the long-life spans of the antediluvian humans, the blessing was indeed an effective one . The command to procreate is then literally repeated in Gen 9:1 in order to suggest that the second creation, the new beginning after the Flood, is a continuation of the original divine act . Even then, when the Biblical world has become directly connected with the world in which the Biblical writer's were living, the first of God's requests is that the human race should propagate itself. The Bible contains no trace of the divine desire to limit or regulate the human population that appears in Atram-Hasis or the Gilgamesh epic. At this point, we should address the main question of this section. How does the Biblical text connect Creation and the F1ood? The obvious answer is that the F100d is the reversal of Creation, in which cosmos returns to chaos . In manifesting this relationship, both the Yahwistic and the Priestly narratives use concepts and images in the F100d scenario that were already employed in the accounts of Creation. For J, the first connection involves the motif of God's remorse. Gen 6:6, U!J'n~m rhwh ~-'sh 't-h'dm b'rs, "And YHWH regretted that he had made man on earth", connects the Creation of humanity with the coming decision to destroy it. In 7:4 YHWH lets Noah know that he has decided to send a F1ood: '~ mmtyr 'l-h'r~ . . . wml;yty 't-klhyqwm '1r 'fyty mel pny h'dmh, "I will let it rain on the earth ... and I will exterminate from the face of the earth every living thing that I have made" In 2:5 the state of Creation is described by J as l' hmtyr 'Yhwh 'l1zym 'l h'r~, "YHWH Elohim had not [yet] let it rain on

88

Ceo 1:28.

22

ED NOORT

the earth". And 7:12 is a verse in which J describes the coming of the flood as wyhy hgfm 'l h'r~, "And the rain fell on the earth ...". Just as the beginning of the flood is indicated by rainfall, the end of the rainfall in 8:2 means that the flood is over. Finally, 'dmli is used to refer to the extermination of every living thing from the face of the earth, a concept that in Gen 2 is employed in close conjunction with 'dm. The Priestly writer makes the flood 's reversal of Creation even clearer than the Yahwistic writer does. It is generally accepted that 6:12, wyr' 'lhym 't-h'rs whnh nsth, "And Elohim saw the earth and see, it was corrupt", presents a deliberate antithesis to Elohim's final judgment in the Creation story: wyr' 'lhym 't-kl-Jr 'Jh tohnh-tuib m'd, "And Elohim sawall that he had made and see, it was good". According to P, the flood comes when the springs of the great underworld ocean break to the surface and when heaven's sluice gates were opened: nbq'w kl-m'ynt thwm rbh w'rbt hSmym npt/.zw, "... the springs of the great watery depths broke to the surface and heaven's windows were opened ... ".89 This doubling, in which the boundaries of both the heavenly and underworld oceans are breached, presents the clearest indication that there is a return to chaos, the state before Creation as it is described in Gen 1:2. For the process of Creation described in Gen 1:6ff calls for the separation of the underworld ocean , of the thwm, after which the heavenly ocean is given its place behind the rqy'. Anoth er parallel between the Creation story and the flood narrative involves the link that P makes between the originally created animal species and those specimens that are preserved on the ark. Gen 7:14, 21 and 8: 19 recall the various types of animals "each according to its own kind" of Gen I :24f. The different ways of naming the animal species in Gen 1 and in Gen 7f., are not greater than the different ways in which they are named and ordered in the various flood narratives themselves. As a result, either Biblical account presents the flood as a retraction of Creation, a de-creation in which every living thing dies except the one man who is rescued , his family and the animals representative of all the original species. Such ways of linking the Flood with Creation imply that the world of our senses is not the "pure" world order first created by God but

89

Gen 7:11.

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

23

a remnant order that has undergone the Deluge. The cosmos came out of the chaos, and this cosmos can return again to chaos. It is true that the descent of contemporary man has a thin thread connecting it to the originally created human species, but humanity's new beginning stems from a man who is saved from the Flood, a man who, as a result of divine intervention, is excepted from the total annihilation of the original Creation.

2.3. The Man who is Saved, the Reason that he is Saved and his Fate In the Satapatha Brahmana, Manu himself creates humanity anew. And in the texts belonging to the Indian oral tradition, the form of humanity that comes into existence after the flood is the one to which we belong. The flood has erected a barrier between us and the .Creation of the first humans, the golden age, the Garden of Eden, etc., but the survivors of the flood are our true ancestors. We are their descendants, or so the Indian, Mesopotamian and Biblical traditions would have us all believe. In the Sumerian flood narrative, it is Ziusudra, the King and highest ranking priest (gudurabzu) , who is saved. He is described as a devout servant of the gods." If W.P. Romer's conjecture has any validity," he overhears the divine oath by which the gods swear that they will annihilate humanity. The decision to send a flood is, however, revealed to him by Enki, who also provides him with a rescue plan. Ziusudra is described as a pious man , but nowhere is it clear that his piety is the reason that he is spared. Consequently, the Sum erian flood hero is a faithful, highly-placed servant of the gods, without being presented as an exemplary individual. In the last fragment, Ziusudra is after the flood granted a godlike eternal life92 in the land of Tilmun," the legendary realm of the golden age. His divine-like eternal life is his reward for having "protected the human seed"."

iii 21'. 22'. Romer, "Flutgeschichte", 454; especially his discussion of iii 24'f. 9~ vi 7-8. \13 This mythical land has most frequently been identified with Bahrein in the Persian Gulf and the coast of Saudi Arabia or the island of Failaka. For an appr eciation of Tilmun 's qualities, see "Enki, Ninsikila und Ninchursaga", TUAT IIl/3, 365ff. 91 vi 10. \'0

91

24

ED NOORT

The flood hero in the Atram-Hasis myth is abruptly introduced to us. In the prelude to the deluge, Enlil sends a series of plagues," which do not, however, achieve their intended purpose--the decrease of the human population-because the hero Atrarn-Hasis always appeals to the god Enki'" and receives the advice that allows him to put an end to the plague. Both Atram-Hasts' behaviour during the plagues and the initial part of the actual flood narrative show him to be Enki's special confidant. The deity informs him about the destructive measure that the assembly of gods had resolved to take, provides him with a rescue plan and undermines the decision to annihilate humanity. Atram-Hasis' especially close relationship with Enki distinguishes him, a fact that is once again emphasised in his address to those left behind when he moves away. In this speech, he must explain his departure, which he attributes to a dispute between the gods Enlil and Enki. Because he now honours Enki above all, he cannot stay in a land in which Enlil is worshipped." Even if this excuse is only a pretext, it underlines Atram-Hasis relationship with Enki. In the myth, the only reason for sparing this individual is the fact that he happens to be devoted to the member of the divine assembly who sabotages its plans . Unlike Ziusudra in the Sumerian flood narrative and Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh epic , the tale about Atram-Hasls does not end by revealing the fate of the surviving hero ." The first person account given by Utnapishtim, the individual in the Gilgamesh epic who is saved from the flood, must be seen in a totally different context. Upon encountering Utnapishtim, Gilgamesh states: "Your limbs are not different from mine, you are like me, and you are not different from me, you are like me!"99 This aston ishment about the similarity between the two men has to . do with the fact that Utnapishtim had attained eternal life, and Gilgamesh is desperately searching for immortality. The flood narrative is intended to explain how Utnapishtim came to be immortal. In the Gilgamesh epic, as is also the case in the two other Ancient Near East narraI i 360; II i 9f. I i 364-71. 97 II i 42ff. 98 The end of the Atram-Hasis epic returns to one of its most important motifs: overpopulation. The text designates certain groups of women who are not allowed to bear children. 99 XI 3-4. 95

96

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

25

tives, the reasons that the gods choose to save one particular individual is never explored. As a result, the fate of this hero becomes the dominant theme. For Ziusudra, a godlike eternal life was his reward for preserving the human species. Utnapishtirn acquires immortality as a result of the gods ultima ratio. Enlil and the gods have sworn that no human will survive the flood, but through the interventions of Ea/Enki, one is saved. As a result, a dispute among the gods breaks out after the flood. The only possibility for Enlil to accommodate both his original plan and the fact that an individual has survived is to make that individual into a god. Consequently, Utnapishtim is absolutely the only human who is excepted from mortality and granted eternal life. Such a state is one that even Gilgamesh, as we learn at the end of the epic, will not be able to attain. This thematic is not a part of the Biblical Flood stories. In the Yahwistic materials, the issues concerning equality with God and everlasting life are raised in chapters 3 and 4 of Genesis. Though not connected with the Flood but with the story of Paradise, the treatment of these topics still exhibits the Biblical text's originality on the one hand and its link with the Ancient Near East traditions on the other. In the artistically constructed dialogue of Gen 3: 1-5, the conversation between Eve and the snake culminates in the snake's statement: 19 yd' 'lhym 19 bywm 'klkm mmnw umpqiu» J '!Ykm wlryytm k-'lhym ydJ twb wr', "God knows that the day when you eat [the fruit from the tree], your eyes will be opened, you will become like God and know what good and evil are" .100 At the end of the narrative it becomes clear that the snake was right. For Gen 3:22 reads: wy'mr Yhwh 'lhym hn h'dm hyh k'M mmnw ld't twb wr', "And YHWH Elohim spoke: 'Look, man has become like us and knows what good and evil are'''. In other words, whatever may be the other consequences of having eaten forbidden fruit, man has become like God. However, immortality was never part of the human lot; for 22 continues: pnys0 ydw wlkJ:z gm m'~ hbyym w'kl wby l'lm, "But now! What if [man] were to reach out his hand, eat from the tree of life and live forever!" In the Biblical narrative, death does not initially arise from the transgression of God's commandment; it belongs, as Gilgamesh must painfully learn, to creation from the beginning. It is the price of life, and man would have to eat from the tree of life (just as

100

Gen 3:5.

26

ED NOORT

Gilgamesh would have to eat from the plant of life) in order to be able to live forever. This possibility is prevented by the expulsion from Gan Eden and by the Cherubim with the flaming sword, who prohibits re-entry. At this point, the thematic structures of the Yahwistic narrative and the Gilgamesh epic are close to each other, but J significantly alters the pregiven material underlying the Babylonian story. Although the gods in the Gilgamesh epic stipulate that human beings should not live forever, there is one exception (Utnapishtim). Nor does Gilgamesh lose the plant of life, which he has finally acquired, as a result of a guilty act. Instead, a snake eats it when the hero is bathing. 101 His entire search ends in the realisation that he, like all humans, must die. The outcome confirms what the goddess in the Meissner Fragment and in the tenth tablet of the Ninevite rendition already knew: "Gilgamesh, where are you going? You will not find the life that you seek! When the gods created humans, they allotted death to humanity and kept life in their own handsl'" ?" In Gen 3, humanity is made responsible for its own mortality. According to the Biblical myth, man is free to choose , even though immortality remains beyond his grasp. The wrong choice results in a lower quality of life, but nothing essential changes. The Yahwistic narrative of the primordial age tells how humankind is allowed .to re-establish itself after the Flood , and the story of Abraham discloses an account of the blessing given this renewed existence. The Priestly narrative contains nearly the same scheme, as the Flood is followed in this version by a renewed and unlimited mandate to be fruitful and multiply.l'" Similarly, a degradation and a transformation of life is associated by P with the Flood. In the socalled Noachian commandments of Gen 9: 1-5, there is a renunciation of the vegetarian way of life prescribed in Gen 1:28f., in which men and animals are seated together at one table. They were both supposed to eat fruit and vegetables . After the Flood, humans are allowed to eat animal flesh. The postdiluvian world is a world in which the death of animals is held to be necessary, and this state is, in comparison with the Creation story in Gen 1, a degradation of original life.

101 102 103

XI 285ff. Meissner-Millard Tablet iii 1-5 (W AT III/4) 664lf. Gen 9:1.

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

27

The (rain-)bow, which launches the process of regeneration beginning with the truly righteous Noah, remains fully charged right to the end . Noah's sons become fathers, the world is repopulated, and Noah himself grows to be 950 years old. His advanced age provides continuity with the antediluvian life spans presented in Gen 5 and verifies God's blessing at the end of the Flood. Although the choice of the man to be saved is one of the themes in the Yahwistic narrative, the reasons underlying this choice are not given. Gen 6:8 pointedly mentions: u.m& ms' &n b'yny Yhuih, "But Noah had found grace in YHWH's eyes". An observation made by God in 7: I elaborates on this remark: ky 'tk ry!y ~dyq lpny bdwr h;Jz, "In this generation, I have seen that you are righteous before me" .104 Accordingly, the choice of Noah does not depend on any of his qualities. Neither was he already "righteous" before the Flood nor did he achieve the status of a ~dyq as a result of a trying test. In the Yahwistic account of the Deluge, 7:1 is the verse that follows 6:8. Noah is for YHWH the "right man" to survive the Flood, and J does not seem to ask any questions about why this selection is made. The Yahwistic Noah is declared by YHWH to be suitable, nothing more but also nothing less. The declaration has nothing to do with Noah's "merits". The situation is changed by the combination of Yahwistic and Priestly texts that we read in the final form of the Biblical narrative. In this final version, a passage on the moral qualities of Noah (6:9) and the Priestly writer's building instructions for the ark come between 6:8 and 7:1. Moreover, Gen 6:22 states that Noah had done everything that God had commanded. In other words, the significance of ~dyq in 7: 1 is, in the context of the final text, displaced: it is now a sign directing us to the preceding rationale provided by P. After making a reference to the twldt n&, this Priestly narrative says in 6:9: n& y~ ~dyq tmym hyh bdrtYw 't-h'lhym hthlk nh, "Noah was a righteous man, the one perfect man of his generation; with God walked Noah". This verse contains not only the heavily significant terms ~dyq and tmym, but the Hebrew makes use of an inversion to emphasise Noah's special status even more strongly (literally translated: *with God walked Noah!). The change of position gives the name Noah one more special function. The sentence begins and ends with it. Everything is 104

W.M. Clark, "The Righteousness of Noah", VT21 (1971) 261-280; Westermann,

Genesis //1, 553f., 572ff.

28

ED NOORT

arranged in order to emphasise Noah's qualities and, simultaneously, to distinguish Noah from his contemporaries. Here stands a truly righteous man whose qualities are so apparent that God's reasons for excepting him from the Flood disaster require no explanation. Noah's special relationship with God is important in both the early history of tradition of the Priestly Code and in its subsequent reception history. In considering the prehistory, the discourse about the ruthlessness of divine judgment pronounced in Ez 14:14, 20 should be taken into account. In Ez 14:14,20 YHWH says: whyw flft h'nfym h'lh. btwkh nJ; dn'l w'ywb hmh bsdqtm ynslu: rfim, "And if those three men, Noah, Daniel and Hiob, were in the midst of it [i.e. the place where I am sending the plague], they would, on account of their righteousness, be saved" .105 Subsequently, V. 20 then adds: wnJ; dn'l w'ywb btwkh... 'm-bn 'm-bt YV1w hmh bsdqtm YVlw npsm, "And [if] Noah, Daniel and Hiob were in the midst of it ..., they would save neither son nor daughter; as a result of their righteousness they would only save their own lives". A part of the tradition that underlies the Priestly account is visible in these passages. Although Noah is known to be a exemplary righteousness man, this exemplary righteousness is, in contrast to the Genesis narrative, not sufficient to save even his sons or daughters. In this tradition, one's own righteousness can only provide the grounds for one's own salvation. A similar emphasis on Noah's righteousness remains dominant in the subsequent reception history, a point that is made clear by examining a passage from Jesus Sirach. Sirach 44: 17 reads : NCl>E EUPEOJ, 'tEAEto£ OlKUto£, EV KUtpi!> 6pyTi£ f:yEvE'tO Uv'taAA.a:Yllu Oux roirrov f:yEViJOJ, Ku'taAEtIlIlU 't'ft yft O'tE f:yEVE'tO KU'tUKAU£1l0£, "Noah was found to be unblemished and righteous; in the time of the rage, he replaced all of humanity, and because of him a remnant of the human race was left on earth when the Flood came". In giving Noah the Uv'taAAaYllufunction, it is clear that he is, in this text, seen to be a flawlessly righteous man on whose account a residue of humanity is preserved. The LXX also places the emphasis on this aspect. 106 It can therefore be concluded that J and P have quite different ways of understanding why this one man was chosen to be saved. As a result of this disagreement, the order in which the two sources 105 W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel BKAT XlVII; Neukirchen/Vluyn, 21979) 315ff.; M. Noth, "Noah, Daniel und Hiob in Ezechiel XIV", VT 1 (1951) 251-£0. 106 Rosel, Obersetzung als Vollendung, 164-.

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

29

are integrated into the final text is of special interest. In the beginning of the Flood story, the Biblical account consists of whole textual blocks that have been edited together. The majority of these longer passages belong to the Priestly account. In one especially long block (6:9-22), P gives the reasons for the Flood, reveals the resolution to destroy mankind, outlines the building instructions for the ark, clarifies the decision to save one man by referring to the covenant between God and Noah, and quotes the command to load the ark, together with the way in which it was executed by Noah. Before this important passage, J is represented in Gen 6:5-8 by a short expose about the reasons for the Flood, the resolution to destroy humanity and the decision to spare Noah. Not until 7:1-5 does J regain the floor in order to give his version of the loading orders and their execution. Subsequently, P picks up the thread and narrat es the beginning of the Flood. In this first part, the Priestly writer clearly plays the leading role, and the Yahwist is given a supporting one. For that reason, it is striking that the final composite version begins not with the P narrative but with the Yahwistic explanation of the decision to annihilate humankind. As a result, the final form of the Flood story begins with a statement of God's regret about having created man Ify rbh r't h'dm b'rs, "because the wickedness of man on earth had become great"!" and with 6:5b, wkl y~ mhsbt lbw rq r' kl-hywm, "every element in his innermost thoughts was purely evil all the time". In response to this wickedness , YHWH feels remorse about the creation of man, and he wyt'~b 'l-lbt», "is deeply dismayed". At this point, themes are introduced that were foreign to the myths from the Ancient Near East. In that tradition, the gods experienced regret ofter that the divine assembly 's decision to send a Flood had been translated into reality. Both in Atram-Hasis and in Gilgamesh, the unleashing of the flood is followed by the gods reaction, an element that is entirely missing from the Biblical account. The mother goddess complains : "I myself gave birth to my humans; now they fill the sea like fish"; "like dragon-flies they fill the river".108 Her complaint exemplifies how the gods regret the eagerness with which they acted on the decision to annihilate humanity, and they conclude that Anu/Enlil

107 108

Gen 6:5a. Gilgamesh XI 122f.; Atram-Hasls III iv 7.

30

ED NOORT

"initiated the flood without giving it proper consideration" .109 According to this account, divine remorse comes after the fact. In the Yahwistic account of the Deluge, YHWH regrets the creation of man, and this fact immediately discloses the particular circumstances that constrain Yahwistic thought. In an "aufiersten theologischen Grenzaussage", J 10 the J writer develops the notion of "Wandelbarkeit Gottes" in order to explain how the one God of Israel , the creator and preserver of all living beings, could on one occasion be the destroyer of all human life. It is not surprising that this notion later became objectionable. In dealing with the difficulty, LXX translates nhm, "to regret", in 6:6f. as £VSuJ,1EOJ,1at and as 8uJ,16ro, verbs that express reflection , anger and annoyance. Rosel is right when he concludes "daB dem Ubersetzer der Zorn Gottes als die theologisch angemessenere Reaktion auf die Verfehlung der Menschen erscheint als seine Reue, den Menschen uberhaupt geschaffen zu haben".' !' In view of this later reinterpretation, it is all the more remarkable that the final form of the Biblical text places not the unblemished Noah but the remorse of God at the beginning of the Flood story. The character of this definitive account is coloured by this arrangement. In the final redaction, the narrative begins with a God deep in sadness and remorse about what his creation has become.

2.4. Guilt as the Underiying Cause Postdiluuian World

of the

Flood and the

It was suggested above that a clear explanation of why the Flood hero must be saved is actually only provided in the Priestly rendition of the Biblical Flood story. The question can now be asked: Is it valid to view guilt as the underlying cause of the deluge? In the Sumerian narrative, the question of guilt does not play any role, although this absence of guilt could result from the fragmented state of the preserved text. As a consequence, this story is irrelevant to our line of inquiry. Ziusudra is granted eternal life; the animal world and "the seeds of humanity" are saved. The flood is a grave catastrophe after which life goes on. In the Atram-Hasis myth, a more concrete motive is identified. Atram-Hasls III iii 53; v 41f.; Gilgamesh XI 167f. This statement is made by J. Jeremias in his excellent study of nhm, Die Reue Gottes: Aspea« altestamentlidur Gouesoorstellung (BSt 65; Neukirchen 1975) 25. I I I Rosel, Obersetzung als Vollendung, 161. 109 110

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

31

Humans, who were created in order to lighten the workload of the gods, have become too numerous. They are noisy and Enlil can no longer sleep: "Human populations grew ever larger. The land bellowed [like a herd of bulls] . . . [He (Enlil) spoke] to the great gods, 'the clamour of humanity has become [intolerable; as a consequence of their noisy activity] , I am unable to sleep"'. 112 Although the motif of noise as an offence against divinity is well known.!'? the transgression is the inevitable consequence of overpopulation, and the Babylonian narrative presents it as such . No mention is made of unmitigated human guilt. On the contrary, population growth, which occurs because the culturally organised human work functions efficiently, is the real problem. All the initial measures are intended to reduce the population, the flood is employed as an ultimate means of achieving this goal, and the measures taken after the flood also point in this direction.'!' In this way, the laboriously organised human society is confined in its cramped living space and a repeat annihilation of it avoided. Humanity after the flood is no longer the same as it was before the flood . Humans are neither able nor allowed to grow to be as numerous as they had been. It remains an open question if the problem concerns human guilt, even though the relat ionship between collective and individual punishment is an issue that the Atram-Hasis myth does indeed raise. In one of Enki 's speeches, the issue is addressed: "Inflict your punishment [on the guilty] one". 115 When this passage is compared to the parallel text in Gilg. XI 180, it is evident that Atram-Hasis promotes a more restrained form of punishment: only those individuals who are directly guilty of a transgression are subject to divine retribution. In the Gilgamesh epic , the coming of the flood is not connected with any underlying guilt . Instead, it is tersely stated that "the gods decided to flood the earth" . 116 The possibility exists that the account of the deluge in the Gilgamesh epic has been simply left out because it was not important for the purposes of the narrative. Utnapishtim and his eternal life are needed to contrast with Gilgamesh, who will not attain a similar immortality. Nevertheless, it appears that the sam e motifs that one finds in Atram-Hasls recur in the Gilgamesh 112

11:1 IH

115 116

I 352-9; II i 2-4. W. von Soden, AHw I, 352b in his discussion of IJuburum. III vii I -I I. III vi 25. Xl 14.

32

ED NOORT

episode. The eleventh tablet of this epic contains a plea for nonglobal punishment: "Instead of a deluge, let a Lion appear and decrease the number of humans; instead of a deluge, let a wolf appear and diminish their numbers; instead of a deluge, let hunger come upon them and carry them off; instead of a deluge, let Erra appear and slaughter them" ."? The entreaty has less to do with any individual act of reprisal that may indeed be requested in the passage than with the theme of overpopulation.'!" Nor is any mention made of unmitigated guilt, though Ea/Enki beseeches Enlil to punish only individual acts: "You cleverest of gods! Hero! How could you , without thinking, flood the earth? Punish the sinner for his sin, the blasphemer for his blasphemyl"!" Consequently, the same two concerns are dominant in the Gilgamesh epic that were also the most important ones in Atram-Hasis: the flood as a response to human overpopulation and the promise of future restraint in response to the flood. Direct human guilt is not involved. The fate of the postdiluvian world in the Gilgamesh story shows that not all motifs are treated in the same manner. The beginning and ending of the narrative require that only Utnapishtim and his family survive. The beginning lists what Utnapishtim had to do: "Give up riches , seek life, despise possessions, keep life alive! Pour all the seeds of life into the ship". 120 And the ending recapitulates Utnapishtim's fate: "O nce Utnapishtim was human, now Utnapishtim and his wife shall become gods like us" . 121 In these passages survival is, in fact, restricted to one person. When the ship is being loaded, the situation appears to be different: "All my silver, I loaded on board the vessel, all my gold and all the seeds of life that I possessed. I had my family and household board the vessel, along with the wild beasts and the animals from the field, and I had all the craftsmen go on board". 122 Here, "survival" is granted not only to Utnapishtim's possessions but also to craftsmanship. As a result, a kernel of the postdiluvian world is already pre-designed H .-P. Muller is right when he indicates that the diminished role of guilt in the Old Oriental flood narratives draws our attention to 117 118 119

120 121

121

XI 181-5. A view also expressed by Fritz in, '''Solange die Erde steht''', 599-614-. XI 179-80. XI 25-7. XI 193-4. XI 81-5.

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

33

the question of guilt in the Biblical stories.!" At first sight, everything seems different in the Hebrew Bible. J provid es two reasons for the Flood: wkl yp- mhsbt lbw rq r' kl-hyunn; "Every element in his [i.e. man s] innermost thoughts was purely evil all the time", 124 and Iry yp- lb h'dm rCmnCrjw, "For human inclinations are evil from youth on!"125 If one also considers the Priestly observation that the earth is full of hms "violence" !" and that it is "corrupt" before God, then the issue of guilt seems, in both Biblical versions, to be clearly involved. It is not surprising that J. Jeremias can write: "Die Bosheit aller Menschen fiihrt hier zum VernichtungsentschluB Jahwes.... [Die Bosheit] haftet tief innen in einem Herz, d.h, in seinem Verstand und Willen, und bestimmt auf diese Weise alles Planen und Verhalten. So scharf und grundsatzlich reden nicht einmal die Schriftpropheten von der Schuld des Menschen"."? The question arises: is this view, in fact, sound? It is once again H .-P. Muller who answers that it is not. 128 The guilt-punishment narratives in the Yahwistic source all refer to concrete transgressions. In Gen 3 an interdiction against eating fruit from the tree of knowledge is contravened and , in Gen 4 a brother is murdered. Both acts clearly involve guilt. Although the mixture of heaven and earth in the narrative of the giants in Gen 6: 1-4 is an immediate prelude to the narrative of the Deluge and although the two episodes are connected in the reception history of the Biblical texts, the Flood story itself does not contain any reference to this preceding passage. Additionally, the narrative of the sons of the gods, who mate with the daughters of men, already contains a punishment in the form of a diminished life span.!" The above transgressions are all, therefore, concrete and they have already been suitably punished. As a result, " [die] Behauptung men schlicher 'Schlechtigkeit' [wirkt] pauschal, geradezu willkurlich-doktrinar, wie denn umgekehrt die durch sie gerechtfertigte Strafe unbegrenzt ist".'3o This point becomes even clearer when the reasons underlying YHWH's Muller, "Motiv", 295-316. Gen 6:5b. 1~5 Gen 8:21. 126 Gen 6:13. 127 Jeremias, Reue Gottes, 24f. 128 Muller, "Motiv", 296ft: 129 Muller, "Motiv", 297. 130 Muller, "Motiv" , 297. 123

124

34

ED NOORT

announcement of the Flood are taken into account.131 YHWH uses the same formulation in Gen 8:21 in defending his resolution never again to send a Flood and his accompanying guarantee of the earth's continued existence: "I will henceforth no longer curse the earth on man's account, for human inclinations are evil from youth on!"132 Does this pledge mean that YHWH has learnt to live with the evilness of his creation? In any event , it implies that the ft hJ dm no longer provides any reason to destroy the world . After 8:21f., the earth, time, the seasons and the climate will continue to exist independent of what man does. To a corresponding extent , God's remorse will be curtailed. For the Flood story is one of two texts in the Old Testament in which regret causes the promise of salvation to be withdrawn. 133 A similar vagueness about the question of guilt is also visible in the Priestly narrative. For P, everything is reduced to the common denominator of hms, "the violence" in order to explain that earth was, for Elohim, "corrupt". The decrepit state of the earth itself unquestionably provides an apparent reason for a world-wide catastrophe, but it says nothing about the guilt of the human individual. The lack of clarity is striking because the Priestly account contains no story of primeval guilt. Even in Gen 5, the primordial genealogy with its exemplarily long life spans is explained by the blessing in the Creation story: fruitfulness and procreativity are represented as blessings. In this way, P appears intent on progressing towards the true goal of his account: the covenant pronounced in Gen 9, a covenant' P' that secures salvation for all of humanity and for the whole of creation. This pact with humankind is then retailored so that it fits Abraham, but becomes a part of a polemic about the role of the law in the Deuteronomistic representations of life coram Deo. Consequently, it is made to act as a piece of propaganda for a God-man relationship that is sustained by the continued presence of Elohim among His people and that does not make this presence independent from human action.l" Within this framework , the Deluge Gen 6:5b. Muller, "Motiv", 297. m Jeremias, Reue Goues, 26. 134 The term "covenant" will be retained , even if we agree with Kutsch and recognise that Gen 9 and 17 are clear statements of personal obligation . 135 W . Zimmerli, "Sinaibund und Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verstandnis der Priesterschrift", in W. Zimmerli , Gottes QfJenbarung (Gesammelte Aufsatze I, ThB 19; Munich, 21969) 205-16. 131 132

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

35

story acts precisely as a counter narrative. Although Elohim had once turned against humankind and against the earth, this will never occur again, 136 and the divine residence will finally be in Israel.!" Even in the definitive Biblical version, human guilt remains ill defined. The ever larger role given the narrative about the sons of God and the daughters of men in the reception history demonstrates that this uncertainty is not just a modern concern. In the context of the Old Testament, this anecdote is the last episode before the Flood but not the basis for it. In the reception history, the tale is at times taken to be about the Fall of Angels.P" ' Against this background, we can now make the question about the necessity of telling the Flood story into a more precise one, even if the guilt that supposedly motivates it proves to be rather meagre and obscure . First, the obvious influence of the Near Eastern flood myths must be mentioned. It was impossible to tell a story about the primeval age, about the creation of the world and humanity, or about the elements that determine human fate without referring to the Deluge. The extent that the Biblical writers had to transform the well known traditions in order to accommodate the Flood narrative to their needs indicates the strength of this obligation. The changing power relations in the world of the gods as well as the different attitudes of the gods towards both the destruction of the world and the salvation of humans could not be incorporated into Biblical texts. For they hold YHWH/Elohim to be the one divine being who alone was responsible for everything that happened. Both the emphasis on God's remorse and on Noah's righteousness are indications that the authors felt compelled to make qualitative changes to the traditional material . The fact that these contextually necessary revisions took place and that the totaliter aliter of the religious factors did not result in the omission of the flood myths indicates that the influence of Near Eastern myths on Biblical source materials was strong. Second, the Yahwistic, Priestly and final texts closely interrelate Creation and Deluge. The Flood is the inversion of Creation. Anyone who wanted to talk about Creation could only do so by also discussing the Flood. The now frequentl y made observation about the Gen 9:14f. The Priestly continuation of the Sinai pericope, Ex 25ff., connects the theophan y with the construction of the tabern acle. 138 Deurloo and Zuurmond, Dagen van Noach, 94ff. 136 137

36

ED NOORT

Flood narratives being ultimately stories of salvation is essentially true , but the coinciding return of cosmos into chaos remains an unsettling event. Third, the story of the Deluge must be told because the goodness of Creation cannot be experienced without it. The need to overcome the difficulties in telling a story about a good Creation, in which the primeval past corresponds to an anticipated future, can be communicated to us by a narrative of the primeval age that tries to make the resulting contradictions understandable. Such a tale makes it possible to hope that the beginning mirrors the end without simultaneously losing sight of the reality of the world as we know it. The Flood is the means by which original Creation became the world of experience, a world that maintains life and imposes limits on it.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

General H.P. Miiller, "Fundamentalfragen jenseits der Alternative von Theologie und Religionsgeschichte", in ReligWnsgeschichte ISTaeLs oder Theologie des Alten Testaments (JBTh 10; Neukirchen/Vluyn, 1995) 93-127 . Sh. Talmon, "Die vergleichende Methode in der Bibelexegese" in Sh. Talmon, ISTaeLs Gedankenwelt in der Hebrdischen Bibel (Ges. Aufsatze 3; Neukirchen/Vluyn, 1995) 1-37.

Near East and India R. Albertz, "Die Kulturarbeit im Atram-H asfs-Epos im Vergleich zur biblischen Urgeschichte", Fs. Cl. Westermann (Neukirchen/ Vluyn, 1980) 38-57. W.G. Archer, The Hill ofFlutes: Lift, Laoe and Poetry in Tribal India (London, 1974). L.R. Bailey, Noah: The Person and the Story in History and Tradition (Columbia, 1989). - -, "Noah's Ark" (ABD IV; New York, 1992) 1131f. L.M. Barre, "The Riddle of the Flood Chronology", JSOT 41 (1988) 3-20. JAB. van Buitenen (ed.), The Mahabharata (Books II & III; Chicago/London, 1975). W. Burkert, the Orientalieing Revolution: Near Eastern Irfiuence on Greek Culture in the EarlY Archaic Age (Cambridge/Mass., 1992). G.A Caduff, Antike Sin!flutsagen (HVPOMNEMATA: Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben 82; Gtittingen, 1986 [GriechenlandJ). M. Casalis, "T he Dry and the Wet: A Semiological Analysis of Creation and Flood Myths", Semiotica 17 (1976) 35-67. M. Civil, "T he Sumerian Flood Story," in W.G. Lambert, AR. Millard, Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford, 1969) 138-145. F.H. Cryer, "The Interrelationships of Gen 5.32, 11.10-11 and the Chronology of the Flood (Gen 6-9)", Bib 66 (1985) 241-261. St. Dalley, Mythsfiom Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others (Oxford/New York, 1991). K.A Deurioo, R. Zuurmond, De dagen van Noach: De verhalen rond de vloed in schrift en oudste traditie (Baarn, 1991).

STORIES OF THE GREAT FLOOD

37

]. van Dijk, LUGAL UD ME-lAM-hi NIR -GAL· Le recit epique et didactique de trauaux de Nin urta, du deluge et de la nouaelle creation (Leiden, 1983). ]. Eggeling (ed.), The Sacred Books qf the East (part I, Books I & II, Vol. XII; Oxford , 1882). V. Elwin, Myths of Middle India (Oxford , 21991 ). ].A. Emerton, "An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narratives in Genesis", VT 37 (1987) 401-420; II VT 38 (1988) 1-21. ].G. Frazer , Folklore in the Old Testament: Studies in Comparative Religion, Legend and Law (London, 1923). V. Fritz, '''Solange die Erde steht': Yom Sinn der jahwistischen Fluterzahlung in Gen 6-8," .('AW 94 (1982) 599-614. A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels: A Translation and Interpretation ofthe Gilgamesh Epic and Related Babylonian andAS-!JIrian Documents (Chicago/ London, 71 970). K. Hecker , Das akkadische Gilgamesch-Epos (TUAT III/4; Gutersloh, 1994) 646-744 (XI 728-735). A. Hohenberger, Die indische Flutsage und das Mal-!Jiapurana: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Vishnuuerehrung (Leipzig, 1930). B. Holland, Popular Hinduism and Hindu Mythology: An Annotated BihlWgraplry (Westport/Conn., 1979). Th. Jacobsen, "T he Eridu Genesis", JBL 100 (1981) 513-529. - - -, The Harps that once . . .: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven/London, 1987). LM. Kikawada , "Noah and the Ark" (ABD IV; New York; 1992) 1123-1131. A.D. Kilmer, "T he Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and Its Solution as Reflected in the Mythology", Or NS 41 (1972) 160-177. - - -, "T he Symbolism of the Flies in the Mesopotamian Flood Myth and Some Further Implications" (AOS 67; New Haven/Conn., 1987) 175-180. Th. Kammerer, "Das Sintflutfragment aus Ugarit (RS 22.421)", UF 25 (1993) 189-200. K. Koch, "Crisis rond de Bijbel?" in Hedendaags gelooj Em kew;e uit de protestantse theologische literatuur van deze t1jd (ed. G. Otto; Hilversum/Antwerpen, 1966) 28-39. - - - , "T he Deluge Story in the Bible, Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient India", Arasaradi Joumal of Theological R4lection I (Madurai , (986) 8-24. E.G. Kraeling, Xisouthros, Deucalion and the Flood- Traditions (1947). S.N. Kram er,]. Maier , Myths qf Enki, the Crqfr.y God (New York/Oxford, 1989). W.G. Lambert, A.R. Millard, Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford, 1969). N.P. Lemche, "T he Chronology in the Story of the Flood", JSOT 18 (1980) 52-62. S.E. Loewenstamm, "Die Wasser der biblischen Sintflut: ihr Hereinbrechen und ihr Verschwinden" , VT 34 (1984) 180-182. M.E.L. Mallowan, "Noah's Flood Reconsidered", Iraq 26 (1964) 62-82. F. Max Miiller, A History qf Ancient Sanskrit Literature (Varanasi, 1968 [1859]). S.E. McEvenue, The Narrative S!yle qf the Priest!J Writer (AnBib 50; Rom e, 1971). K.A. Metzler, "Restitution der Mimation im altbabylonischen Atram-Hasls-Epos", UF 26 (1994) 369-372. H .-P. Muller, "Das Motiv fur die Sintflut: Die hermeneutische Funktion des Mythos und seiner Analyse", .('A W 97 (1985) 295-316. - - - , "Babylonischer und biblischer Mythos von Menschenschopfung und Sintflut", in Vom alten zum neuen Adam' Urzeitmythos und Heilsgeschichte (ed. W. Strolz; Freiburg, 1986) 43-68. - - - , "Eine neue babylonische Menschenschopfungserzahlung im Licht keilschriftlicher und biblischer Parallelen", Or NS 58 (1989) 61-85. ]. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts (I: 21872) 196ff.

38

ED NOORT

W. Nutzel, "The Climate Changes of Mesopotamia and Bordering Areas: 14002000 Be", Sumer 32 (1976) 11-24 . K. Oberhuber (ed.), Das Gilgamesch-Epos (WdF ccxv; Darmstadt, 1977). W.D. O'Flaherty, The Origins ofEvil in Hindu Mythology (Delhi, 21988). G. Pettinato, "Die Bestrafung des Menschengeschlechts durch die Sintflut", Or NS 37 (1968) 165-200. - - - , "Die Flutberichte in keilschriftlicher Uberlieferung", Bi e Or II (1969) 109-123, 159-173. J. Riem, Die Sintjlut in Sage und Wissenschafl e I925). R. Rendtorff, "Genesis 8,21 und die Urgeschichte des jahwisten", KuD 7 (1961 ) 69-78. W.Ph. Romer, Die sumerische Flutgeschichte (TUAT Ill/3; Gutersloh, 1993) 448-458. U. Ruterswordcn, "Der Bogen in Genesis 9: Militiirhistorische und traditionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen zu einem biblischen Symbol", UF20 (1988) 247-26 3. J.A. Sauer, "A New Climatic and Archaeological View of the Early Biblical Traditions", in Scripture and Other Artifacts (Fs, PhJ. King reds. M.D. Coogan, J.Ch. Exum, L.E. Stager]; Louisville/Kentucky, 1994) 366-398. J.H. Schoneveld, De oorsprong van het bijbelsche Cl'i(v!7 > Cl'i(v!7 Cl1'. I think the suggested textual development may be correct as far as MT and LXX are concerned. It gives a plausible explanation for the "twenty-seventh day" in MT Gen 8:14 and for the differences in LXX Gen 7:11; 8:4, 14. Does it also mean that J ub 5:31 preserves a more original reading of Gen 8:14 than MT? If this is true, the different date in Jubilees is not an alteration or interpretation of the Vorlage, but an accurate reproduction of it. However, I wonder whether the proposition that Jub 5:31 goes back to a Vorlage which is different from MT, is correct. Although the text of Jub 5:31 runs parallel with Gen 8: 14 (with the exception of the day of the month), it is undeniable that in Jub 5:32 it is stated that Noah opened the ark on the tueniyseventh dqy of the same month. Therefore, it is probable that the author of Jubilees had a text of Gen 8:14 in front of him which was the same as that preserved in MT. However, the author ofJubilees had a problem with this date. According to contemporary sources, the Flood had lasted exactly one year." He solves this problem not by deleting the twenty-seventh day in Gen 8:14, but by stating that Noah opened the ark on the twenty-seventh day of the second month, but that the earth was already dry on the seventeenth of that month. In Genesis, the opening of the ark does occur after the drying up of the earth, but it does not have a date. Therefore, it seems to me inaccurate to suppose that Jub 5:31b preserves a more original reading of Gen 8:14 than MT. The author ofJubilees is only trying to solve the chronological problem in the text of Genesis. He is harmonizing the biblical text of his Vorlage and contemporary sources with each other. The activity of harmonization is one of the characteristics of the rewriting in the Book of Jubilees. 23 22 As we have seen, according to the LXX the Flood took place from the twentyseventh until the twenty-seventh of the second month . According to 4Q252 the Flood took place from the seventeenth until the seventeenth. And 1 Enoch 106:15 states: "and there shall be a deluge and a great destruction for one year" . 23 See below. Cf. Endres, Biblical lntepretation, 221-222; J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten,

72

J.T.A.a.M. V AN RUITEN

With this disgression at the beginning of my contribution, I have tried to show the difficulties in comparing Jubilees with the biblical text because of the uncertainty of the biblical text the author had in front of him.

2. An Overall Comparison qf Genesis 6:1-8:19 with Jubilees 5:1-32 The second methodological step is a comparison of the biblical story of the Flood with that in the Book of Jubilees. The story occurs especially in Jubilees 5-6. In addition to this, an anticipation of the Flood occurs in the vision of Enoch in Jubilees 4 (vv. 15, 19, 22-24), and in Jub 7:20-25 and Jub 10:1-7 the author refers back to this. These texts emphasize the causes of the Flood. The following scheme should facilitate an overall comparison between Jub 5-6 and Gen 6-9. I have arranged the story of the Flood according to the content.! have used the final form of the text and I have left a discussion of the Jahwistic and Priestly versions of the story out of account." Genesis 6:1-4 6:1-2, 4 Sons of God x daughters of men = mighty men 6:3

Judgement?

Genesis 6:5-8: 19 6:5-13 Motivation, decision to bring the Flood, decision to save Noah a. motivation (6:5, II , 12, 13c) b. decision (6:6-7, 13a-b, d) c. rescue of Noah (6:8) [d. framework (6:9- 10))

Jubilees 5:1-19 1-3 Motivation: angels x daughters of men = I. giants; 2. injustice 4- 11 Judgement/punishment

12 13-18

19

a. people (4- 5) + rescue of Noah b I. angels (6) c. giants (7- 9) b2. angels (10- 11) A new nature The (coming) judgement I. 13-16 [2. 17-18: to the children of Israel: Yom Kippur] Decision to rescue Noah

"T he Rewriting of Exodus 24:12-18 in Jubilees I:1-4", Biblische Notizen 79 (1995) 25-29; id., "The Garden of Eden and Jubilees 3:1-31", Bijdragen 57 (1996) 305-317. 24 See the contribution by E. Noort in this volume. For an examination of some modern attempts to defend the unity of the Flood, see: JA. Emerton, "An Examination

THE FLOOD STORY IN THE BOOK OF JUBILEES

(Table cont.) 6:14-7:5

7:6-24

8:1-14

Order to build the ark + order to load a. order (6:14) b. structure and measure ments of the ark (6:1516) c. decision + rescue (6:17-18a) d. order to enter the ark + order to load (6:18b21; 7:1-4) e. execution of the ord er to build the ark (6:227:5) Entrance into the ark and beginning of the Flood a. entrance (7:7- 9) b. opening fountains and windows (7:II) c. coming of the waters (7:6, 7b, 10, 12, 17a) d. entrance and closing (7:13-16) e. prevailing of the waters (7: I 7b-20) f. destruction of all flesh save Noah (7:21-23) g. waters prevailed 150 days (7:24) End of the Flood a. remembering of God + wind b. closing fountains and windows (8:2) c. subsiding of the waters (8:I c, 3, 5a) d. resting of the ark (8:4) e. the tops of the mountains become visible (8:5b)

73

Jubilees 5:20-32 20 Decision to bring the Flood 21 Order to build the ark (III, cf. 7:25) 22 Execution of order

23 24-28

29-31

Entrance into the ark + closing (11/1-16 + 17) The Flood a. opening fountains and windows (24) b. coming of the waters (25) c. prevailing of the waters (26) d. waters prevailed 150 days (27) e. resting of the ark (28)

End of the Flood a. closing fountains and windows (29ab) [IV] (IVI I cf. 7:26) b. opening of the mouths (29c) [VIlli] c. subsiding of the waters (29d) d. the tops of the mountains become visible (30a) [XII]

of Som e Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis", VT 37 (1987) 401-420; 38 (1988) 1-21. However, the genesis of the story seems to be of no inte rest to the author of Jubilees.

74

J.T.A.G.M. VAN RUITEN

(Table cont.) f. opening of the window e. appearance the earth and sending of raven (30b) [Ill] and dove (8:6-12, 13bc) f. the water dried up (3 1a) g. earth dry (31b) [II/17] g. waters dried up (8:13a, d) h. earth dry (8:14) 8:15-19 Leaving of the ark 32 Leaving of the ark [II/27] a. order to leave (8:15-1 7) b. the actual leaving (8:18-19) Jubilees 6:1-38 Offering by Noah and reac8:20-22 Offering by Noah and re- 1-4 action of YHWH tion of the Lord

Genesis 9:1-17 9:1-7 The prohibition on eating flesh from a living animal 9:8-17 Covenant

5-16 17-31 32-38

The prohibition on eating flesh from a living animal and covenant The feast of Shebuot Calendar

As far as the content is concerned, most parts of the biblical account of the Flood also occur in the rendering of]ubilees: the motivation (Gen 6:5-13; ]ub 5:1-19), the order to build the ark (Gen 6:14-7:5; ]ub 5:20-22), the entrance (Gen 7:7-9, 13-16; ]ub 5:23), the Flood, from the opening of the fountains until the prevailing of the waters (Gen 7:6, 7b, 10-12, 17-24; ]ub 5:24-28), and the closing of the fountains and the end of the Flood (Gen 8:1-14; ]ub 5:29-31 ), and finally the leaving of the ark (Gen 8:15-19; ]ub 5:32) and the reactions (Gen 8:20-9:17; ]ub 6:1-38). Although the story runs parallel in both texts, there are also differences. It is striking that the story in ] ub 5:1-19 strongly emphasizes the motivation of the Flood. In Jubilees, the motivation of Gen 6:5-13 is connected with the text immediately preceding the story of the Flood, Gen 6:1-4, the story of the intercou rse of the sons of God with the daughters of men. In addition , a great deal of attention is paid to the consequences of the story. Not only the offering of Noah and the commandment to Noah (the prohibition on eating flesh from a living animal) in connection with the covenant are described, but also two elaborations are added, one concerning the feast of Shebuot (J ub 6:17-31 ), and one concerning the calendar (Jub 6:32-38). The nature of the elaboration in ]ub 6:17-38 makes

TIlE FLOOD STORY IN TIlE BOOK OF JUBILEES

75

it clear that the author ofJubilees is to be found in priestly circles." Much less attention is paid to the story itself. The order to build the ark and the execution of it takes only two verses (Jub 5:21-22),26 whereas the MT uses seven verses (Gen 6:14-l8a, 22; 7:5;). The entrance into the ark and the beginning of the Flood are described in just five verses (Jub 5:23-28),27 whereas the MT uses twenty-five verses (Gen 6:l8b-21; 7:1-4, 6-24). The end of the Flood, the drying of the earth, and the leaving of the ark take only four verses (Jub 5:29-32),28 whereas the MT uses nineteen verses (Gen 8:1-19). Elements which are omitted entirely by the author of Jubilees are the repentance of God (Gen 6:5-7),29 the structure and the measurements of the ark (Gen 6: 15-16),30 the order to enter into the ark and to 25 cr. ].C. VanderKam, "T he Righteousness of Noah", in JJ. Collins - G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.), /deal Figures in Ancient Judaism. Profiles and Paradigms [SBLSCS 12] (Chico CA, 1980) 20- 21. 2