The Great Flood
The Great Flood
By John Holmes
(Source: Logos Media)
So maybe you have heard someone say:
... Noah's flood is just a myth taken from other Ancient Near Eastern flood epics...
That's the claim made by the critics...
By contrast, Christian orthodoxy has generally understood Genesis 1–9 to depict a divinely crafted narrative of creation, humanity’s disobedience, the holy judgment of evil, and deliverance for the righteous and faithful few. Genesis 6–9 provides a comprehensive and authoritative account of a literal worldwide (and yes, a worldwide, not regional) flood early in human history. Christian and Jewish tradition both attribute to Moses this coherent narrative of human civilization’s rise and subsequent descent into evil, whereby human wickedness leads to divine judgment—the literal (yes, literal) destruction by water—of all living creatures except Noah, his family, and the creatures on the ark.
However, it is true that for quite some time, critics have argued that the biblical flood account of Genesis 6–9 originates or draws influence from ancient Near Eastern manuscripts depicting a similar cataclysmic water event. They usually will point to the Mesopotamian epic stories of Gilgamesh, Eridu Genesis, and Atrahasis, doubting that a global flood narrative recorded among multiple cultures is historically accurate. If you are unfamiliar with Mesopotamian civilization, it is the world's oldest recorded civilization. So, the written versions of their flood accounts on clay/stone tablets are believed to pre-date the Bible's Genesis flood account. As a result, the skeptics will typically question whether the Genesis story exemplifies one culture (Israel) appropriating another culture’s (Sumerian or Akkadian) mythology for theological purposes. They typically say that Genesis 6–9 should be interpreted as a myth or an allegorical device.
The problem with these claims is that they question the idea that Moses wrote the book of Genesis and that Genesis is a text inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16-17). We don’t have enough time to go through all their points, but we can group these arguments into three main categories.
The first category is the ‘Documentary Hypothesis.’ This idea suggests that Genesis is made up of different stories from various times and places, put together like a patchwork quilt. People who support this theory point out different names for God, "so-called" differences in the number of animals, and conflicting timelines for the flood.
The second category includes critics who doubt the originality and truth of the Bible because it repeats certain parts. These critics often use modern ideas and don't give enough credit to ancient writing styles or the belief that the Bible is inspired by God.
The third category involves scholars who compare the Genesis flood story to other ancient flood stories, like the Eridu, Atrahasis, and Gilgamesh epics. They believe these older stories show that the Genesis account has irregularities.
The people in each of these categories typically dismiss the fact that several New Testament writers and figures affirm the historicity of the flood account from Genesis (that is, they refer to it as an actual event). For example:
o Jesus Christ: In Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 17:26-27, Jesus refers to the days of Noah and the flood as historical events. He uses them to illustrate the suddenness and unexpected nature of His second coming, emphasizing that people were going about their daily lives until the flood came and took them away.
o Peter, Apostle: In 1 Peter 3:20-21, Peter explicitly refers to the flood during the time of Noah as a historical event. He draws a comparison between the waters of the flood and baptism, highlighting how just as Noah and his family were saved through water, baptism now saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
o Luke, the Evangelist: Luke includes Noah in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:36, placing him among the ancestors of Christ. This inclusion assumes the historicity of Noah and the flood account as part of Jesus' lineage. Genealogically, this means that human ancestry eventually traces back to Noah.
o The Author of Hebrews: While the specific author of the Book of Hebrews is debated, Hebrews 11:7 mentions Noah as a man of faith who, being warned by God about things not yet seen, built an ark to save his household. This passage assumes the historical reality of Noah's actions in response to divine warning.
So, what to say about all this? Well, first, what you need to know is that each of these affirmations within the New Testament demonstrates that Jesus Himself, the apostles (like Peter), and the New Testament authors each regarded the flood account from Genesis as a real historical event rather than merely allegorical or mythical. They did not try to correct the story nor apologize for its supernatural aspects.
Second, what you need to know is that there has been an enormous amount of very high-quality but technical, conservative Christian scholarship disproving these critics' ideas, especially when it comes to the literary unity and textual coherence of not just the book of Genesis, but of the entire Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). While much of their work resides in academic circles and is not found in popular Christian literature, the fact is that from the 1970s to the early 2000s, faithful men of God conversant in Hebrew and ancient Near Eastern studies have convincingly and repeatedly shown with vigor that the critics' arguments do not hold up.
Third, the traditional Christian position has understood the Pentateuch as a unified, coherent, and intentional literary work unique to the Hebraic culture, divinely inspired and fittingly authored for the theological purposes for which it was written. As a result of such faithful-to-the-Scriptures scholarship, the academic skeptics have largely refocused their research efforts elsewhere. However, the person on the street may not be aware of this. Some have turned instead to the idea that the Bible's flood narrative is nothing but a theft of the other ancient Near East flood stories, which brings me to the next point.
Space does not permit a detailed presentation of their arguments. However, fourthly, what I think the average churchgoer lacks (but should know) is a brief sketch of just how these other ancient flood narratives do not align with the distinctive biblical metanarrative. While similarities do exist, to a much higher degree, they are quite different. Let's consider just a very small sampling of the distinctively incompatible differences that violate well-known biblical precepts:
a. Sumerian Eridu Genesis
o Chief god Enlil sways a council of lesser gods to destroy man; there is no covenant, no faith, and the gods are angry that man thwarted their plan; man eventually becomes a god himself
b. Akkadian Atrahasis
o Calls for rebellion/battle by lower gods; chief god Enlil is not omniscient. Humans were created to relieve the lesser gods from forced labor. People multiply on the earth until the noise is so great that the gods wish to reduce man’s population, first by disease and then by flood. A taboo high priestess/woman is appointed to reduce childbirth on earth
c. Akkadian Gilgamesh
o Lesser gods seek tolerance for transgression/sin, not the judgment of sin (they want a pass); man and wife become gods; no specific human seed possesses the land; man (who is a king) is told to destroy his house/palace and forsake all of his possessions; the main character leaves his palace to the caulker of the ark (and is left to die); the Ark is loaded with gold and silver first, then animals board as men force them onto the boat (God did not 'send them' willingly); later, the gods cower like 'dogs' during the flood; the flood and death of people were judged as an evil event itself, and not as judgment for evil; The god Enlil is furious that mankind survived; all of the gods lack omniscience
Historically speaking, if there were a literal cataclysmic event in humanity's past, it should not surprise us that there would be a shared cultural remembrance of it, written or oral and that other ancient cultures would write something down about it. Problematically, however, these ancient Near Eastern myths are completely incompatible with the Bible's metanarrative and precepts (they are not monotheistic; they support murdering children; they speak of a plurality of gods who are not all-powerful and omniscient, and gods who create humans for forced labor, etc.). In fact, these ancient 'myths' are so problematic that it is hard to believe that any faithful Hebraic author would consider using them as a source for Genesis. If there is any 'theory' to consider, it would be far more believable that Moses had 'the truth' (the true story) and Genesis served as a corrective to an otherwise corrupted set of memories about a great flood in the cultural stream of his day.
So, the next time someone says the Bible is just a clone of an ancient Near East myth, ask them if they've actually read the narrative(s) they are speaking about. Ask them if they've ever compared them to the Bible's account in Genesis. Ask them if they know that the New Testament understands the flood as a historical reality. While similarities to the ancient Near Eastern epics do exist, they oppose the biblical flood account in many ways. Use the opportunity to tell that person you are speaking with about the true story of God's love and mercy. Mankind deserved death, but by God's grace, He offered deliverance-- both deliverance from the flood, and later we learn in the New Testament, deliverance from death and forgiveness of sin through the Lord Jesus Christ. Engage that person with patience and love, and use it as an opportunity to share the true 'HIS story' of mankind.
Blessings!
Biography:
Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger. “The Eridu Genesis.†Volume 1: The Context of Scripture. New York: Brill, 1997 (513-515).
______. “ATRA-ḪASIS†Volume 1: The Context of Scripture. New York: Brill, 1997 (450-453).
______. “GILGAMESH†Volume 1: The Context of Scripture. New York: Brill, 1997 (458-460).
... Noah's flood is just a myth taken from other Ancient Near Eastern flood epics...
That's the claim made by the critics...
By contrast, Christian orthodoxy has generally understood Genesis 1–9 to depict a divinely crafted narrative of creation, humanity’s disobedience, the holy judgment of evil, and deliverance for the righteous and faithful few. Genesis 6–9 provides a comprehensive and authoritative account of a literal worldwide (and yes, a worldwide, not regional) flood early in human history. Christian and Jewish tradition both attribute to Moses this coherent narrative of human civilization’s rise and subsequent descent into evil, whereby human wickedness leads to divine judgment—the literal (yes, literal) destruction by water—of all living creatures except Noah, his family, and the creatures on the ark.
However, it is true that for quite some time, critics have argued that the biblical flood account of Genesis 6–9 originates or draws influence from ancient Near Eastern manuscripts depicting a similar cataclysmic water event. They usually will point to the Mesopotamian epic stories of Gilgamesh, Eridu Genesis, and Atrahasis, doubting that a global flood narrative recorded among multiple cultures is historically accurate. If you are unfamiliar with Mesopotamian civilization, it is the world's oldest recorded civilization. So, the written versions of their flood accounts on clay/stone tablets are believed to pre-date the Bible's Genesis flood account. As a result, the skeptics will typically question whether the Genesis story exemplifies one culture (Israel) appropriating another culture’s (Sumerian or Akkadian) mythology for theological purposes. They typically say that Genesis 6–9 should be interpreted as a myth or an allegorical device.
The problem with these claims is that they question the idea that Moses wrote the book of Genesis and that Genesis is a text inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16-17). We don’t have enough time to go through all their points, but we can group these arguments into three main categories.
The first category is the ‘Documentary Hypothesis.’ This idea suggests that Genesis is made up of different stories from various times and places, put together like a patchwork quilt. People who support this theory point out different names for God, "so-called" differences in the number of animals, and conflicting timelines for the flood.
The second category includes critics who doubt the originality and truth of the Bible because it repeats certain parts. These critics often use modern ideas and don't give enough credit to ancient writing styles or the belief that the Bible is inspired by God.
The third category involves scholars who compare the Genesis flood story to other ancient flood stories, like the Eridu, Atrahasis, and Gilgamesh epics. They believe these older stories show that the Genesis account has irregularities.
The people in each of these categories typically dismiss the fact that several New Testament writers and figures affirm the historicity of the flood account from Genesis (that is, they refer to it as an actual event). For example:
o Jesus Christ: In Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 17:26-27, Jesus refers to the days of Noah and the flood as historical events. He uses them to illustrate the suddenness and unexpected nature of His second coming, emphasizing that people were going about their daily lives until the flood came and took them away.
o Peter, Apostle: In 1 Peter 3:20-21, Peter explicitly refers to the flood during the time of Noah as a historical event. He draws a comparison between the waters of the flood and baptism, highlighting how just as Noah and his family were saved through water, baptism now saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
o Luke, the Evangelist: Luke includes Noah in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:36, placing him among the ancestors of Christ. This inclusion assumes the historicity of Noah and the flood account as part of Jesus' lineage. Genealogically, this means that human ancestry eventually traces back to Noah.
o The Author of Hebrews: While the specific author of the Book of Hebrews is debated, Hebrews 11:7 mentions Noah as a man of faith who, being warned by God about things not yet seen, built an ark to save his household. This passage assumes the historical reality of Noah's actions in response to divine warning.
So, what to say about all this? Well, first, what you need to know is that each of these affirmations within the New Testament demonstrates that Jesus Himself, the apostles (like Peter), and the New Testament authors each regarded the flood account from Genesis as a real historical event rather than merely allegorical or mythical. They did not try to correct the story nor apologize for its supernatural aspects.
Second, what you need to know is that there has been an enormous amount of very high-quality but technical, conservative Christian scholarship disproving these critics' ideas, especially when it comes to the literary unity and textual coherence of not just the book of Genesis, but of the entire Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). While much of their work resides in academic circles and is not found in popular Christian literature, the fact is that from the 1970s to the early 2000s, faithful men of God conversant in Hebrew and ancient Near Eastern studies have convincingly and repeatedly shown with vigor that the critics' arguments do not hold up.
Third, the traditional Christian position has understood the Pentateuch as a unified, coherent, and intentional literary work unique to the Hebraic culture, divinely inspired and fittingly authored for the theological purposes for which it was written. As a result of such faithful-to-the-Scriptures scholarship, the academic skeptics have largely refocused their research efforts elsewhere. However, the person on the street may not be aware of this. Some have turned instead to the idea that the Bible's flood narrative is nothing but a theft of the other ancient Near East flood stories, which brings me to the next point.
Space does not permit a detailed presentation of their arguments. However, fourthly, what I think the average churchgoer lacks (but should know) is a brief sketch of just how these other ancient flood narratives do not align with the distinctive biblical metanarrative. While similarities do exist, to a much higher degree, they are quite different. Let's consider just a very small sampling of the distinctively incompatible differences that violate well-known biblical precepts:
a. Sumerian Eridu Genesis
o Chief god Enlil sways a council of lesser gods to destroy man; there is no covenant, no faith, and the gods are angry that man thwarted their plan; man eventually becomes a god himself
b. Akkadian Atrahasis
o Calls for rebellion/battle by lower gods; chief god Enlil is not omniscient. Humans were created to relieve the lesser gods from forced labor. People multiply on the earth until the noise is so great that the gods wish to reduce man’s population, first by disease and then by flood. A taboo high priestess/woman is appointed to reduce childbirth on earth
c. Akkadian Gilgamesh
o Lesser gods seek tolerance for transgression/sin, not the judgment of sin (they want a pass); man and wife become gods; no specific human seed possesses the land; man (who is a king) is told to destroy his house/palace and forsake all of his possessions; the main character leaves his palace to the caulker of the ark (and is left to die); the Ark is loaded with gold and silver first, then animals board as men force them onto the boat (God did not 'send them' willingly); later, the gods cower like 'dogs' during the flood; the flood and death of people were judged as an evil event itself, and not as judgment for evil; The god Enlil is furious that mankind survived; all of the gods lack omniscience
Historically speaking, if there were a literal cataclysmic event in humanity's past, it should not surprise us that there would be a shared cultural remembrance of it, written or oral and that other ancient cultures would write something down about it. Problematically, however, these ancient Near Eastern myths are completely incompatible with the Bible's metanarrative and precepts (they are not monotheistic; they support murdering children; they speak of a plurality of gods who are not all-powerful and omniscient, and gods who create humans for forced labor, etc.). In fact, these ancient 'myths' are so problematic that it is hard to believe that any faithful Hebraic author would consider using them as a source for Genesis. If there is any 'theory' to consider, it would be far more believable that Moses had 'the truth' (the true story) and Genesis served as a corrective to an otherwise corrupted set of memories about a great flood in the cultural stream of his day.
So, the next time someone says the Bible is just a clone of an ancient Near East myth, ask them if they've actually read the narrative(s) they are speaking about. Ask them if they've ever compared them to the Bible's account in Genesis. Ask them if they know that the New Testament understands the flood as a historical reality. While similarities to the ancient Near Eastern epics do exist, they oppose the biblical flood account in many ways. Use the opportunity to tell that person you are speaking with about the true story of God's love and mercy. Mankind deserved death, but by God's grace, He offered deliverance-- both deliverance from the flood, and later we learn in the New Testament, deliverance from death and forgiveness of sin through the Lord Jesus Christ. Engage that person with patience and love, and use it as an opportunity to share the true 'HIS story' of mankind.
Blessings!
Biography:
Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger. “The Eridu Genesis.†Volume 1: The Context of Scripture. New York: Brill, 1997 (513-515).
______. “ATRA-ḪASIS†Volume 1: The Context of Scripture. New York: Brill, 1997 (450-453).
______. “GILGAMESH†Volume 1: The Context of Scripture. New York: Brill, 1997 (458-460).
Posted in Coffee Hour w/ Pastor John
Posted in Flood, Noah, Genesis 6-9, Eridu, Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, Sumerian, Akkadian, Deluge, Near Eastern Myths, Epics, Judgment
Posted in Flood, Noah, Genesis 6-9, Eridu, Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, Sumerian, Akkadian, Deluge, Near Eastern Myths, Epics, Judgment
Recent
Archive
2024
2023