I came across this link last week. It’s helpful for illustrating the Mesopotamian flavor of the flood account. I have disagreements with how the author parses the whole issue in places, but I still think it’s useful.
Biblical Flood Account Compared to Gilgamesh
Instead of literary borrowing, how about the possibility there was a catastrophic flood in the ANE(there’s a pretty good book on the physical evidence for it called, “Noah’s Flood”) and oral traditions are similar?
The late date the flood epic is added according to this article almost makes it sound like the pagans are who may have done the literary borrowing?
agreed – this is one item where I think comparisons are overstated. ANE lit was certainly referenced for polemic purposes, but the notion that an Israelite would give you a deer in the headlights look when you said the word “flood” is nonsense – they no doubt had hear about such a thing before whether it was written down or not.
I would say there isn’t any new information there, but I would like to hear what specifically you disagree with him about.
See my note to Patrick on this, PLUS I don’t think he’s right about motive (and I’d quibble with method, too). It’s one thing to say “the biblical writers knew these texts / saw them / referenced them, but quite another to say you know precisely what they were thinking when doing so, or that they didn’t have their own version of the flood already). It’s irritating to read this sort of stuff when the Israelites come across as the lone ANE culture so ignorant as to be incapable of any independent thought.
Here is something I would love explained. According to scholars, the Flood story is a combination of J and P. The J author lived in the south pre-exile right? But the Flood is supposed to be Babylonian inspired during the exile. So doesn’t’ this show that the Israelites already had a flood tale long before they ever went into exile? Perhaps the Babylonian influence was only for the polemic aspect.
I would think so. Your point is well taken. If there is some “reconciliation” needed per the JEDP assumption, then some sort of position had to exist for J.
Hello dr. heiser, I read around 20 of your articles concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures. I have a question that seems to converge with the material of the article you linked to, and would like your thoughts. Do you think it’s possible (and/or likely) that shared cosmology/ontology/mythology could actually be the result of anthropopneustos? Specifically, do you think it’s possible that Scripture could be engaging it’s contemporaneous hearers and offering a unique perspective on commonly accepted worldview/mythology, precisely without trying to teach it? (i.e. you don’t intend to teach something that is presupposed).
This would make it more like a competetive dialogue, where Scripture is offering a variant view to supplant aspects of the otherwise generally agreed upon mythology(ies). In other words, is it possible that aspects of the Scripture place it in historicallyinternecine arguments, offering varied approaches to commonly held mythology RATHER THAN trying to offer a set of completely radical answers to them? (I do not here define mythology as the post-Enlightenment pejorative term it has come to mean in evangelical circles).
If so, I think it could help to disentangle the text from the modern questions we try to force it to answer and conform to. Specifically, maybe we (believers) should consider extending the bounds of the accomodation/condescension of Yahweh. Many of us already posit accomodation in matters of “science” (e.g. the shamayim / rakia is represented as solid in Scripture, and that doesn’t bother all of us). Is it conceivable that we as believing disciples, could say that in a similar way, Yahweh was at times accomodating Israel in the realm of presupposed worldview/philosophy/ontology, just as he was with what we moderns call “science”?
For me, this especially makes sense with Genesis 1-11, which seems in part to operate like like a freight train that is hurtling towards the real destination: Abraham and his offspring. This could mean that the real substance of genesis 6 lies NOT with the story of Noah itself per se , but RATHER in how the story of Noah ends up laying the groundwork for properly understanding the story of Israel (i.e. historically developing the inherited landscape, genealogy/bloodline, and political/religious situation that contemporaneous Israel will find itself in).
I think that can be coherent in certain instances – i.e., the conclusion toward which a biblical writer is arguing can be true even if *part* of the supporting data used to make the argument isn’t true (say, scientifically( or wasn’t intended to be taken literally as a truth proposition. I would agree that condescension makes that idea possible/viable.
As an analogy, consider evangelism (and for the life of me I don’t know why theologians haven’t used that as a template for inspiration/inerrancy — it’s obviously a divine-human enterprise). A person might correctly articulate the gospel but, in doing so, use an unworkable or flawed analogy, definition, etc. But if the end point (the gospel) is correctly articulated and someone believes, mission accomplished. (I don’t think God would be upset with the result). 🙂
Alright Joshua, you are on to it when you talk about God condescending. God is Spirit,and does not have our human language. This is one of the three main Theological truths that God is telling us in the gospel of John. God is Spirit. God totally condescends , and uses our language.
MICHAEL I thought the flood was around 2340 bc,yet there seems to be no mention in EGYPTIAN history
Which should compel one of two conclusions: (1) the flood didn’t happen in 2340 BC (and what are you basing that number on? the genealogies? Not a good idea); or (2) the flood was a localized event covering Mesopotamia.
—-(1) the flood didn’t happen in 2340 BC (and what are you basing that number on? the genealogies? Not a good idea).
Why not? What are you supposed to measure time in the bible with?
—-(2) the flood was a localized event covering Mesopotamia.
Which, from an actual historical point-of-view makes the story pretty much pointless.
Not at all pointless if the known (landlocked) world is the ANE. I’d say lots of water would get attention. Anyway, there are gaps in the genealogies and they are known to be “artificial” in the sense that they are designed to communicate certain theological points about bloodlines and such. (My favorite is the date of Noah’s birthday, the flood, and traditions about Tishri 1 – something I put into The Portent, my sequel to my first novel; due out next month for you lurkers!)
Then there is the whole issue of the ante-diluvian numbers in the genealogies and possible mathematical cyphers involved (or again, deliberate structuring for some purpose). Scholars have come up with several that are interesting, but no “smoking gun”; all that’s really known for sure is that they are selective. When it comes to Genesis, especially, textual issues are a factor as well (Septuagint numbers and names are quite different in places). So it’s best not to base any argument on a genealogy.
>>Not at all pointless if the known (landlocked) world is the ANE. I’d say lots of water would get attention.
Well ya. That is my point. It WAS known. Now we know otherwise. So NOW it is pointless.
Fair enough regarding the genealogies. As a side question, why is there such discrepancies between the Sept. & DSS vs. the Masoretic text? Am i correct to presume the Sept. & DSS were more widely used? If so, why did the Masoretic became the standard text? Or, I guess, the lesson from Emanuel Tov is that there is no “THE” correct text.
I don’t know why a global flood would be more “relevant to today” than a local flood, given that none of the Bible is oriented outside the ANE/Mediterranean.
LXX differences can be either mechanical (i.e., transparent scribal errors in whatever Hebrew text was being used) or translation technique (not likely in genealogical lists) or deliberate (writer’s agenda, goal of the genealogy).
LXX is one of three biblical text traditions (MT, LXX, SamPent) witnessed at Qumran. There are others unaffiliated with those three traditions, which were known before the Qumran discoveries. The Qumran material was a library, witnessing multiple traditions, so the question about use is irrelevant (and impossible to judge).
Tov is correct that, given the textual material we have, neither the LXX or MT should be given elevated status a priori (SP is lesser since it has hundreds of changes that reflect Samaritan theology). All that is known for sure is that the “Masoretic Text” as we have it today (and as it was known before the discoveries at Qumran, was created around 100 AD, specifically have an approved text for Judaism’s posterity (and so, disparage LXX, since that was the mainstream OT for Christians).
Biblical Flood of Noah = Grand Canyon!!!
Nough said!!!
there’s a non-sequitur. If it were that simple, all Christian geologists would agree, and all evangelical biblical scholars would agree.
I wonder: If the flood was regional (local), how to explain what appears to be a “collective memory” of many old cultures and isolated over a water catastrophe of truly gigantic proportions (global or partial global)? How to explain the similarities between the tales of the flood (giants, an evil civilization, divine marriage)? Some say that many of these civilizations lived on land that suffered major flooding and so were based on local flood experiences and created their myths. But that does not explain the similarities with the Biblical narrative. I do not know if the flood was all that young earth creationists argue, but I think it may have been something scary and major …. whatever! It is controversial, but intriguing.
Sorry this one got lost in the shuffle.
To answer, I’d need examples – frankly, the idea that there are a lot of close comparisons isn’t really true. Ancient Egypt, for instance, lacks one. So does Ugarit, but that may be due to a small size sample. Mesopotamia does (note the region). Sure, flood events are common, and all ancient cultures would attribute such disasters to a deity or deities, but a story with all the elements — an ark, saving animals, and divine-human cohabitation with giant offspring is pretty unusual. Greek versions likely share (or come from) ANE stories. What you need to really make this a good question are examples with the specific elements noted above (at least the ark idea) from North America (and proving non-European influence) or Scandinavia, or India, or something like that (again, proving that the accounts could not have been influenced by stories from the Bible, ANE, or Greco-Roman material). That isn’t easy.
The real problem is chronology. For example, look at this one from ancient India (via Wikipedia):
Manu and Matsya: The legend first appears in Shatapatha Brahmana (700–300 BCE), and is further detailed in Matsya Purana (250–500 CE). Matsya (the incarnation of Lord Vishnu as a fish) forewarns Manu (a human) about an impending catastrophic flood and orders him to collect all the grains of the world in a boat; in some forms of the story, all living creatures are also to be preserved in the boat. When the flood destroys the world, Manu – in some versions accompanied by the seven great sages – survives by boarding the ark, which Matsya pulls to safety.
The date makes it quite possible that the Indian text was influenced by Mesopotamian material — and the reference to the seven sages (and the fish appearance) pretty well nails that. Both are true of the Mesopotamian apkallu, which (if you read The Unseen Realm) are the targets / corollaries to the sons of God/Watchers/nephilim. The fact that these elements show up in an Indian text so late doesn’t at all argue for a global memory. Its specificity with the Mesopotamian material favors literary or oral sharing of the story (which may have been regional).
The chronological problem for African stories is related to the question of how old such stories are. Hard to know because most of the stories are the result of oral tradition (we’re dealing with cultures to whom written literacy came late and who were colonize by Europeans).
I don’t have a wide grasp of the world’s flood stories, so I wouldn’t claim there are no good examples that *can’t* be explained regionally. I just don’t know of any that survive the sort of inspection I’ve sketched above.
Hi Mike, im new here.
I’m a French former seventh day adventist (cult)…. I’m familiar with your works and on a podcast about Noah’s flood being local or regionnal, you talked about the expression all the earth, i really would like to know if you’ve already produced an article about it.
I need it for a study that i am doing on eschatological issue, i.e revelation and the new earth new heaven issue.
There’s a post on the site about this.
Can’t find it, can you send a link to me ? please