noah and da flood (page 2)

I think I'm going to virtually hijack this topic at this point and offer, a la Leolaia, a more indepth analysis for those who might be interested. These are adapted from notes for a class (on the Bible of course!) I teach, and I should credit my Unitarian minister for his theological input in developing these ideas. If this sounds a little dry, I apologize, and, as always, if this is too much, then by all means, just pass me by! However, I welcome any feedback over what is presented here.

The flood story is best understood in the context of the entire mythic cycle of Gen. 1-11. One model of viewing the structure of these first eleven chapters of Genesis is in the form of Gen 1 ? 2:4a as a Prologue to the Primeval History, setting the context and content of creation. Following this Prologue are stories as four cycles that are a re-casting of the four seasonal cycles transformed into a pre-historical context. Each cycle (Gen 3 [Adam & Eve], Gen 4 [Cain & Abel], Gen 6 ? 9 [Noah & the Flood] & Gen 11 [the Tower of Babel]) consists of the brokenness of relation, accountability to actions, and redemption as assurance of continued life. Interspersed between the 2 nd and 3 rd cycle is an Interlude of the genealogy of Cain & Seth (1:18-26), followed by a second Interlude, the genealogy of Adam & Noah (5:1-32, with Enoch taken up by God). Between the 3 rd and last cycle is a third Interlude of the Sons of Noah (9:18-28) and a fourth Interlude, the Peopling of the Earth (10:1-32). Following the 4 th cycle is a last Interlude as the genealogy of Shem. Following this last of the five genealogical Interludes, the pre-historical cyclical events break into the linear journey of Abraham and Sarah into ?historical time.?

(I know that some challenge the conventional dating of these source texts.)

The story of Noah and the Flood is a merging of ?J? (dated to the 10 th -century BCE) and ?P? (dated to the 6 th -century BCE) texts with roots extending to the Sumerian period (ca. 3,000 BCE);

The Prologue (3:1-10) is enigmatic in biblical scholarship. It appears to be an echo of a previous mythos that lingered in the ?J? text. It also seems to be a restatement of the longing of humanity to achieve immortality, by linking ?the divine beings? (sons of God) with the daughters of men, implying some sort of divine longevity. However, vs. 3, a statement of human life-span expectancy (re: an echo of being driven out of the Garden of Eden), is an intrusive insertion into the fabric of the original story of the Nephilim, ?the Fellers,? those who cause one to fall off or diminish. Noah, like Enoch (5:24), ?walked with God,? ending the essentially ?J? text with a ?P? conclusion.
Gen 6:11-22 is a ?P? text, with God = Elohim as the marker, plus the intense attention to detail (vs. 14-16), and Noah doing as God commands (vs. 22). The main twist to this story drawn from earlier ones is the replacement of the whimsy or conniving of the deities to sadness and regret of God (6:7 indicating destruction of the contents of the cosmos) or the disdain for the corruption (perhaps the consequences of wrong choices) of the earth itself and all living things (6:11-13 destroying the cosmos as well as the contents). Noah is commanded to take into the ark his family and two of all living creatures.
The ?J? text has Noah taking seven pairs of clean animals and two of unclean (7:2-3), revealing the existence of the Mosiac tradition in its writing. ?P? picks up the thread in vs. 6 with a contradiction of the ?J? animal sorting by restating just two of each kind (vs. 8-9 & 15). The remainder of Chapter 7 is essentially ?P? (with the obvious exception of vs. 16b being a ?J?) to the extent the text can be sorted with certainty. Given the liturgical (that is repetitious) nature of the passages, describing the ordeal of water chaos falling through the firmament (rain) and bursting from the ground (as a river would flood), destroying all that was created, the inclination toward this being a ?P? text is possible.
?P? continues in 8:1-14 in the closure of the chaos and the reclaiming the earth. 8:15-19 is a moment of re-creation with all in the ark released to a new earth, ending the ?P? portion. The ?J? (with LORD = Adonai as the marker) tells of Noah offering a sacrifice to God (hence the need for more clean animals; perhaps the ?P? text is a polemic since only the Priests offer sacrifices, therefore only two of every kind) clearly revealing a ?J? anthropomorphic God ?smelling? the ?pleasing odor,? and thereby swearing never to ?doom the earth because of man? even though ?the devisings of man?s mind are evil? (not the nature of humanity) indicating perhaps an echo of knowing of the limitlessness of knowledge but retaining the flaw of fallibility and vulnerability. The Chapter ends with a poem that may be older than the written text.
The ?P? text in 9:1-7 is a rephrasing of the earlier ?be fruitful and multiply? command, and the admonition not to do one thing (as in the original): ?You must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it? (vs. 4). This is followed by the command applicable to animals as well as humans. Then an enigmatic poem suggesting an eye for an eye with a curious ending about humans in the image of God (vs. 6).
The ?P? text continues in 9:8-17 with an expansion of the original covenant only with Noah (6:18) to include all humanity and ?all flesh that is on the earth? (vs. 17), symbolized by the rainbow.
The sons of Noah (Shem, Ham and Japheth) are restated for the fourth of five times in 9:18 (also 5:32, 6:10 and 7:13, and again in 10:1) to indicate national or racial origins. Shem probably is the mythical source of the Semites. Ham is identified as the source of the Canaanites. Japheth is problematic, but probably the source of Africans, both Mediterranean and sub-Saharan.
Ham becomes the target of an egregious indiscretion. This is not surprising since Canaan, taken over by the Israelites in the ?J? period, probably still has pockets of remnant populations of Canaanites as a thorn in the national side. Given 9:20-27 is a ?P? text, however, it is probably a specific reference to those non-Israelites who replaced the population of Judah after the forced evacuation into Exile by the Babylonians. The text is evasive as to Ham?s indiscretion. The phrase ?saw his father?s nakedness? in vs. 22 is a veiled (more specifically, a backward cloaking) reference to Ham sleeping with Noah?s wife, his mother. Clearly this is a polemic against the Canaanites as bastards born from an incestuous relationship. Hence, the command that Canaanites be slaves to both the progeny of Shem and Japheth.

Some further observations that I have made about this story:

The fact that ?J? texts were retained by the ?P? authors and editors meant an adoration of the earlier literature, holding it to be sacred, and therefore untouchable. As is typical for the later editors, the task was to weave relevant contemporary texts and stories into the older fabric without violating the sacredness of the originating body of literature. Communal identity was at stake, and in the ancient world, the older the tradition, the more sacred and respected. This was one reason the Romans allowed special dispensations to the Judeans, because everyone knew Moses pre-dated Plato.
The most disturbing aspect of the story of Noah and the Flood is the apparent cruelty of God. Perhaps looking at the story from a humanistic rather than theistic point of view, the ?cruelty? is a consequence of the choices made by humans. The consequences of wrong choices jeopardizes both the social and cosmic order, as was believed in ancient times, and continues to this day with the ecology replacing references to God. This aspect of consequences of choice is reinforced as the prominent theme beginning with the eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and continued in the cyclical stories as offered above. In our present day, we?ve disconnected the relationship between social and cosmic order. However, that social/cosmic order is referred to in today?s religious language as the establishment of universal peace and justice, a concept used by the ancient Israelites. The brokenness of human and social relationships is perhaps ?the devisings of man?s mind are evil? (with the key word being ?devisings?) not that humans are evil, since all were created in the image of God. In a subsistence environment, natural calamities were seen as an effect based upon a cause ? usually the displeasure of the deities due to human error and evil.
The question of why water the instrument of destruction may reside in the paradoxical nature of the medium. In a subsistence environment, water is a precious and valuable giver of life. Without it, all life would perish. Yet, with the lingering memories of the previous cultures in Mesopotamia (the land between two rivers, Tigris and Euphrates) where irrigation was the key to survival, when abundant snow melts would come crashing down the river channels, all was destroyed. Water then had the paradox of life giving and life taking. This paradoxical image persists in the ?P? texts, due to the close contact to the generating mythos extant in Babylon during the Exile.
Another generating mythos is the story of the flood in the Sumerian ?Epic of Gilgamesh.? This myth is the framework upon which the ?P? text hangs. Portions are verbatim. The protagonist, Utnapishtim, is changed to Noah, and the cause of the Flood is altered from the whimsy of the deities to the regret and sorrow illustrated above. It is interesting that because of Utnapishtim?s devotion, he and his wife are granted immortality. The most the ?P? could do with Noah was to say he ?walked with God,? as did Enoch, but died and was not ?taken up? by God.
All of creation is encapsulated in the Ark in the midst of chaos/water ? humans, animals and plants for food (?For your part, take everything that is eaten and store it away, to serve as food for you and for them? [6:21]). The essence of creation is all that remains after the Flood. (Some wise children will always ask, ?What about the fish?? which are obviously omitted because water is their element of survival.) The time during the Flood is approximately nine months, an obvious relation to human gestation. There then followed 40 days for the earth to dry before a new creation emerges from the Ark ? a new birth of creation out of the Ark as the womb. Geenrally speaking, for something new to have meaning, something from the past must be preserved ? in this case the contents of the Ark being the contents of a new creation.
The image of the Flood is a limited one geographically. It is not presenting the entire globe of the earth inundated with unimaginable amounts of water. Even though there is many flood stories in many cultures around the world, each story is generated by a specific geographic center ? the known ?world? to the peoples in the immediate region. In terms of the human condition, a catastrophic flood would wipe out both the physical ?world? and the psychological ?world? of a specific geographical location. With the ?P? text borrowing significantly from the earlier mythos, the mountains of Ararat (8:4; note the plural) were the highest known points in their ?world.?
The ?P? authors and editors may have devised the four pre-historical cycles to illustrate the failure of fulfilling the promise of Israel. The message could be one of hope ? that out of the chaos of a devastating defeat at the hands of the Babylonians, will come redemption in the form of a new nation of Israel. With ?P? determination and zeal, not to mention perseverance, this time ?We?ll get it right!? Well, maybe ? since subsequent history shows otherwise. Perhaps these stories of the angst of the human condition can continue to speak to us today. Such periodic celebrations as Yom Kippur are a reminder of these pre-historic cycles and our daily cycles.

noah and da flood

RunningMan

gumby

euripides

Share this