The biblical story of Noah and the ark in which he, his family were saved stretches belief. There is no archeological evidence that a flood, or any other cataclysmic global catastrophe, disrupted human civilization. The notion that all animals in the world could be rescued in an ark is also unbelievable. Any zoo contain only a miniscule fraction of the world’s living creatures.

Could this be a story about a local flood of unusual intensity and extent rather than a global catastrophe? At least one Midrashic source considers this possibility when it suggests that the Land of Israel was excluded from Noah’s flood.1

​

However, the text of the Noah story belies such a notion. This is a story about global destruction. The words “all” and “every” are prominent words in the following passage: 

​

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of bird, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth, and every man; All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And He wiped out all existence that was on the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the bird of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah only remained alive, and those who were with him in the ark (Genesis 7:21-23).

 

Moreover, the Biblical description of the onset of the flood brings us back to the first chapter of Genesis and the chaos accompanying the beginning of the earth:

​

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep (tehom raba) burst forth; and the windows of the heavens (hashomayim) were opened (Genesis 7:11).

 

The word “tehom” (תְהוֹם), usually translated as “the deep,” are the primordial waters of chaos that covered the earth at the time of creation: 

​

In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and earth, when the earth was bewilderment and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep (tehom) (תְהוֹם), and the spirit of God was hovering upon the surface of the waters (Genesis 1:1).

​

In the first creation story, the land mass arose from within the deep primeval waters leading to the formation of seas, while the “tehom” remained deep within the oceans. By contrast, during the flood, these deep primeval waters surged up into the seas and flowed over the land. Simultaneously, windows present in the barrier between the waters above the heaven and the heaven itself opened up. 

After the flood, the process reversed itself — the fountains of the “tehom” or deep closed up and the deep waters receded back into the seas. Moreover, just as the “spirit of God” hovered over the “tehom” on the first day of Creation and guided the creative process, so the “spirit” of God passed over the earth after the flood to guide its resolution:

​

And God caused a spirit to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided. The fountains of the deep (tehom) and the windows of heaven were closed, (Genesis 8:1-2). . . . The waters then receded from upon the earth, receding continuously, and the waters diminished at the end of a hundred and fifty days (Genesis 8:3).

 

This is far more than an extensive local flood. 

 

But if this is an imaginary tale, what is it doing in the Torah?

 

I have posed this question over the years to many orthodox Rabbis and none provided me with a satisfactory answer. All the rabbis I spoke to were wedded to a very literal understanding of the text. Some were even perturbed that I would question the historicity of the Bible. Eventually, I was directed to the writings of two Biblical scholars, Umberto Cassuto and Nahum Sarma, and these scholars led me on a trail that changed my entire perception of the early chapters of Genesis.2,3   

Both considered the Pentateuch to be written by a single author. Both also showed that the Noah story borrowed heavily from Mesopotamian mythology.  

 

Stories about a great flood had existed for hundreds of years before the Bible was written and were widely disseminated throughout the Near East. The earliest extant flood legend is found in the fragmentary Sumerian Eridu Genesis written in about the 17th century BCE. These fragments relate how an individual called Ziusudra was warned by the god Enki of the gods' decision to destroy mankind in a flood and how he was instructed to build a large boat. Ziusudra means "he saw life," and is a reference to the gift of immortality bestowed upon him by the gods after he was saved. The Atrahasis Epic is another version of this story and the hero of this story is called Atrahasis.

 

The most complete Mesopotamian flood story was found in Nineveh during excavations of the library of King Asshurbanipal, and is known as the Epic of Gilgamesh. A flood story comprises only a small part of this epic and is thought to be a version of the Atrahasis Epic.

 

The Epic of Gilgamesh concerns a king called Gilgamesh and his quest for the secret of immortality following the death of a very close male friend. In this quest, Gilgamesh visits an individual called Utnapishtim who has achieved immortality and discovers that he has gained immortality not by dint of wisdom but as a gift from the gods following his survival from a great flood.

 

Common to all these Mesopotamian flood stories is that the gods decide to bring a flood to destroy mankind, that one person is saved on a ship, and that he brings animals on board to save them from the deluge. After the flood, the boat alights on top of a mountain, birds are released to determine if the land has dried, and the hero then emerges and offers sacrifices on his deliverance.

 

Cassuto considered these flood myths to be too important an aspect of ancient culture to be ignored by the Torah and they were therefore incorporated into the Bible after the erasing of their polytheistic content. There is probably considerable validity to this idea, but it is unlikely to be the entire story. Sarma, on the other hand, viewed the Biblical Noah story as a polemic against Mesopotamian religious and political ideas. In other words, the Torah borrowed the outline of this popular and well-known pagan myth but changed key aspects as a means of promoting biblical ideas. Call it an anti-myth if one wishes. By this means, new and far-reaching religious ideas were brought into the religious consciousness of the Near East.

 

Does this mean that Noah was a fictitious character and that the Torah deliberately fabricated history to incorporate this made-up person? This is impossible to know. Personally, I would like to believe that an exceptionally righteous person named Noah did exist in ancient times and that his offspring populated all or much of the Near East. Moreover, the Torah was not trying to fool anyone. People at that time were familiar with the Gilgamesh myth, which was based on a great, true-life individual living at the beginning of civilization, and around whom was woven a greater-than-life myth. It is very possible that semi-historical fiction may have been common at that time. Nevertheless, it is notable that the Pentateuch does not refer again to Noah, whereas the merit of the forefathers is mentioned time after time. Their historicity was clearly different to that of Noah’s.

​

Since the biblical Noah story is an allegorical anti-myth our first task is to examine the similarities and differences between the Noah allegory and the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh flood myths so as to extract the many profound messages this allegory was promoting. This will need to be done within the context of the time at which the Torah was written, and not necessarily the perspective of the 21st century, although they will often be the same. One might also anticipate that each point within this allegory could have a number of interpretations. The trick is to find the interpretation that speaks to oneself, the reader, most directly.

​

An idea that many religious people may find difficult to accept is that the Torah, and especially its opening chapters, can only be fully understood with reference to Mesopotamian mythology. But have we Jews not managed without mythology for thousands of years? Absolutely. Nevertheless, I am proposing that if one wishes to fully understand the ideas governing society that the Torah is promoting, then mythology is the literature to turn to.

 

The competing ideologies of the Noah and Gilgamesh epics 

Ancient myths were more than just fanciful stories. They were written to answer fundamental questions asked by people at that time such as how did the world come into being, how did humanity arise, what happens after death, and is it possible to achieve immortality?

​

The ancient Mesopotamians believed that gods were immanent within nature and that conflict was a fundamental construct of the cosmos (see chapter 1 of this book). It followed, therefore, that success in this world could only be achieved by force. The Torah was in opposition not only to polytheism but to the entire pagan mindset that might makes right.

 

The Torah and Mesopotamian mythology also had very different views on the role of man. From their myths we learn that man was created by the gods to perform the hard manual work that would otherwise have been the lot of the gods. Within this framework, man possessed no intrinsic dignity or worth. By contrast, the Torah introduced the radical idea that man was created in the “image of God,” and almost on a level with God Himself. The aspect of God Elohim also gave man dominion over the entire earth, which enabled him to achieve dignity, worth and purpose.

 

• God’s control of nature

 

The pagan notion that nature is controlled by a multitude of gods is very apparent from this excerpt from the Gilgamesh myth describing the onset of the great flood that they engineered:

 

 When the first light of dawn appeared, 

 A black cloud came up from the base of the sky. 

 Adad [storm god, canal controller] kept rumbling inside it. 

 Shunish and Hanish [a minor god, servant of the weather-god) were marching ahead, 

 Marched as chamberlains [over] [?] mountain and country. 

 Erakal [probably the god of war, hunting and plague] pooled out the mooring [?] poles, 

 Ninurta [god of agricultural and pastoral fertility] marched on and made the weir(s) overflow.

 The Anunnaki [deities of fertility and the Underworld] had to carry torches, 

 They lit up the land with their brightness. 

 The calm before the Storm-god came over the sky, 

  Everything light turned to darkness.4

 

Moreover, the gods are horrified at the forces they have unleashed:

 

Even the gods were afraid of the flood-weapon.

They withdrew; they went up to the heaven of Anu.

The gods cowered, like dogs crouched by an outside wall.

Ishtar screamed like a woman giving birth;

The mistress of the gods, sweet of voice, was wailing

“Has that time really returned to clay,

Because I spoke evil in the gods’ assembly? 5

 

By contrast, the Torah describes one God manipulating all the forces of nature according to His will, this being the same God who brought about all of creation:

 

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of heaven were opened” (Genesis 7:11).

 

• The reason for the flood

 

The Atrahasis myth addressed the question as to why natural disasters, such as sickness and famine, existed in this world. It reasoned that these were engineered by the gods so as to achieve population control. Annoying noise is a recurring theme in Mesopotamian myth, reflecting perhaps a lack of gathering places for boisterous youth in Mesopotamian towns and cities.  

 

In the following passage from the Atrahasis epic, the god Ellil decides that man’s activities have become too disturbing and he engineers a famine to control them:

 

Twelve hundred years had not yet passed 

And the country became too wide, the people too numerous,

The country was as noisy as a bellowing bull.

The gods grew restless at their clamor,

Ellil [head of the younger generation of Sumerian and Akkadian gods] had to listen to their noise,

He addressed the great gods:

“The noise of mankind has become too much for me,

I am losing sleep over their racket.

Cut off food supplies to the people!”6

 

Nevertheless, this fails to bring about the desired result, and he therefore brings about a second famine. Only when this proves unsuccessful do Ellil and the assembly of gods decide on a more radical solution — the annihilation of mankind.

​

In contrast to the Atrahasis epic, the Gilgamesh myth provides no reason for the flood, which probably reflects its focus on Utnapishtim’s immortality rather than the flood’s beginnings. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the Gilgamesh myth found no reason to justify the whimsical decision of the gods. This is how things were.

​

This is to be contrasted with Elohim’s explanation as to why the eradication of mankind has become necessary:

​

The earth had become corrupt before Elohim, and the earth was filled with unrighteousness (chamas) (חָמָס). And Elohim looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. And Elohim said to Noah: “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with unrighteousness (chamas) through them; and, behold, I am about to destroy them from the earth” (Genesis 6:11-13).

 

There is discussion among Jewish Biblical exegetes as to the meaning of the word chamas. It is often translated as violence, and in the Rabbinic tradition as robbery.7 However, a more literal translation is injustice.8 In the Book of Exodus, the Israelites are prohibited from being an “eid chomos” (עֵד חָמָס) — “a witness to injustice” (Exodus 23:1).

 

In an earlier verse, the aspect of God YHWH explains why He regards the destruction of mankind as being necessary:

 

YHWH saw that the wickedness (ra’at) of man was great upon the earth, and that every product of the thoughts of his heart was but evil (ra) every day. And YHWH reconsidered having made man on earth and He had heart-felt sadness (ibid 6:5-6).

 

This second quotation sees a total corruption of society with respect to interpersonal relations, doubtless accompanied by a pervasive violence.  

​

• Why was the hero saved?

 

The heroes of the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh epics possessed no particular merit. The only reason Utnapihstim was saved is that for unknown reasons he attracted the attention of the god Ea, who indirectly warned him of the impending flood and urged him to build a boat. It is of interest that Ea never addresses Utnapishtim directly, but only through a reed wall. This is because Ea is not attempting to develop a relationship, but only to impart information:

 

So, he repeated their speech to a reed hut,

“Reed hut, reed hut, brick wall, brick wall,

Listen, reed hut, and pay attention, brick wall.

Man of Shuruppak, son of Ubara-Tutu,

Dismantle your house, build a boat,

Leave possessions, search out living things.

Reject chattels and save lives!

Put aboard the seed of all living things into the boat.”9

 

By contrast, in the Noah story, only someone totally righteous was saved:

 

These are the generations of Noah, Noah was a righteous (tzadik) man, perfect in his generations; Noah walked (hithalech) (הִֽתְהַלֶּךְ) with Elohim (Genesis 6:9).

 

The Hebrew word tzadik has come to mean an extremely pious person, but this is not its biblical meaning. In biblical writing it has the meaning of someone who is innocent of evil. In this instance, “perfectly” innocent. Noah also “walked with Elohim.” The Hebrew word hit’halech (to cause oneself to walk) is found a number of times in the Torah and invariably has the connotation of either a human walking in the ways of God or God Himself walking in a holy environment such as the Garden of Eden or within a non-contaminated Jewish camp.10 The yardstick by which both Elohim and YHWH judge society is the imitation of God. Referred to in the Torah as “walking with God” or “before whom I have walked” (Genesis 24:40), this will become the guiding principle for all Jewish ethics and subsequently those of Christianity:11 

​

Similarly, a few sentences earlier, YHWH says:

 

And YHWH said: “I will blot out man whom I created from the face of the ground (ha’adama) — from man to beast, to creeping things, and to birds of the sky; for I have reconsidered My having made them.” But Noah (וְנֹ֕חַ) found grace (chen) (חֵ֖ן) with YHWH (ibid 6:7-8)

 

Chen in Hebrew means grace or favor. Nachmanides explains that this means that all of Noah’s deeds were beautiful and pleasant.12 From one perspective, this sounds as if YHWH operates through subjective impressions. Nevertheless, this does not mean that it is not based on objective criteria.

 

The contrasting message of the Torah compared to the flood myths is that it was not the whims of gods that led to the flood but the moral breakdown of society. Both aspects of God, those pertaining to Elohim and to YHWH, could not abide the disintegration of society and could not remain silent. Their solution, upending creation, was obviously an extreme one, but from a literary perspective was a very effective way for emphasizing the seriousness of the situation for mankind.

 

This point is an important one even in our day and age. Especially given the separation of religion and state in most western countries, most people would not view the morality of society as having anything to do with religion. Religion is a private matter that has nothing to do with the state. The Noah story tells us the exact opposite. There is much more to religion than just personal piety. Societal corruption, oppression and violence are also within the realm of God and if pervasive may have profound consequences. This will be the main message of the later prophets of Israel, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah.

 

• Enigmatic word plays

 

A wonderful overview of the early stories of Genesis is provided in an essay by R’ Menachem Leibtag.13 He notes that all these stories are introduced by a genealogy list beginning with the words “these are the generations of . . . . (eleh toldot. . . “).

 

Hence, the flood story is introduced by a genealogy list in chapter 5 of the ten generations from Adam to Noah in chapter 5. This list begins “This is the account of the generations of Adam — on the day of Elohim’s creating of man, He made him in the likeness of Elohim (ibid 5:1).

​

Similarly, the tower of Babel story is introduced by a genealogy list in chapter 10 regarding the formation of the seventy nations of the world. It begins: “These are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth. . . ” (ibid 10:1) and ends with the descendants of Shem, the son of Noah.

 

After the Tower of Babel story there follows a genealogy list of the descendants of Shem: “These are the descendants of Shem. . . ” (“eleh toldot shem” (ibid 11:10), and continues until the death of Terach, Abraham’s father (ibid 11:23). This is followed by God’s direction to Abraham to leave his birthplace to go to a land which God will show him (ibid 13:1). In fact, R’ Leibtag points out, even the Garden of Eden story is proceeded by the verse “These are the products (toldot) of the heavens and the earth when they were created on the day of YHWH Elohim’s making of earth and heavens” (ibid 2:4). The creation of Adam then immediately follows.

 

One might guess that most readers of the Bible skip these genealogy lists, and they may even wonder why the Torah bothered to include them. However, R’ Leibtag points out that these lists form the scaffolding for the early part of Genesis.

 

The genealogy list from Adam to Noah in chapter 5 ends with Noah’s father Lemech making a wish or prayer regarding his baby son Noah:

​

And he [Lemach] called his name Noah (Noach) (נֹחַ) saying:“This one will comfort us (yenachamenu) (יְנַחֲמֵנו) from our work and from the toil (me’itzvon) of our hands, from the ground (ha’adamah) which YHWH had cursed” (Genesis 5:29).

 

The curse that Lemech is talking about is the curse that was imposed on the ground by God in the Garden of Eden story, after Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit:

 

To Adam He said: “Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate of the tree about which I commanded you saying: “You shall not eat it, accursed is the ground because of you, through suffering (be’itzavon) shall you eat of it all the days of your life (ibid 3:17).

 

In some way, God has linked man and the ground, such that the suffering of one becomes the suffering of the other.

 

In actuality Noah is misnamed. A better name would be Menachem, which is a closer proper name derivation from the verb lenachem to comfort. A better translation of the name Noah is to rest from the verb lanuach (to rest).

​

Nevertheless, the name Noah (Noach) is assumed to be linked to the verb lenachem, which has the meaning of “to comfort.” It also has another meaning of “to regret, grieve or be sorry.” That the same word can have such different meanings may seem strange at first glance, but it does have logic. One derives comfort from something that starts off as undesirable and is regrettable, and which then improves. The Torah will play on both these meanings when YHWH describes a few sentences later why He needs to destroy the world, and specifically the ground or the land.

​

And YHWH reconsidered (vayinachem) (וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם) having made man on earth (ba’aretz) and He was pained (vayitatzev) in His heart. And YHWH said: “I will dissolve Man whom I created from upon the face of the earth ­(ha’adama) — from man to animal, to creeping things, and to birds of the sky; for I regret (nichamti) (נִחַמְתִּי) My having made them.” And Noah (Noach) (וְנֹחַ) found grace (chen) (חֵן) in the eyes of YHWH (Genesis 6:7-8).

 

There is another world play at the end of this sentence. The letters of the word Noah (Noach) (נֹחַ) are the reverse of “chen” (חֵן) (grace). 

 

What does this all mean? The text seems to refute the idea of Lemech that Noah will provide comfort to the world. A suggestion. Noah is only a single person. A single righteous person cannot change the fate of the world. The decision as to the destruction of the world was irrevocable. Nevertheless, there was a reason that Noah was saved, and this is because he will be the progenitor of Abraham through his son Shem. A righteous crowd of people can influence the fate of the world, but not a single person, however righteous they may be (see the story of Sodom).

 

But the puzzle does not end here.

 

Following the sacrifice that Noah offers:

 

YHWH smelled the pleasing aroma and YHWH said in his heart: I will not again curse the ground (ha’adama) any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing, as I have done. Continuously, all the days of the earth, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease (Genesis 8:21-22). 

 

The Biblical commentary the Akeida formulates the problem in this way: man’s bad qualities brought about the flood in the past, why should they not do so in the future? Does God then play favorites?”

Another issue. YHWH promises to never again curse the ground. Also, that He will never again destroy every living thing. Are there one or two promises here? Specifically, is removing the curse of the ground a reference to the flood that just was, or the curse discussed at the beginning of Genesis when YHWH Elohim cursed the ground at the end of the Garden of Eden story? The text is unclear.

​

An answer given by Midrashic and later commentators is that there would be changes in the nature of the world after the flood that would limit man’s ability to sin.14 However, no such changes are mentioned in the text other than that the fear of man would now be upon the animal kingdom (Genesis 9:2-3), and in any case this hardly seems relevant to our question.   

​

I would like to suggest that two promises were made in God’s heart, the result of which is that Lemech’s prayer was in fact answered!

 

As a single individual, Noah could not change the fate of the world. However, the family that emerged from the ark had the potential to change the world, and attention will be focused on the seed of Shem, and in particular on Abraham. God even had confidence enough on this individual who had not yet been born to remove the curse on the ground instituted in the Garden of Eden.

 

• Escaping the flood

 

In the Gilgamesh myth, Utnapishtim responds to Ea’s advice by building a craft to save himself. Utnapishtim’s priorities are clear. First, he must save his worldly possessions, his silver and his gold, and only then his relatives:  

 

I loaded her with everything there was,

Loaded her with all the silver,

Loaded her with all the gold

Loaded her with all the seed of living things, all of them

I put on board the boat all my kith and kin

Put on board cattle from open country, all kinds of craftsmen. . . .”9

 

Utnapishtim will save himself in a boat, a craft over which he has a degree of control. Noah, on the other hand, is saved in an ark. An ark has no rudder or oars and Noah will be totally under the protection of YHWH for the duration of the flood. Moreover, Noah’s priorities are to save humanity and the animal kingdom. His material possessions do not enter into consideration:

 

“. . . . But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall enter the ark – you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. And from all that lives, of all flesh, two of each shall you bring into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female. From each bird according to its kind, and from each animal according to its kind, and from each thing that creeps on the ground according to its kind, two of each shall come to you to keep alive. And as for you, take yourself of every food that is eaten and gather it to yourself, that it shall be food for you and for them.” Noah did according to everything Elohim commanded him, so did he (Genesis 6:18-22).

 

• The end of the flood

 

I have excerpted this next section of the Gilgamesh myth so that not only differences but also similarities between it and the biblical story can be appreciated. As can be clearly seen, the broad outlines of the two accounts are very similar regarding the end of the flood.

 

In the pagan floor story, the hero’s boat alights on a mountain, a bird is sent out to ascertain if there is dry land, since this was the way that sailors assessed for dry land in those days, and on leaving the boat Utnapishtim offers sacrifices in thanksgiving for his delivery:

  

I looked for banks, for limits to the sea.

Areas of land were emerging everywhere.

The boat had come to rest on Mount Mimush.

The mountain Mimush held the boat fast and did not let it budge.

The first and second day the mountain Mimush held the boat fast and did not let it budge.

The third and fourth day the mountain Mimush held the boat fast and did not let it budge. . . . . . .

When the seventh day arrived,

I put out and released a dove.

The dove went; it came back

For no perching place was visible to it, and it turned around.

I put out and released a swallow.

The swallow went; it came back.

For no perching place was visible to it, and it turned around.

I put out and released a raven.

The raven went and saw the waters receding.

And it ate, preened, lifted its tail and did not turn around.

Then I put everything out to the four winds, and I made a sacrifice,

Set out a surqinnu-offering upon the mountain peak,

Arranged the jars seven and seven;

Into the bottom of them I poured essences of reeds, pine and myrtle.

The gods smelt the fragrance,

The gods smelt the pleasant fragrance,

The gods like flies gathered over the sacrifice.”15

​

As is evident from the last three lines of this passage, there is a marked difference between the pagan approach to sacrifice and that of the Bible. In pagan thought, the gods physically imbibe the burnt food. In the excerpt above from the Gilgamesh myth, the gods have been deprived of food for the duration of the flood and are hungry; hence they gather over the sacrifice “like flies.”  

​

God, on the other hand, does not eat man’s sacrifices. Nevertheless, He does smell the burnt flesh and appreciates the sacrifice. The anthropomorphism “to smell the sweet odor” is found a number of times in the Torah: 

​

Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And YHWH smelled the sweet odor and YHWH said in His heart. . . .” (Genesis 8:20-21).

 

In sum, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the broad outlines of the Noah flood story and the Gilgamesh myth are very similar. Nevertheless, the details in the Torah reflect a monotheistic and Torah perspective. Hence, the Bible used a story with which people were familiar to promote new religious ideas and to critique the Weltanschauung of ancient Mesopotamia. 

 

Biblical optimism versus Mesopotamian pessimism

No surveys are available that tell us how people in ancient Mesopotamia viewed their lives. It was probably little different from today. There would have been times of joy as well as of anxiety and sorrow. Nevertheless, scholars have noted that Mesopotamian myths reflect a profound pessimism permeating their society. Procreation and human enterprise were gambles that could run counter to the whims of the gods. Survival, not progress, was the most that could be hoped for. The Atrahasis epic, for example, reflects the uncertainty of human existence and the realization that humanity is but a plaything in the hands of the gods. Such a philosophy would have had an extremely inhibiting effect on the cultural and scientific progress of Mesopotamian society.  

​

In the Gilgamesh myth, the wind god Ellil became reconciled to the fact that Ea had outwitted the other gods and saved two human beings. He was therefore prepared to grant Utnapishtim and his wife immortality. As a consequence of this, however, they will be placed far from the rest of humanity:

Ellil came up into the boat,

 

And seized my hand and led me up.

He led up my woman and made her kneel down at my side.

He touched our foreheads, stood between us, blessed us:
“Until now Ut-napishtim was mortal,

But henceforth Utnapishtim shall dwell far off, at the mouth of the rivers.”16

 

There is not even a touch of optimism in this part of the Utnapishtim story. Utnapishtim has achieved immortality but only by dint of good luck and perhaps good looks. There is no commitment on the part of the gods to prevent another flood and there is little hope that anyone other than Utnapishtim will have such good fortune in the future.

 

By contrast, the message of the Noah story is that the world we live in is a rational one and operates on the basis of justice. Furthermore, because a feature of the aspect of God YHWH is mercy, this also is a foundational aspect of the world. 

​

A consequence of the Torah’s optimism is that procreation, and not population control, is the will of Elohim. This is already evident from the first chapter of Genesis:  

​

God blessed them [Adam and Eve] and God said to them; “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea, the bird of the sky, and every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28).  

 

Nevertheless, in engineering a global flood, Elohim has almost abrogated an implied commitment to Adam and Eve, namely that populating the earth is part of the Divine plan and nothing will prevent this. The implementation of this commitment is now transferred to Noah and his family:

 

But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall enter the ark – you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you (Genesis 6:18).

 

And once they have left the ark, they are informed again:

 

Elohim blessed Noah and his sons and He said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, in everything that moves on earth, and in all the fish of the sea; in your hand they are given” (Genesis 9:1). 

 

At this stage in the narrative, the Bible introduces a radical idea in religious thought — that the Deity is prepared to make a binding commitment to mankind and formalize His commitment in the form of a “covenant.” Moreover, this covenant will be immortalized by a sign, namely a rainbow joining heaven to earth. A unilateral obligation such as this on the part of the gods would have been unthinkable in pagan thought:  

​

And I will confirm my covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And Elohim said: “This is the sign of the covenant that I give between you and every living being that is with you, to generations forever. I have set my rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth” (Genesis 9:11-13).

 

The Hebrew for a rainbow is keshet, otherwise translated as as a bow. A bow also figures in the Enuma Elish myth. After defeating the primordial goddess Tiamat, Marduk took the bow he had used in the battle and set it in the heavens. The bow was thus transformed from a weapon into a cosmic symbol, marking Marduk's victory and confirming his role as the supreme deity who established order in the universe.

 

These are the relevant verses:

 

He [Marduk] made the bow, which he had used to vanquish Tiamat,
His weapon, and set it in the sky.
He fixed it in place and brought it forth before the gods,
Saying, 'This is the bow; it is my star,
The star of Marduk, which I have made appear in the heavens,
And from now on, it will serve as a reminder of my victory.'
He fixed the bow in the sky,
He placed the net in the heavens,
He regulated the paths of the stars in the sky.17

 

Coincidence? Doubtful. Would the people at that time have understood the symbolic transformation? Quite likely.

 

In sum, in our day and age, most people take it as a given that our world will not self-destruct, and we have international organizations, the promises of science, and the covenant of Noah to allay our fears. However, prior to the Bible none of this existed. It was the Noah story and the covenant with Elohim that promised an unimpeded future for the world and thereby provided the underpinnings for the material and religious progress of mankind.

 

References

1.   Midrash Raba 33:6

2.   The Flood in Understanding Genesis by Nahum S Sarna, p37. The Heritage of Biblical Israel, Schocken Books, New York, First paperback edition 1970.

3.    Section One, The Flood in A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part Two. From Noah to Abraham by U Cassuto, p3. First English Edition, The Magnes Press, P.O. Box 7695, Jerusalem 91076, Israel.  

4.   Gilgamesh, tablet XI in Myths from Mesopotamia. Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others by Stephanie Dalley, ii, p112, Oxford University Press, Revised edition 2000.

5.   Gilgamesh, tablet XI in Myths from Mesopotamia. Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others by Stephanie Dalley, iii, p113, Oxford University Press, Revised edition 2000.

6.   Atrahasis tablet II, SBV iii in The Flood, Gilgamesh and Other in Myths from Mesopotamia by Stephanie Dalley, p21, Oxford University Press, Revised edition 2000.

7.   Rashi to Genesis 6:11 and Midrash Rabbah, Genesis XXXI:1.

8.   Act One, The Punishment in A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part Two. From Noah to Abraham, V19-XI32 by U Cassuto, p52, First English Edition, The Magnes Press, P.O. Box 7695, Jerusalem 91076, Israel.

9.   Gilgamesh Tablet XI in The Flood, Gilgamesh and Other in Myths from Mesopotamia by Stephanie Dalley, i, p110, Oxford University Press, Revised edition 2000.

10. See Genesis 3:18, Genesis 5:22, Genesis 5:24, Genesis 13:17, Genesis 17:1, and Deuteronomy 23:15.

11. Maimonides Mishneh Torah, Hilchot De’ot 1:6.

12. Nachmanides to Genesis 6:8. This expression is a contrast to His feeling sadness about the rest of humanity. Nachmanides also points out that the next verse 9 is needed to explain why he found grace.

13. Sefer Toledot, the Tower of Babel and the Purpose of the Book of Genesis by Rav Menachem Leibtag in Torah Mietzion. New Readings in Tanach, Bereishit, p69. Maggid Books, Jerusalem 2011.

14.  Based on the Torah’s comments regarding the consistency of the seasons, the midrash Bereishis Rabba 34 suggests that climatic changes after the flood had the effect of limiting man’s ability to sin, since he would no longer be able to move swiftly from one part of the world to the other. Another change mentioned in the Torah is that after the flood man was permitted to eat meat, whereas previously he had been a vegetarian. This may relate to a change in man’s role in the world, in that he no longer has complete sovereignty over the animal world, and to an extent is now part of it.  Whether these changes would be sufficient to prevent another flood situation is questionable.

15. Gilgamesh, tablet XI in Myths from Mesopotamia. Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others by Stephanie Dalley, ii, p114, Oxford University Press, Revised edition 2000.

16. Gilgamesh, tablet XI in Myths from Mesopotamia. Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others by Stephanie Dalley, ii, p115, Oxford University Press, Revised edition 2000.

17. Enuma Elish, Tablet VI, Lines 91-99.