The biblical story of Noah in which he, his family and many creatures were saved in an ark 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. Even a large zoo contains 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 wording of the Noah story belies such a notion. This is a story about global destruction. Note that the prominence of the words “all” and “every” 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 returns us to the first chapter of Genesis and the disorder that accompanied 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.2 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 Elohim 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 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, who led me on a path that changed my entire perception of the early chapters of Genesis. 3,4   

​

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

​

Stories about a great flood existed for hundreds of years before the Bible was written and were widely disseminated throughout the Near East. The earliest extant flood legend was 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. Sarma, on the other hand, views the biblical Noah story as a polemic against Mesopotamian religious and societal ideas. 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. By this means, novel and far-reaching ideas were brought into the religious consciousness of people living in 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? 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, although I have no proof of this. 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, around whom was woven a greater-than-life myth. It is very possible that semi-historical fiction was common at this time in history. 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 of a different kind to that of Noah’s.

​

Since the biblical Noah story can be regarded as an allegorical anti-myth, our first task is to examine the similarities and differences between it and the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh flood myths so as to extract the many profound messages it was promoting. This needs to be done within the context of the time at which the Torah was written, and not necessarily from the perspective of the 21st century. Each theme within this allegory may well have a number of interpretations, and we will need to find the interpretation that speaks to us, the reader, most poignantly.

​

An idea that many people may find difficult to accept is that the Torah, and especially its opening chapters, can best be understood with reference to Mesopotamian mythology. But have we Jews not managed without this mythology for thousands of years? Absolutely. Nevertheless, I am proposing that if one wishes to fully understand the ideas the Torah wishes to convey, 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 that people were asking in those times (and still ask) — 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 role of man

 

The ancient Mesopotamians believed that gods were immanent within nature and that conflict was a fundamental construct of the cosmos (see chapter 1). It followed, therefore, that success could only be achieved by might. The Torah not only opposed polytheism, but 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 agricultural 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 for that time that man was created in the “image of God,” and was almost on a level with God Himself. Elohim also gave man dominion over the earth, enabling him to achieve dignity, worth and purpose.

 

• God’s control over 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.5

 

However, the gods are horrified at the forces that they have unleashed together:

​

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? 6

 

By contrast, the Bible describes one God manipulating the primeval forces of nature according to His will:

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 addresses the question as to why natural disasters, such as sickness and famine, exist in this world, and it reasons that they are 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 masterminds 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!”7

 

This fails to bring about the desired result, however, and he therefore brings about another famine. Only when this also proves unsuccessful, do Ellil and the assembly of gods decide on a more radical solution — the annihilation of all 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 necessary to justify the whimsical decision of the gods. 

​

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 exact meaning of the word chamas. It is often translated as violence, and in the Rabbinic tradition as robbery.8 However, a more literal translation is injustice.9 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 YHWH 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 always evil (ra). And YHWH reconsidered having made man on earth and He was pained in His heart (ibid 6:5-6).

 

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

​

• Why was the hero saved?

 

The heroes of the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh epics are not described as possessing any particular merit. The only reason Utnapihstim was saved is that for unknown reasons he had 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. Ea is not attempting to develop a relationship with Utnapihstim, but only to impart information to him:

 

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.”10

 

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 nowadays 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 often 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.11 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:12 

​

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 favor/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 Malbim explains that cḥēn includes both inner virtue (his righteousness) and outer favor (how others, including God, viewed him), and suggests a balance of character.13

​

The contrasting message of the Torah compared to the flood myths is that it was not the whims of the 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 an extreme one, but from a literary perspective was a very effective way of emphasizing the seriousness of the situation for mankind.

​

• Interesting word plays

​

A wonderful overview of the early stories of Genesis is provided by R’ Menachem Leibtag.14 He notes that all these early  stories are introduced by a genealogy list beginning with the words “these are the generations of . . . . (eleh toldot. . . “).

​

Hence, the flood story is introduced in chapter 5 by a genealogy list of the ten generations from Adam to Noah. 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).

​

The tower of Babel story after the flood is introduced in chapter 10 by a genealogy list about 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.

​

Similarly, 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). R’ Leibtag points out that 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). Following this very short genealogy of the heavens and the earth, there follows immediately the creation of Adam.

 

One might guess that many, if not most, readers of the Bible skip these genealogy lists. 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 stories of Genesis.

​

Hence, 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 imposed on the ground by God in the Garden of Eden, 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 this verse, God links the ground and man, such that the fate of the ground becomes the suffering of man.

​

In actuality, and as Rashi points out, Lemech has misnamed Noah.15 A better name grammatically would have been Menachem, which is a closer proper name derivation from the verb lenachem to comfort. A sounder translation of the name Noah is not comfort but to rest, from the verb lanuach (to rest).

Nevertheless, the Bible seems to assume that the name Noah (Noach) is linked to the verb lenachem, which has the meaning of “to comfort.” This root also has another meaning of “to regret, grieve or be sorry.” That the same root 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 regrettable, and which then improves. The Torah will play on these meanings when YHWH describes a few sentences later why He needs to destroy everything on the land, and that it pains him in having to do this.16

​

YHWH saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every product of the thoughts of his heart was but evil always. 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 6:5-8).

 

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 do all these complicated word plays mean? At this stage, the text seems to refute Lemech’s wish that Noah will provide comfort to the world.

​

But the word plays do not end here.

​

Following the sacrifice offered by Noah:

​

YHWH smelled the pleasing aroma and YHWH said in his heart: I will not continue to curse the ground (ha’adama) any more because of man; for the design 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).17 

 

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?”

However, the answer becomes clear when one sees that these two verses above are referring back to the earlier verses that were quoted — that Noah will bring relief to the curse on the land and “that every product of the thoughts of his heart was but evil always” (Genesis 6:5).

​

When Lemech made his wish, it seemed farfetched. As a single individual, Noah could not change the fate of the world. However, the family that emerged from the ark did have the potential to change the world, and attention will be focused on the seed of Shem, and in particular on Abraham. God even had sufficient confidence in Noah’s family to remove the curse on the ground instituted in the Garden of Eden. A single, righteous person cannot change the fate of the world. By contrast, a tribe from which will come a righteous nation can influence the fate of the world and provide the “comfort” implied by Noah’s name to the land.18

 

An additional important point needs to be made here. One cannot view these early stories in Genesis in isolation. There is a continuous narrative being told here which will lead to the election of Abraham.

 

• Escaping from 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 will 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. . . .”10

 

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. It is very apparent that the broad outlines of the two accounts are very similar with respect to the end of the flood.

 

In the pagan flood 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.”19

 

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 during 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 He 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. Hence, it is likely that the Bible used a story with which people were familiar to promote new religious ideas and to critique the Weltanschauung of ancient Mesopotamia. Hence, Noah story reflects a completely monotheistic and Torah perspective.

 

Biblical optimism versus Mesopotamian pessimism

​

No surveys are available to 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 becomes reconciled to the fact that Ea has outwitted the other gods and saved two human beings. He is therefore prepared to grant Utnapishtim and his wife immortality. However, as a consequence of this 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.”20

 

There is no 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. Moreover, a feature of YHWH is mercy, and this also will be a foundational aspect of the world. 

​

A feature of the Torah’s positivity 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. This commitment is now given over 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 again informed:

 

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 novel idea in religious thought — that the Deity is prepared to make a binding commitment to mankind and to 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 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.21

 

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

 

In sum, most people take it as a given nowadays 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 social, scientific and religious progress of mankind.

​

References

​

1. Midrash Raba 33:6.

 

2. Genesis Rabbah 2:4 explains tehom as the deep, primeval waters that existed before God's creative ordering of the world. It emphasizes that the tehom was initially formless and needed divine control. Genesis Rabbah 4:6 links tehom to the division of waters, as mentioned in Genesis 1:6-7, explaining that the deep waters were separated by God's decree into the upper and lower waters.

 

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

​

4.    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.  

​

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

​

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

​

7.   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.

​

8.   Genesis Rabbah 31:7 considers ḥamas broadly to refer to all manner of sins that led to the world's corruption. Most other interpretation, however, are more specific. Genesis Rabbah 31:5 explains that the people stole small amounts from each other (less than a perutah, the smallest coin), so that they could not be legally prosecuted, yet society was filled with corruption. Rashi to Genesis 6:11 explains that hamas refers specifically to robbery or oppression rather than general violence. He notes that even seemingly minor acts of theft (like stealing small amounts) contributed to the world's corruption before the Flood. TB Sanhedrin 108a expands on the idea that the final decree of destruction was sealed because of theft, reinforcing the idea that hamas represents societal breakdown due to moral corruption and dishonesty. Midrash Tanchuma (Noach 5) includes sexual transgressions as part of ḥamas, stating that society was filled with both theft and immorality. Ibn Ezra on Genesis 6:11 views ḥamas as social oppression, where the powerful exploited the weak. The Targum Yerushalmi translates ḥamas as "violent injustice", emphasizing the idea that the world had become a place where brute force ruled. The Radak on Psalms 55:10 interprets ḥamas as fraud and treachery in commerce. Nachmanides on Genesis 6:13 adds that moral corruption, including false beliefs and idolatrous practices, contributed to the decree of the Flood.

​

9.   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. Ibn Ezra sees hamas as a broad term that includes social injustice, oppression, and theft, leading to moral decay. Nachmanides interprets it as lawlessness and injustice, emphasizing that human corruption (both in action and in social order) was the main reason for the Flood. Radak connects ḥāmās to both physical violence and unethical behavior, showing that the pre-Flood society was rife with injustice. Overall, Jewish exegetes view ḥāmās as more than just physical violence—it encompasses theft, oppression, corruption, and moral decay, all of which led to divine judgment.

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

13. 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. Rashi explains that cḥēn means that Noah was granted divine favor or grace, not necessarily because of his own merit, but as a special kindness from God. Ibn Ezra suggests that the word refers to Noah's righteous character — his wisdom, good deeds, and the way he conducted himself in a corrupt world. Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 30:10 sees cḥēn as referring to Noah’s moral excellence, emphasizing that he resisted the corrupt ways of his generation and thus stood out in God's eyes. Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 108a discusses whether Noah’s cḥēn was absolute or relative. Some sages argue he was only righteous compared to his corrupt generation, while others say he was truly righteous on his own.

​

14. 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.

​

15. Rashi to Genesis 5:29. Rashi also reflects the midrashic idea that Lemech’s wish was that Noah would make an agricultural discovery, such as a plough, that would relieve the curse on the ground.

 

16. There is a theological issue here discussed by some commentators as to how God who knows the future can suddenly change His mind. Rashi in his comments to Genesis 6:6 provides an analogy, and suggests that although He knew the course of the world, He nevertheless created it as described “because of the righteous who are destined to arise from them.” An alternative explanation is that this type of flexibility is a feature of the YHWH aspect of God.

 

17. A suggestion made 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. Hence, 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. 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).   

 

18. Nahum Sarna in his JPS Torah Commentary on Genesis also points out the wordplay between נחם and נחמה, indicating a deep connection between Noah's name and the theme of divine regret. He suggests that Noah, who was named for comfort, becomes the instrument of salvation for humanity, despite God's sorrow over creation's wickedness. The idea is that Noah’s actions provide a kind of "comfort" in the face of divine judgment.

 

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

​

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

​

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