The Bible as Literature: The Noah/Flood Story

[weltanschauung]

Those dudes were just obsessed with the number seven (the highest of the single numerical primes) and looked for 'seven' in everything. Seven days of the week! It's a miracle! Seven planets! It's a miracle! Seven prophets! It's a miracle! Seven plagues! It's a miracle!


The fact that the myth appears in Gilgamesh is due to it being one of the collected tales of the peoples of the region. (How many peoples? Seven? It's a miracle!)

if you wanna look at it as just some kind of amazing repetitive and naive coincidence, you'll be missing out on a lot. but suit yourself

I noticed a lot of people mention the 7 animals. But if you read closely right before the seven animals, God commands Noah to bring two pairs of each animal only. Later the narrative again assumes there are only two pairs of animals.

If read it all as one unified story, the flood myth contains a lot of contradictions.

Of course, I think there are actually two flood stories here that switch back and forth between their narrative in a pattern: Story A, then part of Story B, part of Story A, then part of Story B, etc. The ending of one of the stories occur at the end of Genesis 8, while the end of the other version occurs at the beginning of Genesis 9. Yes, there are even two endings.

This also explains why God repeats a million times, that yes, he plans to destroy the earth with water as if we don't believe the first three or four times he tells Noah. Of course, he probably only tells him twice per a narrative, but since these are two stories spliced together, it sounds like he is repeating himself. Each story has slight variants from each other in other little details.

In one story, the main reason he destroys the earth seems to be that humans are copulating with other divine beings (angels), thus alluding to Genesis 3 and the fear that humanity could become divine by eating from the tree of life. This theme consistently repeats itself throughout Genesis and other parts of the Bible (humans are not meant to be divine like God, and bad things happen to them when they try to surpass their limitations). He does connect this to a more general: therefore, the people were evil and wicked.

In the other version of the story, the main reason seems to be a much more general people are just evil and wicked and the earth has become corrupt, without much of a specific reason.

The presence of two stories suggests that these stories originally circulated orally before they were recorded and two different traditions, if not more were written down. Whoever redacted this narrative must have felt both stories were authoritative for different reasons.

The sacrifice at the end of Genesis 8 almost undoubtably is part of the 7 animal version of the narrative. It says he specifically kills one of each clean animal, which means an animal he is allowed to eat (it's kosher) and sacrifice to God. The seventh animal that is sacrificed represents the sabbath and the end of "new" creation at the end of the flood, while the other six go off to mate and repopulate the earth.

The other ending gives us the origins of rainbows (God's bow in the sky as his symbol of the new covenant with humanity).

I agree with Orphanpip. The narrative seems to have a relationship to the flood narrative in the Epic of Gilgamesh. This idea pretty much has mainstream acceptance in academia in Biblical Studies, Judaic Studies, English courses that cover the Bible as Literature.

There is the obvious major similarity that they are both flood stories in which God or gods destroy the world because of humanity's wickedness and chose to save one survivor.

Both Utnapishtim and Noah release ravens and doves to see if the earth has tried. Utnapishtim releases one additional type of bird, and the order is reversed I think in the two narrative of which bird is released when.

Like the many deities in the Babylonian narrative, we are told God finds the scent of Noah's sacrifice pleasing. The Babylonian narrative has the deities squabbling, while this narrative has God promising never to destroy everyone again.

The Babylonian version takes part of a larger epic. It's almost like a mini-story/side-story that relates only through its theme of life and death and its interactions with the main character to the larger story of the epic. The biblical version seems to stand on its own more as a story in its own right. It functions as part of a larger theological history. It has the feel of a continuous mythological history, like we are progressing linearly through time, while the Babylonian story is a character talking about his past (an event that already happened).


I had a discussion with JBI a little while back on a thread here in litnet in which he pointed out that Judaism has no tradition of heroes, the one exception possibly being Samson from the Book of Judges (as I argued). Instead we have prophets and messengers of God. So the last line of Genesis 6:4: "They were the heroes of old, the men of renown" is also interesting when we consider this fact.

I think all of this indicates quite explicitly that we should read this as a mocking commentary of their neighbors' beliefs rather than a lost tradition of stories, unless there really is a lost tradition of Israelite hero narratives. This also helps us frame one of their possible aesthetic purposes in the Noah flood myth. If we understand the beginning of Genesis 6 to be an attack on their neighbors' beliefs, what a better way than to follow it up by recasting and rewriting the flood myth of their neighbors in the shape of Israelite monotheistic theology.

you should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bib...urces_Revealed

which i have, i will quote a part of the introduction so that you have a clue as to why i am mentioning it:

"For centuries, scholars from many backgrounds have worked on discovering how the Bible came to be. They were religious and non religious, Christians and Jews. Their task was not to prove whether the Bible's words were divinely revealed to the authors. That is a question of faith, not scholarship. Rather, they were trying to learn the history of those authors: what they wrote, when they wrote, and why they wrote. The solution that has been the most persuasive for over a century is known as the Documentary Hypothesis. The idea of this hypothesis is that the Bible's first books were formed through a long process. Ancient writers produced documents of poetry, prose, and law over many hundreds of years. And then editors used these documents as sources. Those editors fashioned from these sources the Bible that people have read for some two thousand yearrs.
(...)
The basic hypothesis is: These biblical books were assembled from sources.

The process of identifying the biblical sources took centuries. the process of refining our identifications of these sources has been ongoing, and it continues to the present day. Initially, it was a tentative decision based on simple factors: where the name of God appeared in the texts, similar stories appearing twice in the texts, contradictions of fact between one text and another. Accounts of this early identifying and refining may be found in many introductions to this subject and in my "who wrote the bible?" The collection of evidence here is not a review of that history of the subject. It is a tabulation of the evidence that has emerged that establishes the hypothesis. It is grouped here in seven categories, which form the seven main arguments for the hypothesis in my judgement.
1) Linguistic
2) Terminology
3) Consistent Content
4) Continuity of Texts (narrative flow)
5) Connections with other parts of the Bible
6) Relationships among the sources: to each other and to history
7) Convergence

(to finish)

I have seen it claimed that such doublets are a common phenomenon in ancient Near Eastern literature. That is false. No such phenomenon exists. Doublets are not common in Near Eastern prose because there is no Near Eastern prose, in the form of either history-writing or long fiction, prior to these biblical texts. It is not even common in Near Eastern poetry. The poetic text that comes closest to the qualities of the biblical text that we are discussing here is the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Epic of Gilgamesh is a composite of several sources. It is a demonstration of composition by combining sources in the ancient Near east, not a refutation of it.(...)"


anyways, i own this book, and have read it over 10 years ago, but i strongly suggest that if you really want to have a serious overview of this whole conundrum, you should at least take a look at this great work, before formulating all kinds of naive assumptions. i guarantee you will be shocked. and when i say "you" im obviously not putting Drkshadow03 on the spot, i just mean anyone who is reading this thread and is intrigued by the topic.

[Drkshadow03]

you should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bib...urces_Revealed

which i have, i will quote a part of the introduction so that you have a clue as to why i am mentioning it:

[. . .}


anyways, i own this book, and have read it over 10 years ago, but i strongly suggest that if you really want to have a serious overview of this whole conundrum, you should at least take a look at this great work, before formulating all kinds of naive assumptions. i guarantee you will be shocked. and when i say "you" im obviously not putting Drkshadow03 on the spot, i just mean anyone who is reading this thread and is intrigued by the topic.

Actually, I'm still not sure why you're mentioning it. I am well aware of Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis and know there are variants.

Quoting myself from the now locked thread where The Comedian announced the creation of this group:

"Any discussion of the Bible as literature always has in mind the documentary hypothesis (JEPD). Since it recognizes that there is minimally four writers for the Torah, writing probably during different time periods and with slightly different theological and ideological viewpoints, there are going to be some contradictions in material. I agree with JBI; it's the ultimate literary anthology book. If Wordsworth wrote one poem in a poetry collection and then another poem that contradicted his emotions and feelings in the same collection, I don't automatically think that constitutes grounds for dismissing the poetry collection. Just because different writers between books contradict each other doesn't necessarily mean this speaks against its literary merits."

Are you disagreeing with me about something? Or are you just mentioning it for the group's knowledge? I'm genuinely confused.

[L.M. The Third]

So men are sons of God, but women are only daughters of men? And what exactly is uncleaned beasts?

I've always understood this to mean intermarriage between the descendants of the godly Seth and the descendants of Cain. I can't give you definitive proof though.

Leviticus 11 outlines the laws of clean and unclean beasts. I realize that the Levitical ordinances were given after the flood story, but this could have several explanations. Some people believe that only after the flood did God permit the eating of flesh, so this could be the first instance where God makes a demarcation, through His instructions to Noah. Taking a less inspirational view, this could have been added to the flood account (admittedly a common "myth" in many cultures) by someone zealous for the health laws.

[YesNo]

you should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bib...urces_Revealed
...
The solution that has been the most persuasive for over a century is known as the Documentary Hypothesis. The idea of this hypothesis is that the Bible's first books were formed through a long process. Ancient writers produced documents of poetry, prose, and law over many hundreds of years. And then editors used these documents as sources. Those editors fashioned from these sources the Bible that people have read for some two thousand yearrs.
...
you should at least take a look at this great work, before formulating all kinds of naive assumptions.

Thanks for the reference to Richard Elliot Friedman's book. I'm looking for someone other than Harold Bloom as a reference.

Harold Bloom does have something interesting to say about Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis (as opposed to the Authorial Hypothesis that claims that Moses was the sole author):

Unfortunately these grand savants were all Hegelians, and like Hegel, they saw Israelite faith as a primitive preparation for the sublimities of the true religion, high-minded Christianity, a properly Germanic belief purged of gross Jewish vulgarities and superstitions.

So the original 19th century Documentary Hypothesis may have been motivated by an anti-Jewish, pro-Christian bias, but today, I don't think it supports any Christian bias either.

As far as forming "naive assumptions", I suspect we can't avoid doing that, but here's trying!

[weltanschauung]

Actually, I'm still not sure why you're mentioning it. I am well aware of Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis and know there are variants.

Quoting myself from the now locked thread where The Comedian announced the creation of this group:



Are you disagreeing with me about something? Or are you just mentioning it for the group's knowledge? I'm genuinely confused.

i dont know if im disagreeing, i didnt read what you wrote, just bits. its too long. and i also didnt read some other forum whatever. just mentioning. so i dont get it,what are you guys discussing? just the story itself?
but for goths sake, this is not meant to be an insult.

[weltanschauung]

Thanks for the reference to Richard Elliot Friedman's book. I'm looking for someone other than Harold Bloom as a reference.

Harold Bloom does have something interesting to say about Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis (as opposed to the Authorial Hypothesis that claims that Moses was the sole author):



So the original 19th century Documentary Hypothesis may have been motivated by an anti-Jewish, pro-Christian bias, but today, I don't think it supports any Christian bias either.

As far as forming "naive assumptions", I suspect we can't avoid doing that, but here's trying!

im sorry if i come out as agressive, its just that im like that, but i didnt mean it that way. what i meant to say is that, the number 7 is not just a randomly picked repetitive number. if you actually check out the nature of things, you will see that the number 7 is a tangible part of our reality.
there are 7 colors in the spectrum of visible light, 7 notes in the musical scale, 7 days a week (lunar), 7 sins, etc etc, and this is apart from all the mistical references to the same number such as the angels, the demiurgs, the sirens, the seals, and all of that which we are familiar with.

anyway, this is something you might rejoice with if you feel bored or something Theosophist, June, 1880

[Drkshadow03]

i dont know if im disagreeing, i didnt read what you wrote, just bits. its too long. and i also didnt read some other forum whatever. just mentioning. so i dont get it,what are you guys discussing? just the story itself?
but for goths sake, this is not meant to be an insult.

I didn't think you were insulting me, but I was confused why you were quoting my post.

We are discussing the story (and other Bible stories) as literature, which entails in part focusing on the story itself, at least in part. I think bringing up authorship in such a discussion is certainly relevant though.

[weltanschauung]

hmmm, okay. id have to read the whole thing then.

[YesNo]

anyway, this is something you might rejoice with if you feel bored or something Theosophist, June, 1880

Everybody likes 7 it seems. I like to think it is because we have 10 fingers and 7 is the largest prime number less than 10.

The burnt sacrifice that Noah makes of the clean animals keeps coming back to mind especially because Yahweh loved the smell. There's something politically incorrect about that, although I'm not sure I can say exactly what it is. I do enjoy the smell of meat on a grill.

And this sacrifice is in J's version not P's version of the event. Harold Bloom does seem to suggest she was the wild one writing "fresh" and the rest of the authors had to tone her down. I am beginning to find some disagreements with Bloom which makes me think I've started to understand what he is saying. Basically, he seems to like J a little too much. I wonder why she bothered writing this at all? There was no Lit-Net competition to enter. What were the motivations? Surely, she wasn't trying to consciously write Genesis.

[OrphanPip]

Since Noah doesn't seem to be inspiring much discussion.

How bout we do the story of Joseph next, Genesis 37-50. It's a longer one, and should provide for more discussion.

[YesNo]

Since Noah doesn't seem to be inspiring much discussion.

How bout we do the story of Joseph next, Genesis 37-50. It's a longer one, and should provide for more discussion.

It looks like we could expand into Genesis more. Maybe just open a thread on the entire book of Genesis itself, but restricting it to the part about Joseph is OK with me.

The more I read Bloom's commentary on J, the more I get mixed feelings about J's intent in originally writing these stories. These threads have been a good place to try on ideas.

[Drkshadow03]

Since Noah doesn't seem to be inspiring much discussion.

How bout we do the story of Joseph next, Genesis 37-50. It's a longer one, and should provide for more discussion.

I'd be game for Joseph.

[DanielBenoit]

It looks like we could expand into Genesis more. Maybe just open a thread on the entire book of Genesis itself, but restricting it to the part about Joseph is OK with me.

Great idea, for I wouldn't want to overlook Jacob. . .

[OrphanPip]

Great idea, for I wouldn't want to overlook Jacob. . .

Ya, but Jacob never inspired a so-so Andrew Lloyd Webber musical.

[Drkshadow03]

Ya, but Jacob never inspired a so-so Andrew Lloyd Webber musical.

"I look handsome, I look smart, I am a walking work of art . . . "

"Close every door to me. Keep those I love from me. Forget all about me, and leave me to die!"

"Those Canaan days we used to know, where have they gone? Where did they go?"