The Flood Narrative

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=50 BGCOLOR="#333366" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>The Flood Narrative</B></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=165 BGCOLOR="#CCCC99" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="132" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="VOID" RULES="NONE" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 35 ><NOBR><div> <A HREF="id153.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Old Testament Theology"><U><B><IMG SRC="007151d0.gif" border=0 width="21" height="29" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <A HREF="id161.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Background of Ezra and Nehemiah"><U><B><IMG SRC="008151d0.gif" border=0 width="21" height="29" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="20"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="35" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="20" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="29" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" WIDTH="13"></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="29" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" WIDTH="27"></div> </NOBR></tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <div> Previous/Next Article</div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="www.stanbaker.org"><U><B>Home</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id2.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Biblical and Theological Studies"><U>Biblical and Theological Studies</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id3.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Church Ministry"><U><B>Ministry Studies</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id15.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Sermon Notes"><U><B>Sermon Notes</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id4.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Links"><U><B>Links</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id5.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Personal"><U><B>Personal</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> www.stanbaker.org</div> <div> <A HREF="mailto:stan@stanbaker.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:stan@stanbaker.org"><U>stan@stanbaker.org</U></A></div> </td> <td valign="top" height=430 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>The Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis 6-8</B></div> <div> Stan Baker</div> <bR> <div>           Traditionally among critical scholars, the flood story in Genesis 6-8 has been attributed to the combination of J, P, and a final editor. Support for this hypothesis in this text is found along three lines. J uses the divine name Yahweh, while P uses Elohim (other linguistic differences are also involved). J mentions seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean, while P mentions pairs of all animals. Finally, J speaks of forty days of rain after seven days of waiting, and P speaks of waters rising 150 days and falling 150 days. Also there is a series of doublets in the two narratives that are accounted for as different sources (Wenham 167f.). The narrative in Genesis 6-8 has six parts, five of which are common to both J and P (Westermann 396f.). The assumption is that two flood narratives (out of many) have been joined together to comprise the narrative account in Genesis. </div> <div>           The issue is significant because the flood narrative in Genesis has been held up as masterpiece of the source-critical method (Wenham 167). To source critics, the narrative is the clearest example of their criticism, where they have discerned intact two different traditions of the flood story. However, a more recent move has been made to seeing the text as a whole unit and shelving the discussion of the origin of the parts of the text (Dillard/Longman 46). Discerning whether or not the flood narrative in Genesis is unified is significant. For source critics, it validates their whole approach and their treatment of many other texts; for many who see the text as unified, it supports their belief in a completely truthful and authoritative account of the flood event. If in fact the narrative includes discrepancies, it is not truthful and authoritative. </div> <div>            The documentary hypothesis came to prominence when J. H. Wellhausen (19th cent.) made popular what Spinoza and Astruc began, based on the use of different names for God, the existence of doublets and repetition in the text, differences in style, and different emphases in theology. Thus four basic sources are delineated: J, the Yahwist who uses "Yahweh;" E, the Elohist using "Elohim;" D, the Deuteronomist mainly associated with the book Deuteronomy; and P, the Priestly source that deals with issues of the priesthood (Dillard/Longman 40f.; Kitchen<I> </I>112f.) </div> <bR> <div> <B>I. Problems</B></div> <div> A. Doublets/repetitions </div> <div>           Proponents of the J/P sources in Genesis 6-8 cite several repetitions, even contradictions, in the account which leads them to hypothesize different sources of the material. Westermann writes, </div> <div> "Tracing the articulation of the sentences in J's introduction one finds striking repetitions, 6a and 7c, and accumulations. The most notable is that the reason for the decision in v. 6: 'And Yahweh was sorry . . .' is continued further and taken up again after the decision by way of supplement: 'For I am sorry . . .' And so the same sentence is repeated almost word for word before and after the decision, and in neither place is it necessary. This is not a more original narrative style: an attempt to interpret the event has obviously affected the shape of the introduction." (406). What follows in Westermann's commentary is his attempt to delineate the sources and explain their intentions and motivations. </div> <div>           The doublets include: the corruption of man, the decision to destroy man, the command to load the ark, the entry to the ark, the arrival of the flood, the destruction of creatures, the end of the flood, and the promise of no future flood (Wenham 168). </div> <div>            It is evident in the text that many of the repetitions are not just doublets; they are often triplets and quadruplets, even quintuplets. Does this necessarily indicate three, four, even five sources? The presence of repetition is not an automatic indicator of different sources. The style and structure of the narrative, and the purpose of the author/editor may reasonably account for the use of repetition (Sailhammer 86). "Andersen has shown that much of the repetition in the Flood account stems from the writer's use of a type of sentence he has called 'epic repetition' and 'chiastic coordination.' Thus, far from being a haphazard mixture of two divergent accounts of the Flood, the end result of the narrative composition 'looks as if it has been made out of whole cloth'" (Sailhammer 87, quoting <I>Sentence in Biblical Hebrew</I>, p. 40). In Andersen's view, "The rhetorical effect of this kind of epic repetition is to slow down the pace of the narrative. It holds the picture a little longer and enforces it on the mind" (in Sailhammer 91). </div> <div>           The structure of the passage according to Wenham shows repetition that centers around 8.1, and God remembered Noah" (Wenham 156f.). In particular, he points out the time periods mentioned in the account.</div> <bR> <div> 7 days of waiting for flood (7.4) </div> <div> ___7 days of waiting for flood (7.10) </div> <div> _____40 days of flood (7.17a) </div> <div> ________150 days of water triumphing (7.24) </div> <div> __________[God remembered Noah] </div> <div> ________150 days of water waning (8.3) </div> <div> _____40 days' wait (8.6) </div> <div> ___7 days' wait (8.10) </div> <div> 7 days' wait (8.12) </div> <bR> <div>           Emerton has criticized Wenham's longer version of this kind of structure, but criticizing some of the details does not necessarily negate the validity of this kind of structure to account for the repetitions (2.6f.). It is not necessary for every single detail to be included in order to see the broad structure. Emerton assumes that the only reason for repetition in the narrative is to add new material along with old, to say something new (1:418). To his credit, he writes, "It is not a necessary presupposition of source criticism that every apparent reduplication testifies to the use of more than one source. The examples need to be evaluated" (1:419). However, it is apparent that his first and basic assumption is that repetition means a different source. But other reasons for use of repetition may exist. One such reason is simple emphasis. Notice the repetition in Genesis 7.21-23. The point seems to be that <I>everything</I> and <I>everyone</I> perished, except Noah and his family. </div> <bR> <div> B. Names of God </div> <div>           A chief component of source criticism is the delineation of various sources on the basis of the use of different names for God. One source will use Yahweh, another, Elohim. This is put forth as clear evidence of sources (Dillard/Longman 41; Westermann 397). </div> <div>           However, in Ancient Near Eastern literature, the use of multiple names for a deity is not uncommon, and sources are not assumed for these on this basis. Kitchen cites as one example an Egyptian text with the god Osiris, who in one text is also called Wennofer, Khent-amentiu, 'Lord of Abydos' (<I>Neb-' Abdju</I>), and <I>nuter</I>, 'god.' Kitchen points out that this particular text shows evidence of being composed, carved and set up within mere weeks of the events which it relates, thus redactors did not have a chance to impose these "changes." From several facets of Ancient Near Eastern literature, there are other examples of multiple names of deity in the same text, without the assumption that redaction took place over a long period of time (Kitchen, 121). </div> <div>           There is no historical or literary basis in Ancient Oriental literature for delineating multiple sources simply on the basis of repetition. The early proponents of source criticism did not have the benefits of finding multitudes of samples of Ancient Near Eastern literature, thus they could not recognize the similarities that do and should exist between these and the texts of the Old Testament, which itself is part of the Ancient Near Eastern literature. For modern scholars, it is unwise to isolate Genesis from its contemporary context of literature and impose radical source division without broad evidence from the culture's literature (Kitchen 117). </div> <bR> <div> C. Duration of flood </div> <div>           In Genesis 7.4, rain is promised for 40 days and nights. Genesis 7.17 tells that rain came for 40 days. Genesis 7.24 says that waters flooded the earth for 150 days. In Genesis 8.3, the waters receded from the earth steadily, and after 150 days the water had gone down so that the ark could come to rest on a mountain. Genesis 8.4 mentions that length of the flood as five months. </div> <div>           The difficulty with the duration of the flood deals with what scholars have observed regarding J's and P's assessment of the length of the flood. J's flood has 7 days of waiting, a 40-day flood, and 2 weeks of waiting after the flood. P's narrative has a flood of a whole year and a few days altogether (Wenham 179). Critical scholars say that P's chronology is more specific than J's. J is not as concerned with chronological markers. "J is content with the brief detail of cause and effect; the rain from heaven was stopped and the waters gradually receded. Once again the difference from P is unmistakable; here there is narrative, while the chronological details at each stage as the flood recedes sound a contrived note" (Westermann 442, regarding 8.3a). Westermann points out that 8.3b is an addition to J to link this with 7.24 regarding the 150 days. </div> <div>           Critical scholars take the natural reading of 8.2 to be that <I>after</I> the 150 days, the rain stopped and the waters <I>began</I> to recede (8.3; Emerton 1:403). This is because 7.24 says the waters flooded the earth for 150 days. Reading naturally, only then did God move upon the waters to cause them to begin to recede (8.2). Thus the contradiction is seen between 40 days of rain (J) and 150 days of rain (P). Even in P's narrative, J is given credit for the reference to 40 days of rain. Westermann writes of 7.17a, "'40 days' is an addition in P from J showing that R can understand the 40 days only as an episode within the longer time span of the flood in P (so J. Skinner)" (Westermann 438). </div> <div>           While the text may seem to naturally refer to 150 days of rain, and then the beginning of recession, it is by no means a contradiction if the context can provide the whole picture of what is happening. It seems less natural to assume that two sources were carelessly joined together than to allow the context to clarify the meaning and chronology of Genesis 7.24-8.3. Emerton argues that the "prevailing" of the flood waters (7.24) is unlikely if it rained only 40 days and then the waters receded (since "receding" and "prevailing" give two different ideas; 1:404). However, it is natural to allow that the waters covered the earth ("prevailed") even though they were in the process of receding after the 40 days of rain stopped. By 150 days or five months, the waters had gone down enough for the ark to rest on the mountain (8.4). Thus it rained for 40 days, and after 110 more days (150) in all, the ark finally came to rest because the waters had receded enough for this to take place. </div> <bR> <div> D. Number of animals </div> <div>           The problem of the number of animals shows one source, J, suggesting seven pairs each of clean animals and one pair each of unclean animals entering the ark (7.2-3). The other source, P, suggests a simple pair of all the kinds of animals to enter the ark (6.19-20, 7.15-16). Supposedly, J is always concerned with the distinction between clean and unclean, with an emphasis on the usefulness of clean animals to mankind (Westermann 428). Thus, he includes seven pairs of animals, while P is simply concerned with the preservation of the animals, so he includes only pairs of the animals. </div> <div> Wenham takes the approach that Genesis 7.2-3 specifies or elaborates upon the earlier, more general command for simple pairs (6.19-20) by the addition of the command regarding seven pairs of <I>clean</I> animals (176). He also notes that the basic purpose was to preserve animal life; but also animals were needed to sacrifice (8.20; sacrifice is hardly preservation) and birds were needed to reconnoiter after the flood (8.7-12; Wenham 176). Kitchen also takes the approach of a general statement or command followed by a mores specific command (120). </div> <div>           Emerton (2:12-13) deals with some of Wenham's arguments, but here (and throughout), his counterarguments to the unity of the narrative are unconvincing. He seems to have placed the burden of <I>irrefutable</I> proof upon the shoulders of those who defend the unity of the text. Specifically, he deals with Wenham's statement that the first reference, to pairs in 6.18-20, is a passing reference to what will take place, while the second reference, to seven pairs of clean animals in 7.1-5, deals with a precise command at the time it is to be carried out. Emerton suggests that the whole section is a command, not merely a "passing reference." He also says Wenham must deal with the repetition compared with other doublets in the story. Finally, he thinks that Wenham "has not removed the discrepancy over the number of animals and the distinction between those that are unclean . . ." Whether the whole section is a command is of little importance. It is not unreasonable that God could first give a general command (6.18-20), and later at the proper time further specify or elaborate on his earlier command to Noah (7.1-5). Also, repetition is a key part of Emerton's system, but it's validity as a certain indication of separate sources unless otherwise noted is questionable at best. Finally, for Emerton to say as part of his argument that Wenham has not removed the discrepancy is not an argument at all; it may be Emerton's assessment, but it does not belong in a list of arguments against Wenham's position. The reader is able to judge Wenham's and Emerton's arguments and determine whose position is more reasonable and likely. </div> <bR> <div> <B>II. Brief Discussion of the Source-Critical Method </B></div> <div>           Kitchen points out the presupposition in source criticism of the evolution of religion from simple to advanced. However, somewhat advanced theology early in the history of the Ancient Near East is not necessarily impossible. Thus, such a presupposition for dividing the text according to simple and advanced religion is unwarranted because the evidence of history does not support it (112-114). Kitchen also wisely points out that many of the early source critical theories (which seem to have become the presupposition of more modern theories) have been "elaborated <I>in a vacuum</I>, without any proper reference to other Ancient Oriental literatures to find out whether they had been created in this singular manner" (114). Differentiating sources according to the standard criteria is unwarranted and overly simplistic (though the results are often quite complicated). </div> <div>           For Westermann at least, the flood narratives in Genesis are merely stories that belong to all of humanity in its struggle to survive catastrophe and difficulty: "the biblical flood narrative does not show the characteristics of an event which took place on the earth" (394-395). He sees that the flood is an archetype for human catastrophe (398). The story shows humans and animals standing together to face the catastrophes that threaten their existence (424). Thus J and P are seen as just two traditions of many, overlooking a natural reading that such an event did occur and that the stories of it (especially the commonalities) exist because of the reality of event in human experience as told through the descendants of the few survivors who soon were scattered throughout the earth. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Summary and Conclusion</B></div> <div>           The text is not clear enough to demand that Moses wrote this account, as is often proposed when considering the Pentateuch as a whole. The account of the flood in Genesis 6-8 is an essentially unified account. The evidence does not necessitate an largely arbitrary appeal to several sources, all of whom had different intentions, whose theologies controlled their stories. The events that are written of are not just literary stories. They are events rooted in fact. That they are literary stories in cultures around the world is because of an actual event that Noah and his family experienced, whose story was spread when the population spread throughout the earth. </div> <div>           It seems most reasonable to allow the text to stand unified. While Emerton is asking for irrefutable evidence against his position, in reality it is wisest to allow the text to stand in the most natural way -- a unified whole. Repetitions are not automatically indicative of separate sources. Supposed contradictions can be adequately and reasonably explained as literary devices and clarification. For example, the simple pairs of animals compared to seven pairs of clean animals can easily be understood as a general statement along with a more specific statement. This is not an issue in which positive proof beyond doubt will arise. But the evidence does give indication that a single author is reasonable, and it is far preferable to dividing the text according to assumed sources. This is true with or without a recognition of divine authorship and authority. </div> <div>           In writing on Exodus, Walter Kaiser wrote: "Little or no agreement exists, however, on the precise boundaries of these subjectively devised sources; nor can the criteria for their detection, be demonstrated to be functionally operative and legitimate for similar documents from epigraphic materials from periods of similar antiquity" (288). </div> <div>           We must not allow our theological and literary presuppositions to fully cloud our understanding of the text. Presuppositions are inevitable, but they should continually be examined (but not necessarily abandoned, except when they are wrong). The story is unified, and the unity highlights the truthfulness and authority of the account, which to many is unbelievable because of the tremendous supernatural nature of the event which is recorded. When one believes in a supernatural God who is capable of spectacular miracles, it is not difficult to take the flood account as it reads in the text. </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> Works Cited: </div> <div> Dillard, Raymond and Tremper Longman. <I>An Introduction to the Old Testament</I>. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. </div> <div> Emerton, J. A. "An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis," <I>Vetus Testamentum</I> 37 (1987), 401-20, and 38 (1988), 1-22. </div> <div> Kaiser, Walter. "Exodus." <I>The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol 2</I>. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. </div> <div> Kitchen, K. A. <I>Ancient Orient and Old Testament</I>. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1977. </div> <div> Sailhammer, John. "Genesis." <I>The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol 2</I>. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. </div> <div> Wenham, Gordon. <I>Genesis 1-15</I>. Waco: Word Books, 1987. </div> <div> Westermann, Claus. <I>Genesis 1-11</I>. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> copyright, 1999, Stanley Baker</div> <div> www.stanbaker.org</div> </td> </tr></table></body>