7

Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Study

The Genesis Flood Narrative in Relation to Ancient

N ear Eastern Flood Accounts

John Day

IN T R O D U C T IO N AND GENERAL M E T H O D O L O G IC A L
C O N SID ERA TIO N S

One of the methods of Old Testament study that has grown up over the past
century-and-a-half has been that of comparing the Bible with other ancient
Near Eastern texts. This approach has been enormously successful in shedding
new light on the background of Scripture and thus enabling us to read it in its
original setting. Comparative ancient Near Eastern study can come in various
forms. The particular type with which I am concerned here is that where an
ancient Near Eastern text may actually have been a source lying behind what
we find in the Old Testament.
There is a danger in this kind of study of what has been called ‘parallelo-
mania>.1 How are we to know what the significance o f a particular parallel is?
Is the parallel without any real significance or is there a definite connection
with the biblical text? If the latter, does the parallel betoken direct influence on
the Bible from the text in question or is the relationship more indirect? Could
it be that both have a common source rather than one being dependent on the
other? And if there was influence, when and how should we suppose this took
place? Finally, if we conclude that there is a genetic relationship between the
Bible and an ancient Near Eastern text, and we have established the priority in
date of the extra-biblical source and how and when it could have influenced
the Bible, we need to consider the ways in which the Bible has dealt with its
source: how has it transformed it?

Cf. Sandmel (1 9 6 2 : 1 -1 3 ).
 Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Study 75

I shall now discuss these questions with special reference to the flood story
in Genesis 6-9 . In pursuing the story of the flood and its background there are
two further methodological considerations we need to consider that scholars
have sometimes failed to observe. The first is that the Mesopotamian flood
story is not all of a piece but is found in various recensions, so we cannot
assume without more ado that it is the Gilgamesh epic version which lies
behind Genesis. Similarly, the Genesis flood account is not a seamless gar­
ment, but is widely agreed to be composed of two separate accounts that have
been joined together. We need, therefore, to pay attention to each account
separately when comparing the underlying Mesopotamian tradition.

AN CIENT NEAR EASTERN FLOOD ACCO UN TS

As mentioned above, it is first necessary to establish that a parallel really does

have a genetic connection with the biblical text. In the case of the flood story,
we have to take account of the fact that there are flood stories all over the
world,2 so in seeking the origin of the biblical flood account, why should we
single out the Mesopotamian tradition? In reply, we may say that Palestine is
not a region particularly prone to floods but rather to excessive dryness, so the
story must have originated elsewhere in the ancient Near East; furthermore, it
is the flood story from Mesopotamia— a country very much subject to
floods— that is overwhelmingly the closest in content to the biblical account.
What these parallels are will be examined in detail below. As for other ancient
Near Eastern flood narratives, although there is an Egyptian flood story, it is
unrelated to the biblical story,3 while the Greek flood story of Deucalion is
unattested before the fifth century b c e and appears dependent on the Meso­
potamian,4 and the version in Lucian of Samosata is even later and consider­
ably dependent on Genesis.5
The Mesopotamian flood story was known in antiquity from the Greek
account of Berossus,6 a Babylonian priest c.280 b c e , and already Josephus
(A nt 1.93; Apion 1.130) recognized its connection with the biblical account.
Here the flood hero is called Xisouthros (cf. the Sumerian name Ziusudra
below), whom Berossus has earlier named as the tenth in a line o f long-reigned
antediluvian kings. The coming of a flood on 15th Daisios is revealed to
Xisouthros in a dream by Kronos (Berossus* name for Ea), who instructs

2 Riem (192 5 : 1 0 -1 6 0 ) recounts over 3 0 0 flood stories; cf. Gaster (1 969: 8 2 -1 3 1 ) .

3 Cf. Gaster (1 9 6 9 : 8 4 ). 4 See W est (1 9 9 7 : 4 8 9 -9 3 ) .
5 See Oden (1 9 7 7 : 2 6 - 9 ) ; W est (1 9 9 7 : 4 9 2 n. 162; 2 0 0 3 : 2 5 4 -7 ) ; Lightfoot (2003: 3 3 9 -4 2 ).
C ontrast Kraeling (1 9 4 7 ), who thought both Genesis and Lucian shared a com m on tradition.
6 For Berossus see Burstein (1 9 7 8 : 2 0 - 1 ) . For an older study with Greek text, see Schnabel
(1923).
76 John Day

him to build a boat fifteen stades long and two stades wide, and embark on it
with kin and closest friends. After the waters had receded, Xisouthros sent out
some birds on three separate occasions, which returned the first two times but
disappeared on the third. The ark landed in the Korduaian mountains of
Armenia, where Xisouthros offered sacrifice. Finally, together with his wife,
daughter, and pilot, Xisouthros went to live with the gods.
However, the first discovery of a cuneiform account of the flood was of
tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh epic in the nineteenth century.7 It was discovered at
Nineveh in the library of Ashurbanipal, the seventh-century Assyrian king,
but it is now generally accepted that it was part of the Gilgamesh epic from the
later part of the second millennium b c e .8 The story, which was recounted to
Gilgamesh by the flood hero, Utnapishtim, in connection with the formers
quest for immortality, goes as follows.9 Having been forewarned of a flood by
Ea, Utnapishtim built an ark, Enlil and the gods brought the flood for six days
and seven nights, after which the ark landed on Mt Nimush.101After seven days
Utnapishtim released a dove, which returned, then a swallow, which also
returned, and finally a raven, which disappeared. Utnapishtim then sacrificed
on the mountain, the gods gathering round like flies to smell the sacrifice.
Finally, Utnapishtim was made immortal.
However, an even earlier version of the Mesopotamian flood story was later
discovered in the form of the Atrahasis epic.11 This is attested in various
recensions from the second and first millennia b c e and all are fragmentary,
but the best preserved and earliest is the Old Babylonian version from the
seventeenth century b c e , which we shall summarize here. This flood story is
the climax of a larger work. Originally the gods were like men, performing
labour on the earth, but eventually man was created to relieve the gods.
However, as humanity increased, so noise increased, which disturbed the
chief god EnliTs sleep, so he brought first a plague, then drought, next a
famine, and finally a flood to eliminate mankind. Enki (Ea), however, by
ostensibly addressing a reed hut, communicated to Atrahasis the coming of
a flood in seven days and the necessity of building an ark (of wood, reeds, and
pitch). The flood subsequently came for seven days and seven nights, and
afterwards Atrahasis offered sacrifice and the gods gathered round like flies to
smell the sacrifice. After the flood, a new order of society was established by
Enki, which allowed humanity to continue but various restraints were put on
human reproduction to stop numbers getting out of control again.12

7 Smith (1 8 7 3 ). 8 Tigay (1 9 8 2 : 2 3 8 -9 ) .
9 For translations o f Gilgamesh tablet 11, see George (1 9 9 9 : 8 8 - 9 9 ; 2 0 0 3 , vol. 1: 7 0 0 -2 5 ) and
Dailey (1989: 1 0 9 -2 0 ).
10 Previously read Nisir. See Lam bert (1 9 8 6 ).
11 For various recensions of Atrahasis see Lambert and Millard (1 9 6 9 ) and Foster (2 0 0 5 :2 2 7 -8 0 ).
Dailey (1989: 1 -3 8 ) translates just the Old Babylonian version.
12 If the restoration o f Lam bert (1 9 8 0 : 58) is correct, Nintu also decreed death for hum ans at
this point (Atrahasis 3 .6 :4 7 -5 0 ).
 Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Study 77

Unfortunately, parts of the Atrahasis epic are missing. But we know from
both a Ugaritic and a Neo-Babylonian fragment that Atrahasis was made
immortal following the flood. It is particularly unfortunate that the Old
Babylonian Atrahasis epic is lost at the point where the sending out of the
birds was presumably mentioned. But it is generally agreed that some form of
the Atrahasis epic (presumably the Middle Babylonian version from the
second half of the second millennium b c e ) lies behind the flood narrative in
Gilgamesh epic tablet 11, since the versions are generally so similar, including
much common wording.13 Interestingly, on two occasions Utnapishtim is
actually called Atrahasis (Gilgamesh 11.49, 197). However, whereas in Atra­
hasis the flood story is reported in its original primeval context following the
creation and growth of humanity, in Gilgamesh it is wrenched from its
original context.
A further Mesopotamian version, the Sumerian flood story (seventeenth
century b c e ) , 14 is preserved only in a fragmentary text from Nippur.
Following the creation of man, the institution of kingship, and the first cities,
the decision of the divine assembly to bring a flood is revealed (presumably by
Enki) to King Ziusudra. This lasts seven days and seven nights but Ziusudra is
saved in a boat, after which he offers sacrifice to the gods and is made
immortal in Dilmun.
Clearly, the version in Berossus is too late to have directly influenced
Genesis, but as we shall see later, the Priestly source did share some common
traditions with it. As for the Sumerian version, the fact that it is attested only in
one seventeenth-century text in Sumerian probably means that we do not need
to consider it further when seeking influences on the Bible.15 The main
question to consider, therefore, is whether it was the version in the Gilgamesh
or Atrahasis epic that ultimately lies behind the biblical flood narrative.
However, before we consider this we need to note that the biblical flood
story is itself made up of different sources.

TH E TW O BIBLICAL ACCO U N TS

It is widely accepted that the biblical flood story is composed of two sources:
J and P.16 The J account consists of Gen. 6:5-8; 7 : 1 - 5 , 7 - 1 0 , 1 2 , 1 6b- 17,22-23;
8:2b-3a, 6, 8-12, 13b, 20-22. Here the deity is called Yhwh (the L o r d ), seven

13 See Tigay (1 9 8 2 : 2 1 5 -1 7 ) .
14 For the Sumerian flood story, see Civil in Lam bert and Millard (1 9 6 9 : 1 3 8 -4 5 ); also
Jacobsen (1 9 8 1 ).
15 C on tra Jacobsen (1 9 8 1 ), who speculatively com bines the Sumerian flood story with other
texts, which overall provide a better parallel to Genesis 1 - 9 .
16 I continue to prefer the designation ‘J’ rather than the currently fashionable ‘n o n -P ’.
78 John Day

pairs of clean and a pair of unclean animals enter the ark, and the flood lasts
forty days and forty nights. Noah sends out a dove three times to see whether
the waters have subsided. Afterwards he offers a sacrifice to the L o r d , who
smells the sweet savour of the sacrifice. Finally the L o r d promises no further
flood.
The P account is in Gen. 6:9-22; 7:6, 11, 13-16a, 18-21, 24-8:2a; 8:3b-5, 7,
13a, 14-19; 9:1-17. Here the deity is called Elohim (God), we learn that Noah
has three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and a pair of every animal enters the
ark. The ark is made of gopher wood, reeds,17 and pitch, and is three hundred
cubits long, fifty cubits broad, and thirty cubits high. Noah is 600 years old
when the flood comes, the waters bursting forth for 150 days, but the earth is
not dry till one (lunar) year and ten days have passed (the flood having
commenced on the seventeenth day of the second month and ended the
following year on the twenty-seventh day of the second month). The ark
lands on the mountains of Ararat and Noah sends out a raven from the
ark.18 After Noah and his family leave the ark, God blesses Noah, commands
his descendants to be fruitful and multiply, and gives other regulations,
making a covenant with him and setting his rainbow in the cloud as a sign
that there will never be another universal flood.
In spite of the many challenges to the documentary hypothesis in recent
years, the case for this source division is overwhelming, since the flood story is
replete with doublets using two different divine names— Yhwh and Elohim—
and containing discrepancies, such as over the number of animals going into
the ark and the length of the flood.19 Those who oppose source division have
no convincing response to these points.20 For example, W enhams much-cited
attempt (1978) to demonstrate the unity of the narrative by arguing that it has
an impressive chiastic structure is flawed, since, as Emerton has shown (1988:
6-13), some of the alleged chiastic parallels are arbitrary, weakening the
overall pattern. In any case, a degree of parallelism between the two halves
of the flood narrative was inevitable.
However, Wenham (1978: 345-7) and Rendsburg (2007) have further
claimed that it is odd that the full range of parallels with the Mesopotamian
story— all occurring in the same order— is found only in the complete

17 Reading qan im for qinnim in Gen. 6 :1 4 ; see discussion below.

18 T he sending out o f the raven (Gen. 8 :7) is often attributed to J (cf. Gen. 8 :8 -1 2 ). However,
the m inority view that it is from P is preferable, since if v. 7 is also from J, it is odd that the reason
for the sending out o f the various birds is not stated here at the beginning, but only later with the
sending out o f the first dove (v. 8). This suggests that v. 7 is not from J.
19 Incidentally, the contradictions are a strong argum ent in favour o f P being a source rather
than the redactor, since though it might appear strange for a redactor to com bine two contrad ict­
ory sources, it would be far m ore odd for P as a redactor to introduce contradictions into his own
account. On P as a source, see N icholson (1 9 9 8 : 1 9 6 -2 2 1 ).
20 See Em erton (1 9 8 7 , 1988).
 Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Study 79

account, the alleged J and P sources each having only some of the parallels.
This, they claim, supports the unity of the biblical narrative. However, in his
reply to Wenham on this point (overlooked by Rendsburg), Emerton (1988:
14-15) shows that this argument for unity is also unconvincing. The case for
distinguishing J and P is too strong to be dismissed so summarily. Each
probably had a more or less complete account, the redactor sometimes
choosing one in preference to the other, sometimes citing both.
Anyway, the upshot is that we need to consider the J and P accounts
separately when attempting to evaluate the Bible’s relationship to Mesopota­
mian sources.

TH E J A C C O U N T AND M E SO P O T A M IA N PARALLELS

Although there are several references in the Old Testament to sacrifices

constituting a sweet savour to the L o r d (e.g. Lev. 1:9; Num. 29:2), the flood
story is the only place where Yhwh is actually spoken of as smelling the sweet
savour of a sacrifice (Gen. 8:21). However, it has a striking parallel in both
Atrahasis (3.5.31-35) and Gilgamesh (11.157-163), where we read that after
the flood the gods gathered round like flies to smell the sweet savour of the
flood hero’s sacrifice.
Another striking parallel concerns the sending out of the birds (Gen. 8:6,
8-12). The passage is not currently preserved in Atrahasis (the text is broken)
but is well preserved in Gilgamesh (11.147-156). Utnapishtim sends out first a
dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven to establish whether the flood has
ended, while J has a dove sent out three times. In both Gilgamesh and J the
first two birds return and the third disappears. Moreover, in both accounts this
happens after the ark has landed on a mountain, and in both there is a
reference to seven days. In Gilgamesh (11.147-150), it is on the seventh day
after the ark’s landing on Mt Nimush that the dove is sent out, while in
Genesis the second and third doves are sent out after successive periods of
seven days (Gen. 8:10-12). Many scholars think the first dove was also sent out
after seven days, the words having fallen out of v. 8 (cf. BHS), since the second
dove was sent out after ‘another seven days’ (v. 10). This would make the
Mesopotamian parallel even closer.
Both these striking parallels clearly indicate that J was dependent on the
Mesopotamian flood tradition. But which version was he using? Scholars most
frequently compare the Genesis account with the version known from Gilga­
mesh tablet l l . 21 But as we have seen, the Mesopotamian story is actually

21 For exam ple, Rendsburg (2 0 0 7 ); D ykgraaf (2 0 0 9 : 233).

80 John Day

attested in several versions. Is J really closest to the Gilgamesh version, as is

sometimes supposed, or is this supposition simply the result of the Gilgamesh
version being better preserved and therefore more prone to produce parallels?
I believe this latter to be the case and will argue that J knew some version of the
Atrahasis epic.
First, in both Genesis and Atrahasis the flood story is set in the context of a
primeval narrative of the origins of the world, starting with creation and
continuing with the multiplication of humanity prior to the flood. This
contrasts with Gilgamesh tablet 11, where the flood story is wrenched from
its original context and recounted by Utnapishtim to Gilgamesh in connection
with the latter’s quest for immortality.
Secondly, related to this, it should be noted that the biblical account, like
that in Atrahasis, reports the story in the third person, whereas in the
Gilgamesh epic Utnapishtim recounts the flood story in the first person.
Thirdly, a point rarely noted, in J Yhwh specifically announces to Noah
that the flood will take place after seven days (Gen. 7:4; cf. 7:10), which is in
exact agreement with the Atrahasis epic (3.1.37), where we read that ‘He
[Enki] announced to him [Atrahasis] the coming of the flood for the
seventh night’. Although in Gilgamesh the flood similarly began seven
days after the start of the building of the ark, this timescale is not an­
nounced in advance to Utnapishtim. Moreover, it is only apparent that the
flood comes after seven days in Gilgamesh when one pays extremely close
attention to the text.22
Fourthly, in contrast to Gilgamesh, there is a statement towards the end of
the Atrahasis epic, in a recently discovered Neo-Babylonian fragment, that
there will never be another worldwide flood. Ea declares:

Henceforth let no flood be brought about,

But let the people last forever.23

George (2003, vol. 1: 527) compares this passage with Gen. 9:8-17 (P), but it
would have been equally, if not more, relevant to compare the earlier J account
in Gen. 8:21-22, where the promise of no more floods follows on immediately
at the corresponding point following the flood, unlike P’s, which is somewhat
separated by Gen. 9:1-7.

22 W enh am (1 9 8 7 : 177) fails to note that this is explicit in Atrahasis, but says ‘The Gilgamesh
epic seems to envisage that seven days were needed to bu ild the ship ( 1 1 . 7 6 ) . . . ’ However, this
line (= George line 77, ‘ [before] sundown the boat was finished’) is actually referring to the sixth
day (cf. line 5 7 ’s previous reference to ‘the fifth day’). It is only in line 88 that we read ‘In the
m orning he will rain d o w n . . . referring to what is presum ably the seventh day. This is finally
recounted in line 9 7 onwards.
23 Lam bert, in Spar and Lam bert (2 0 0 5 : 199, reverse, col. 5, lines 1 3 -1 4 ).
 Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Study 81

TH E P A C C O U N T AND M E S O P O T A M IA N PARALLELS

Unlike J, there is evidence that P knew some later Mesopotamian traditions

also attested in Berossus. This should not surprise us, since they are both
relatively late sources. I have already discussed this in detail elsewhere (Day
2011), so will be brief here. First, the flood has a precise starting date, which is
similar in both: the seventeenth day of the second month in P (Gen. 7:11) and
the fifteenth day of the second month (Daisios) in Berossus.24 Secondly, in
P the ark lands on the mountains of Ararat, that is, Armenia (Gen. 8:4), just as
in Berossus it lands on Armenian mountains, in contrast to Mt Nimush (in
Iraqi Kurdistan) in the earlier tradition (Gilgamesh 11.142-146; Atrahasis is
broken at this point). Thirdly, the ark has dimensions more suggestive of a raft
in both P (Gen. 6:15) and Berossus, rather than the cube-shaped object in the
earlier tradition (Atrahasis 3.1.25-26; Gilgamesh 11.28-30). Fourthly, in both
P and Berossus the flood hero is the tenth of a line of ten long-lived antedilu­
vian figures of whom the seventh was Enoch/Euedoranchos = Enmeduranki
(Genesis 5). These parallels are best explained by supposing that both P and
Berossus had access to similar late Babylonian traditions.
That P also knew the flood story through some form of the Atrahasis epic
rather than Gilgamesh is supported, as in the case of J, by the fact that his story
is set in the context of the primeval history of the world, starting with creation,
in third-person narrative form. A further suggestive point is that P has a series
of divine regulations for the new era following the flood (Gen. 9:1-7), which is
also the case in Atrahasis but not in Gilgamesh. However, whereas in Atra­
hasis (3.6.45-7.11, only partly preserved) these regulations are concerned with
limiting the future growth of the human population in various ways,
P emphasizes the need for humans to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 9:1, 7;
cf. 8:17), repeating the original divine command at creation (Gen. 1:26, 28).
This supports the contention that P is polemicizing against the Atrahasis
epic,25 where the flood is a draconian response to the noise resulting from
the growth in the human population. In addition, like J, P has a divine promise
that there will be no more universal flood (Gen. 9:8-17), something which, as
noted above, is attested in a Neo-Babylonian fragment of the Atrahasis epic,
but not in Gilgamesh.
Some other parallels between P and the Mesopotamian flood tradition are
attested in both Atrahasis and Gilgamesh, but in the light of the above
comments we may assume Atrahasis to have been the source. Thus, in Gen.
6:14, referring to the construction of the ark, God says to Noah, ‘pitch it inside
and out with pitch’. Strikingly, the word used for ‘pitch’ here is kdper> a noun
attested nowhere else in the Bible (the denominative verb ‘pitch’ here is also

24 For this and the subsequent references to Berossus, see Burstein (1 9 7 8 : 2 0 -1 ) .

25 M oran (1 9 7 1 : 6 1 ); Kilmer (1 9 7 2 : 1 7 4 -5 ); Frym er-Kensky (1 9 77: 150).
82 John Day

unique). Interestingly, the cognate Akkadian word kupru is specifically men­

tioned in Mesopotamian accounts of the building of the ark (Atrahasis 3.2.51;
Gilgamesh 11.55, 66).26 We thus have good evidence of the Mesopotamian
background of P’s reference here.27
Immediately before the reference to pitch in Gen. 6:14 we are told that the
ark is also to be made with gopher wood and qnym. The word qnym was
vocalized as qinnim by the Masoretes, and is generally rendered as ‘rooms’ in
modern translations, although elsewhere the singular qen means ‘nest’, with
reference to birds, even if it can be used metaphorically of a human dwelling in
poetic passages (e.g. Hab. 2:9). However, a strong case can be made that we
should read qdm m , ‘reeds’, rather than qinnim y‘rooms’, a view supported by a
minority of scholars,28 the NEB, REB, and NJB. First, both Atrahasis (3.2.12;
CBS 13532, rev. 7) and the Gilgamesh epic (11.51) imply that reeds were used
in the making of the ark. Secondly, the reference to qnym in Gen. 6:14 is
mentioned in between gopher wood and pitch, suggesting it was one of the
materials used in the ark’s construction, just as Atrahasis 3.2.11-13 and
Gilgamesh 11.50-55 refer to reeds in between wood and pitch. Thirdly, the
division of the ark into sections does not come until Gen. 6:16, so a reference
to ‘rooms’ would be premature in v. 14. The use of reeds in the making of the
ark was thus not merely a part of P’s Mesopotamian Vorlageybut also intended
by P himself.29
A further parallel to P in both Atrahasis and Gilgamesh has been claimed by
Kilmer (1987).30 She argues that the Mistress of the gods’ lapis lazuli fly
necklace mentioned after the flood, which serves to remind her of the flood
(Atrahasis 3.6.2-4; Gilgamesh 11.164-167), denotes the rainbow, thus provid­
ing an analogy with Gen. 9:12-17, where the rainbow is a sign of God’s
covenant promise that he will never bring another universal flood. However,
Kilmer’s arguments are rather tangential, and we have no explicit evidence
anywhere that the Mother goddess’s necklace symbolized a rainbow. Conse­
quently, if a rainbow were envisaged here, we should expect the narrator to
have spelled this out clearly. Nevertheless, it is quite attractive to suppose that
P’s rainbow has been constructed on the basis of this allusion in the Mesopo­
tamian account. Not only do they occur at the same point in the narrative
following the flood, but just as we read that the Mother goddess’s necklace will

26 Cf. Cohen (1 9 7 8 : 3 3 - 4 , 5 3 -4 ) .
27 T he view o f Van Seters (1 9 9 2 : 165) that Gen. 6 :1 3 -1 6 is from J is unconvincing. N ot only is
Elohim the only divine nam e found in this context (Gen. 6 :1 1 -1 3 , 2 2 ), but the precise figures
given for the dimensions o f the ark in 6 :15 are the kind of thing we should expect from P, not J.
28 This view was proposed alm ost sim ultaneously by G ordon (1 9 5 3 : 38 n. 3 1 ), Ullendorff
(1 9 5 4 ), and Driver (1 9 5 4 : 2 4 3 ), and has been followed by a few others, e.g. W enh am (19 8 7 : 149,
152, 173).
29 I deal with the qdn im /qin nim question in greater detail in Day (forthcom ing).
30 Also Kvanvig (2 0 1 1 : 2 3 2 ).
 Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Study 83

remind her for ever of the flood (which she now regrets having consented to),
so the rainbow will remind God for ever not to bring another flood.
It is intriguing that P declares Noah to have been 600 years old at the
beginning of the flood (Gen. 7:6), since the Babylonians employed a sexages­
imal numerical system, unlike the Israelites. This figure is therefore suggestive
of a Babylonian background. Indeed, it suggests knowledge of the antedilu­
vian King List, something already utilized by P in Genesis 5. In the Weld-
Blundell 62 version of the King List, the flood hero (Ziusudra) reigned for
36,000 years. If P or his source knew this figure, they could have divided it by
sixty and applied it to his life at the time of the flood.31 (Division by sixty is, of
course, central to the Babylonian sexagesimal system, and it is to the Baby­
lonians that we ultimately owe our sixty seconds in a minute and sixty
minutes in an hour.) In Berossus’ version, the flood hero (Xisouthros) reigned
64,800 years,32 which is 18 x 600 years, so alternatively this figure could have
been divided by 18 (a much rounder number in the sexagesimal system than
in ours) and applied to Noah’s age. Either way, P’s figure of 600 years had a
Babylonian background.

HOW AND W HEN W ERE M E SO P O T A M IA N

TRA D ITIO N S ABSORBED?

There have been a few scholars who have claimed that the biblical flood
account is not dependent on the Mesopotamian but that both are dependent
on a common earlier tradition or event. These scholars tend to be extremely
conservative, such as Heidel (1949: 267) and Millard (1967: 17-18), seeking to
avoid the unpalatable notion that the Bible is dependent on a pagan source.
However, bearing in mind the certainty that the Mesopotamian tradition is
much earlier than the biblical— even on the most conservative dating of
Genesis 6 -9 — this supposition is unwarranted and reflects the logical fallacy
known as positing entities beyond necessity.
We cannot know for certain how and when the Mesopotamian flood trad­
itions were appropriated. However, Lambert has suggested (1965: 299-300)
that these traditions spread westwards about the time of the Amarna age
(fourteenth century b c e ) , which is plausible since Akkadian was the lingua
franca of the ancient Near East at that time, and copies of various Akkadian

31 Cf. Cassuto (1 9 6 4 : 1 7 ,2 2 ,8 1 ) . He was followed by Bailey (1 9 8 9 : 167), but the latter wrongly
gives 3 6 ,0 0 0 years as Ziusudra’s age, rather than length o f reign, and does not note the precise
M esopotam ian source.
32 VanderKam (1 9 8 4 : 3 7 ), norm ally a m ost meticulous scholar, mistakenly says that Berossus
attributed a 36,000-y ear reign to Xisouthros.
84 John Day

literary works are attested in the west then, for example Atrahasis at Ugarit,33
Gilgamesh at Megiddo, and the Hittite capital Hattusa, and various other
works at Amarna itself. If so, it is likely that the Mesopotamian flood story
was originally mediated to the Israelites through the Canaanites. This, I have
argued above, was in the form o f the Atrahasis epic. Eventually the story
reached J, whom I hold to have written c.800 b c e .34 In addition, P also seems
to have had independent access to Mesopotamian flood traditions, including a
version of the Atrahasis epic as well as some traditions found later in Berossus.
In view of the fact that P is generally dated to the sixth century b c e , it is
plausible to suppose that these traditions were derived by P from a Babylonian
source in the exile.35

HOW GENESIS HAS THEOLOGICALLY TRANSFORMED

THE MESOPOTAMIAN FLOOD TRADITION

There are numerous details in which the biblical writers have transformed the
underlying Mesopotamian flood tradition— for example, the name of the
flood hero and the length of the flood— but the four most fundamental
theological differences are as follows.
First, the Bible has ‘monotheized’ the Mesopotamian flood story. Whereas
in the Mesopotamian account Enlil and the gods bring the flood and Enki/Ea
delivers the flood hero, in Genesis there is simply one deity who does both.
Other polytheistic references have also been eliminated. This ‘monotheiza-
tiofr is of a piece with the way in which the Bible transforms other ancient
Near Eastern traditions, for example those concerning Enoch, Balaam, and
Daniel.
Secondly, the story has been ethicized. In the Atrahasis epic the flood was
brought by Enlil because he could not get to sleep at night as a result of the
noise of humanity, which resulted from its increase; the claim of Pettinato
(1968) that this refers to a rebellion on the part of humanity is unjustified, and
is now generally rejected.36 In Gilgamesh no reason is given for the flood,
though we know it was a decision of the gods (11.14), especially Enlil,

33 T he fragm entary A trahasis text from Ugarit contains only the flood story and has Atrahasis
speaking in the first person, thus providing a parallel to Gilgamesh tablet 11. See Lam bert and
Millard (19 6 9 : 1 3 1 -3 ).
34 Cf. Gen. 10:12, where Calah is ‘the great city’, Calah being the capital o f Assyria from c.880
to c.700 B C E .
35 C ontrast Van Seters (1 9 9 2 ), for whom it was J who appropriated Babylonian traditions
in exile.
36 M oran (1 9 7 1 ); Kilmer (1 9 7 2 ).
 Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Study 85

something not only Ea but also the Mother goddess later felt lacked wisdom
(11.170, 184). The biblical flood story thus represents a new development in
the motivation for the flood, both J and P attributing it to humanity’s sin.
P refers particularly to humanity’s violence and corruption (Gen. 6:11-13),
whereas J speaks more generally of wickedness and evil (Gen. 6:5).
Thirdly, a point that biblical scholars often overlook is that towards the end
of the Mesopotamian flood story, in both Atrahasis (3.5.36-6.40) and Gilga-
mesh (11.164-206), some divine sympathy is expressed for the victims of the
flood in speeches from the Mother goddess and Enki/Ea. In contrast, the Bible
regards the flood as a just punishment for wicked humanity, so there is no
need for God to show regret.
Finally, in all versions of the Mesopotamian flood story (Sumerian, Atra­
hasis [as preserved in Ugaritic and Neo-Babylonian fragments], Gilgamesh,
Berossus) the flood hero is made immortal after the flood. It was therefore a
deliberate move on the part of the biblical writers or their sources to omit this
part of the story. Probably P transferred this motif to Enoch (Gen. 5:24) who,
uniquely with Noah, is described by P as having walked with God (Gen. 5:24;
6:9).37 As for J, after the flood he goes on to present a very human Noah— one
who becomes drunk and naked in the process of discovering wine (Gen. 9:20-
27)— a story which Baumgarten (1975: 58-61) hypothesizes was placed here
deliberately by way of rejection of the traditional apotheosis of the flood hero.
This is possible but cannot be proved. The suggestion38 that the name Noah
derives from a root cognate with Ethiopic n oha, ‘to be long’ (especially of
time), by analogy with the names Ziusudra (‘Life of long days’) and Utna-
pishtim (‘He found life’) therefore seems unlikely, since Noah is depicted as
mortal.39 Conceivably, of course, the Hebrew name Noah might have arisen
with this etymology prior to the rejection o f the immortality motif, and the
etymology might subsequently have become forgotten. However, this is un­
likely since a Hebrew verb with this meaning is otherwise unattested, whereas
Akkadian and Amorite personal names based on nwh, ‘rest, be satisfied’, are
well known.40

It is a great pleasure to dedicate this chapter to John Barton, my esteemed and

genial colleague for over thirty years. His contributions to Old Testament
interpretation are prodigious and always stylishly expressed.

37 VanderKam (1 9 8 4 : 3 1 ) and Day (2 0 1 1 : 2 1 8 ). C ontrast Borger (1 9 74).

38 Hilion (19 2 5 : 5 0 - 3 ) ; Driver (1 9 5 0 : 3 5 0 ); B arr (1 9 9 2 : 7 5). Cf. Bailey (1989: 1 6 5 -7 ).
39 Even less likely is the view o f Schwartz (2 0 0 2 : 2 3 6 - 7 ) that the nam e N oah, ‘rest’, derived
from that of Utnapishtim via A ram aic ’tnbs (understood as reflexive o f npsy‘he refreshed himself,
rested’).
40 Cf. Tigay (1 9 8 2 : 2 3 0 n. 41 ).
86 John Day

BIBLIO GRA PH Y

Barr, James (1992), The Garden o f Eden and the Hope o f Immortality (London: SCM).
Bailey, Lloyd R. (1989), Noah: The Person and the Story in History and Tradition
(Columbia, SC: University of South Columbia Press).
Baumgarten, Albert I. (1975), ‘Myth and Midrash: Genesis 9:20-29*, in J. Neusner
(ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies fo r Morton Smith
at Sixty, vol. 3: Judaism before 70 (SJLA, 12; Leiden: Brill), 55-71.
Borger, Riekele (1974), ‘Die Beschworungsserie bit meseri und die Himmelfahrt
Henochs’, JNES 33: 183-96. Reprinted (English trans.) in Richard S. Hess and
David T. Tsumura (eds), 7 Studied Inscriptions from Before the Floodn: Ancient
Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11 (SBibThSt, 4;
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns), 234-53.
Burstein, Stanley M. (1978), The Babyloniaca o f Berossus (SANE, 1.5; Malibu, CA:
Undena Publications).
Cassuto, Umberto (Moshe D.) (1964), A Commentary on the Book o f Genesis, vol. 2:
From Noah to Abraham, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes).
Civil, M. (ed.) (1969), ‘The Sumerian Flood Story*, in W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard
(eds), Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story o f the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon Press),
138-45.
Cohen, H. R. (Chaim) (1978), Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light o f Akkadian and
Ugaritic (SBL.MS, 37; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press).
Dailey, Stephanie (1989), Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Day, John (2011), ‘The Flood and the Ten Antediluvian Figures in Berossus and in the
Priesdy Source in Genesis*, in James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian
A. Mastin (eds), On Stone and Scroll: A Festschrift fo r Graham Ivor Davies
(BZAW, 420; Berlin: W. de Gruyter), 211-23.
------ (forthcoming 2013), ‘Rooms or Reeds in Noah’s Art (Genesis 6.14)?*, in John
Day, From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1-11 (LHBOTS, 592; London:
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), Chapter 7.
Driver, Godfrey R. (1950), ^ ’interpretation masoretique a la lumiere de la lexicogra­
phic hebrai'que*, EThL 26: 337-53.
------ (1954), ‘Problems and Solutions’, VT 4: 225-45.
Dundes, Alan (ed.) (1988), The Flood Myth (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Dykgraaf, Christine (2009), ‘The Mesopotamian Flood Epic in the Earliest Texts, the
Bible, and the Qur’an’, in Roberta Sterman Sabbath (ed.), Sacred Tropes: Tanakh,
New Testament and Quran as Literature and Culture (BlnS, 98; Leiden: Brill),
233-43.
Emerton, John A. (1987), ‘An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of
the Flood Narrative in Genesis’, VT 37: 401-20.
------ (1988), ‘An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood
Narrative in Genesis. Part II’, VT 38: 1-21.
Foster, Benjamin R. (2005), Before the Muses: An Anthology o f Akkadian Literature
(Bethesda, MD: CDL Press; 3rd edn).
 Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Study 87

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva (1977), ‘The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Under­
standing Genesis 1-9’, BA 40: 147-55. Reprinted in Alan Dundes (ed.), The Flood
Myth (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 61-73.
Gaster, Theodor H. (1969), Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament (London:
Duckworth).
George, Andrew R. (1999), The Epic o f Gilgamesh (London: Penguin).
------ (2003), The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cu­
neiform Texts, 2 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Gordon, Cyrus H. (1953), Introduction to Old Testament Times (Ventnor, NJ: Ventnor
Publishers).
Heidel, Alexander (1949), The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press; 2nd edn).
Hess, Richard S. and David T. Tsumura (eds) (1994), 7 Studied Inscriptions from
Before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to
Genesis I-1 I (SBibThSt, 4; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).
Hilion, G. (1925), Le Deluge dans la Bible et les inscriptions akkadiennes et sumeriennes
(Paris: Geuthner).
Jacobsen, Thorkild (1981), ‘The Eridu Genesis’, JBL 80: 513-29. Reprinted in Richard
S. Hess and David T. Tsumura (eds), 7 Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood”:
Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11
(SBibThSt, 4; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 129-42.
Kilmer, Anne D. (1972), ‘The Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and its
Solution as Reflected in the Mythology’, Orientalia 41: 160-77.
------ (1987), ‘The Symbolism of the Flies in the Mesopotamian Flood Myth and Some
Further Implications’, in Francesca Rochberg-Halton (ed.), Language, Literature,
and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner (AOS
Series, 67; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society), 175-80.
Kraeling, Emil G. (1947), ‘Xisouthros, Deucalion and the Flood Traditions’, JAOS 67:
177-83.
Kvanvig, Helge S. (2011), Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic: An
Intertextual Reading (JSJSup, 149; Leiden: Brill).
Lambert, Wilfred G. (1965), ‘A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis’,
JTS N.S. 16: 287-300. Reprinted in Richard S. Hess and David T. Tsumura (eds),
7 Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and
Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-1 1 (SBibThSt, 4; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1994), 96-113.
------ (1980), ‘The Theology of Death’, in Bendt Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia:
Papers Read at the XXVT Rencontre assyriologique intemationale (Copenhagen:
Akademisk forlag), 52-66.
------ (1986), ‘Note breve, Nisir or Nimus’, RA 80: 185-6.
------ and Alan R. Millard (eds) (1969), Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story o f the Flood
(Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Lightfoot, Jane L. (2003), Lucian, On the Syrian Goddess (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Millard, Alan R. (1967), ‘A New Babylonian “Genesis” Story’, TynB 18: 3-18. Re­
printed in Richard S. Hess and David T. Tsumura (eds), 7 Studied Inscriptions from
88 John Day

Before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to
Genesis 1-11 (SBibThSt, 4; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 114-28.
Moran, William L. (1971), ‘Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood’, Bib 52:
51-61.
Nicholson, Ernest W. (1998), The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy o f
Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Oden, Robert A. (1977), Studies in Lucians De Syria Dea (HSM, 125; Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press).
Pettinato, Giovanni (1968), ‘Die Bestrafung des Menschengeschlechts durch die Sint-
flut: die erste Tafel des Atrahasis-Epos erofffnet eine neue Einsicht in die Motivation
dieser Strafe’, Orientalia N.S. 37: 165-200.
Rendsburg, Gary A. (2007), ‘The Biblical Flood Story in the Light of the Gilgames
Flood Account’, in Joseph Azize and Noel Weeks (eds), Gilgames and the World o f
Assyria: Proceedings o f the Conference Held at Mandelbaum House, The University
o f Sydney, 21-23 July 2004 (ANEStSup, 21; Leuven: Peeters), 115-27.
Riem, Johannes K. R. (1925), Die Sintflut in Sage und Wissenschaft (Hamburg:
Agentur des Rauhen Hauses).
Sandmel, Samuel (1962), ‘Parallelomania’, JBL 81: 1-13.
Schnabel, Paul (1923), Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur (Leipzig:
B.G. Teubner).
Schwartz, Martin (2002), ‘Qumran, Turfan, Arabic Magic, and Noah’s Name’, in Rika
Gyselen (ed.), Charmes et sortileges: Magie et magiciens (ResO, 14; Bures-sur-Yvette:
Groupe pour l’Etude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient), 231-8.
Smith, George (1873), ‘The Chaldean Account of the Deluge’, TSBA 2: 213-34.
Reprinted in Alan Dundes (ed.), The Flood Myth (Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, 1988), 29-48.
Spar, Ira and Wilfred G. Lambert (eds) (2005), Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan
Museum o f Art, vol. 2: Literary and Scholastic Texts o f the First Millennium B.C.
(Metropolitan Museum of Art; New York: Brepols).
Tigay, Jeffrey H. (1982), The Evolution o f the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press).
Ullendorff, Edward (1954), ‘The Construction of Noah’s Ark*, VT 4: 95-6. Reprinted
in Ullendorff, Is Biblical Hebrew a Language? Studies in Semitic Languages and
Civilizations (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1977), 48-9.
VanderKam, James C. (1984), Enoch and the Growth o f an Apocalyptic Tradition
(CBQ.MS, 16; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America).
Van Seters, John (1992), Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis
(Zurich: Theologischer Verlag).
Wenham, Gordon J. (1978), ‘The Coherence of the Flood Narrative*, VT 28: 336-48.
------ (1987), Genesis 1-15 (WBC, 1; Waco, TX: Word Books).
West, Martin L. (1997), The East Face o f Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek
Poetry and Myth (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
------ (2003), ‘The Flood Myth in Ovid, Lucian, and Nonnus*, in Juan Antonio Lopez
Ferez (ed.), Mitos en la literatura griega hellenistica e imperial (Madrid: Ediciones
Clasicas), 245-59.
Biblical Interpretation
and Method
Essays in H o n o u r o f John Barton

Edited by
KATHARINE J. DELL
PAUL M. JOYCE

OXFORD
U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS
 OXPORD
U N IV E R S IT Y PR ES S

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, 0 X 2 6DP,

United Kingdom

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.

It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries

© Oxford University Press 2013

The moral rights of the authors have been asserted

First Edition published in 2013
Impression: 2

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
ISBN 9 7 8 -0 -1 9 -9 6 4 5 5 3 -4

Printed in Great Britain by

CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CRO 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.