[Part 1: Literary Context]
[Part 2: Historical Context]
[Part 3: Theological Analysis]
[Part 4: Application]
[Part 5: Endnotes]

Modern day geologists believe that a universal flood covering every bit of the world's surface would have been impossible after humankind first appeared on the earth. Extensive flooding often took place in the low-lying alluvial plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. However, excavations have not been able to reveal that one flood was more disastrous then another. Layers of silt deposits in Iraq from different cities of antiquity have dated from different times making anything more than a local inundation almost impossible. While archaeology does suggest that extended flooding at one time covered continents, dating indicates that all such occurrences stopped before man's first appearance.^7.

To suggest that the universal flood was a literal event is to presuppose that Biblical texts have been verbally inspired and must therefore reinforce science and history. However, as has already been suggested, the authors of Genesis 1-11 probably never intended to provide historical narrative. Thus, when interpreting passages like 7:11-8:5 it is not necessary to assume that all the events being described actually happened. The reality of the text is not in its historicity but in what it tells us about God and his relation to humanity.

To question claims about the passages telling of literal events is not to devalue the text or to suggest that the text contain lies. Rather, when one understands the role of the story within Hebrew thought and the canon as being theological not historical, we are able to more accurately interpret and make application. To see the flood narratives as part of an ancient tradition that was transmitted into the Israelite culture and reinterpreted is to correctly place it within its historical context. For the Genesis account of the flood does not stand alone in history as a piece of literature. Rather, the flood tradition has its roots within the cultural milieu of ancient Mesopotamia.

It has been suggested that the local flooding in the Tigris-Euphrates valley initiated the Babylonian tradition that passed from oral to written form and was eventually recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh. In tablet XI, Gilgamesh, fearing his own death as he grows older, searches for Utnapishtim to find out how he earned immortal life. Utnapishtim, the Babylonian Noah, says that he and his wife won immortality by escaping destruction from a massive flood sent by the gods. Ea warns Utnapishtim of the coming disaster and tells him to tear down his house and build a boat the shape of a cube. He goes on to tell of the catastrophic nature of the flood, the settling of the boat in a mountainous region, the sending out of birds to estimate the water level, and finally the offering of a sacrifice. When En-lil discovered that someone had escaped death because of Ea's warning he became very angry. However, he recognized the significance of what had taken place and awarded Utnapishtim and his wife with eternal life.^8.

There is little doubt that the Genesis and Gilgamesh accounts are based upon the same tradition. The difficulty is whether or not the Genesis author was intentionally rewriting the Babylonian narrative with a Hebrew theological interpretation or if the flood motif was simply an integral part of the Near Eastern worldview and thought. However, more important than how they are related is the polemical nature of the Genesis narrative and the theological significance it has in the life of Israel.

In Genesis, when the flood begins P says "on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened" (7:11). P goes on to describe how "the waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the water. The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered…but God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and all the domestic animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided; the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed" (7:18-19, 8:1-2a).

This sharply contrasts with the Gilgamesh epic where Utnapishtim says "I saw the shape of the storm, the storm was terrifying to see…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."^9. Thus, the Mesopotamian pantheon displays characteristics of frailty and deficiency because the destructive forces of the flood prove to be too powerful for them to control.

Genesis 7, on the other hand, equally shows the cataclysmic nature of the flood as it "blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground" (7:23). However, the Creator that remembers Noah confirms his strength and mastery over the created in his ability to control the flood. When "God remembered Noah" he "made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided; the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed" (7:1, 2). Here we are reminded that during the chaos before creation when the earth "was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep…a wind from God swept over the face of the waters" (1:2). With both passages coming from P, it seems clear that the author was reinforcing the motif of the chaos before creation and the chaos of the flood and God's authority over it.

Another divergence, though perhaps less significant, is the role the door of the ark has to play. P starts the sentence by saying "those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him" and J concludes "the Lord shut him in" (7:16). In Gilgamesh, however, Utnapishtim states "I went aboard the boat and closed the door."^10. The epic also includes a detailed account of all that Utnapishtim does and feels about the events going on. The focusing of Genesis on God's actions and feelings rather than Noah's indicates that Noah is only significant for his obedience; the rest of the story simply tells us about God.^11.