The Case for a Local Flood (Part 1 of 6)

Geographical Perspectives in Genesis 2-6

This supplement discusses a topic in Biblical Apologetics: Noah’s Flood. There are those who argue that Noah’s Flood was global; here we present the alternative view that it was a local catastrophic event in history. Articles are invited from anyone who would like to explore the global case.

Introduction

A common objection against fundamentalist Christians is that they believe in a “god of the gaps”. Non-believers accuse fundamentalists of shifting their interpretation of the Bible in respect of the creation and the flood accounts to avoid scientific objections. They credit God with what Science has not explained. The counter-argument to this accusation is that while Science has shown some interpretations of Genesis to be untenable, this does not mean that the Genesis account is untrue per se. In the 19c., as uniformitarian geology argued the case for an “old earth” and a long period of time for the geologic column, Flood Geology fell by the wayside and the “global flood” interpretation was challenged by the interpretation that Genesis in fact described a local flood. This development might look like a retreat to the “gap” of an unproveable or “easier to prove” local flood theory, or it might be a false interpretation finally dying the death and thereby allowing a true interpretation to emerge. This is a matter of spin.

Whether the Genesis flood was local or global is just a matter of biblical interpretation. The case for a local flood is centred on the analysis of “perspective” in narrative. There is the perspective of the narrator and that of the principal characters—Yahweh and Noah. These perspectives are their respective horizons and points of view on the situation of which they are a part. The perspective to determine when deciding for or against a local flood is geographical, both human and physical.

Narrator Perspective

The “narrator” tells the story and the author writes the narrator into his story. With Genesis, scholars identify sources and hypothesize about a long transmission of story from oral to written form with editorial work along the way. Unless we work with the final form in the MT, such a transmission affects what can be said about the “narrator”. That person may evolve as the story evolves. However, we do not need to enter into source-critical issues about the flood account. We can attribute to the earliest incarnation of the narrator a post-flood perspective in matters of geography when describing the situation prior to the flood.

This result in analysis is significant for the question of the scope of the flood. The effect of a global flood would not leave the geography intact across this event. Without speculating about the mechanisms of global flood theories (e.g. plate tectonic theories, water canopy theories), the changes envisaged are all-encompassing as regards any possible geographical continuity. It would seem then that the inclusion of a local geographical perspective in the opening account (Gen 6:1-4) on the part of the narrator is an indicator to the reader to adopt such a view.

1) Continuity in geography is implied before Genesis 6 in the story of the Garden of Eden. Eden is described in terms of later naming conventions and economic activity. For instance, the name of “Assyria” or “Ashur” (Gen 2:14) is one that derives from the history following Nimrod’s descendants in Mesopotamia (Gen 10:8-11), and the name of “Cush” reflects the same post-flood development of nations in which “Cush” is a regional name in Northern Mesopotamia rather than its later denomination of the lower Nile. In addition, the courses of the rivers applied in the Edenic story are those of the post-flood world, which again suggests continuity in such aspects as the location of mountain ranges, watersheds and basins. The economic activity of the regions also betrays a later point of view, and this is one in which gold and precious stones are valued. Such valuation implies trade and commerce, and given the use of the names of nations, the description of Eden is complete as one given from the post-flood (post-Babel) point of view. This is an illustration of the harmony of the various stories in Genesis 1-11.

The perspective of the narrator is from a later time, and the continuity implied is one that permits the application of names and descriptions to regions and their characteristics. This kind of continuity is about physical geography rather than human geography. It is not implied that Assyria or Cush existed as nations in the days of Adam and Eve. For our purposes an implication about continuity of topography is a significant for how you read the flood account. It directs the reader to suppose that the gross physical geography was unaffected by the flood. Rivers remained where they were before and after the flood; land was in the same place, mountains, and so on.

The traditional ascription of authorship of Genesis to Moses is not required by our argument. In any event, such an ascription does not preclude Moses’ use of earlier traditions handed down by the patriarchal family. All our argument so far achieves is the identification of a narrator who has a post-flood outlook on the earliest primeval history.

2) The next perspective of the narrator to consider is the “father of” perspective. Necessarily, when a text attributes to an individual the distinction of being the father of a people or a way of life, then this implies that sufficient time has passed for such a people to come into existence or a way of life to become characteristic of a group of people. In the story of Cain and Abel we have “father of” statements. Jabal is the “father of” tent dwellers and cattle (Gen 4:20). This implies a time gap between the narrator’s position and the birth of Jabal—sufficient time for a people to grow up and choose a way of life centred on domestic husbandry. The same point applies to Jubal who is the “father of” all who handle the harp and organ (Gen 4:21): there is distance between the narrator and Jubal because not only has Jubal to be born and give rise to a people, musical instruments have to be invented and economic activity has to be such as to support the leisure activity of music.

The position in time of the narrator in this account is not necessarily after the flood. As far as the detail goes, the narrator’s perspective could be centred from before the flood—these characteristic groups could well be pre-diluvian. There is sufficient time before the flood for such developments. There is an absence of geographical indicators which would give away the later post-flood perspective which can be seen in Genesis 2. The only candidate is the reference to the “land of Nod” which carries the meaning “land of wandering” and is symbolic of Cain’s wandering; this is not a geographical term that appears in later scripture.

Of course, if Moses was the author of the Cain and Abel account, and did not use early tradition, the perspective of the narrator would plausibly be ascribed to him. It would be his point of view that Jabal was the father of tent-dwellers. This seems an unlikely viewpoint for Moses given that the patriarchal family and the Israelites were tent-dwellers. There is therefore an argument here that if Moses authored Genesis in some sense, he was using early traditions.

While critical scholars would not argue that Moses was “the author” of Genesis, this does not affect the value of our observation about the narrator in Genesis 4. If first century Jews believed that Moses was the author of Genesis, our argument about the narrator in Genesis 4 is the sort of argument that they could have developed to show that Moses used earlier traditions. Thus, if we were first century readers of the Torah, we could well have regarded the Cain and Abel story to be older than the second creation account, while accepting that the whole tapestry was inspired and from the hand of Moses in some final sense.

The Face of the Eretz

It is well known that the Hebrew eretz can be “earth, land, ground or country”. How it is translated affects the reading of a story and gives the reader a false or true perspective.

1) The first occurrence of the phrase, “face of the eretz”, is in Gen 2:6 and, given the agricultural context in v. 5, the correct reading is “face of the ground” or “face of the land”. It is important to note the agricultural context of v. 5 as this sets the scope of eretz to be “the land” viewed as that which is tilled and under cultivation.

In agricultural terms, rain is critical and drought is a serious problem. From this perspective, the narrator is describing the situation in Eden as one of drought in terms of rainfall, but one in which there arose each day a mist from the ground,[1] suggesting a damp fog arising from a high water table or dew. In his view, there was no man to till the ertez.

When Cain says, “Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the face of the ground” (eretz, Gen 4:14, RSV), he is betraying his perspective of “the land which my family farms” (to use modern terms). The expression “face of the eretz” is the land which men farm. This interpretation is in keeping with the emphasis of the curse that men should till the ground, although in Gen 3:17 the word translated “ground” is adamah.

2) The land can support people who live “off the land”—subsistence farmers. The next occurrence of “face of the eretz” is Gen 6:1, “when men began to multiply on the face of the land”. This detail continues the perspective of men living off the land, but the detail also echoes the fact that Cain had been banished from the face of the land. The intimation of the text is that there was pressure on the land to support the growing population.

At this time “the daughters of men” are taken by the sons of God and God’s spirit in his prophets strove against this practise. The continuance of their behaviour led to God’s pronouncement limiting their days.

3) Those tending the land are not the only group on the scene in Genesis 6. There are also the “giants” (KJV) but this is a misleading translation. Although the KJV has translated the Hebrew as “giants”, this is a reflection of the LXX translation of the Hebrew nephilim (~ylypn), and a more accurate rendering would be something like “those who fall upon”, i.e. marauders. This kind of person is precisely the opposite of those who tend the land and they are traditional enemies of those who farm. They are those who prey upon the settled populace, murder and steal arable produce and livestock in order to live. Their presence in Genesis 6 is a typical concern of a narrator whose outlook is agricultural rather than, say, nomadic.

We can see the narrator’s post-flood perspective in his mention of the “sons of God” before the flood and also after the flood:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose…

…There were giants in the earth in those days; (and also after that (!k yrxa ~g), when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown). Gen 6:1-4 (KJV revised)[2]

The passage says “and also after that” – i.e. after those days before the flood – there were sons of God who came unto the daughters of men and who subsequently bore “mighty men of old” and “men of renown”. These mighty men are compared to the “marauders” before the flood. This remark indicates the narrator’s perspective in that he is aware of marauders in his day and he is aware of the earlier sons of God and what happened to their agricultural way of life.

If we adopt a first century perspective on the Torah, this observation can be used to support the proposition that Moses used early traditions. An agricultural perspective and a concern about marauders would be typical for a settled community rather than the wilderness Israelites. The narrator of the opening flood account reflects such a background and this indicates something of the scale of the flood—it affected the land upon which his characters depended for their livelihood.

The Nephilim

The Hebrew nephilim only occurs elsewhere in Numbers:

And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. Num 13:33 (KJV)

This passage states that the sons of Anak were of the nephilim as well as being the nephilim. Are these related to the nephilim of Genesis 6? Against an equation is the fact that the locale for Genesis 6 is Mesopotamia whereas in Numbers 13 it is Canaan. Further, the nephilim are now settled dwelling in cities rather than marauders.  However, these differences are not decisive because after Babel there was migration and a settling of nations. The nephilim of Numbers 13 could be the descendents of Mesopotamians.

A detail is added in Genesis 6—the nephilim after the flood are “mighty men of old”. This is another indicator for the perspective of the narrator and, plausibly, of the author. From his vantage point, the nephilim after the flood were “of old”. This places the narrator at some distance from the generation that gave birth to the nephilim, but “of old” is an elastic expression.

The “days of old” in Deut 32:7 are the days of Babel; in Josh 24:2 they are the days of Terah and Abraham. In both these cases the days of old are Mesopotamian days. Does the narrator see the “mighty men of old” as men from the Mesopotamian days of Babel? The argument in favour of this conclusion is a comparison between Babel and the flood:

  1. In both cases there are two genealogical strands – Cain and Seth in Genesis 4-5 and Shem, Japheth and Ham in Genesis 10- 11.[3]
  2. There is violence in Genesis 6 and there is a beginning of violence with Nimrod who is described as a “mighty one” — “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth” (Gen 10:8).
  3. Imagination and thoughts are features of both times (Gen 6:5, 11:6)

We can suggest therefore that the perspective of the narrator in Gen 6:1-4 is of someone after Babel looking back upon the flood and seeing a comparison between the mighty men before the flood who pillaged the landed community and the mighty men who had built the cities of Mesopotamia; these men were scattered after Babel and some ended up in Canaan. This is a very local perspective on the flood.

Conclusion

The opening of the flood account is Mesopotamian in perspective. This is indicated by the expression “face of the land” which indicates an agricultural view. The geographical perspective of the narrator is local to the Near East and the days of old in Mesopotamia. While English versions use “earth” for eretz, and thereby contribute to a global view of the flood, the key opening Hebrew phrase of the account suggests a flood local to Mesopotamia.

[1] It needs to be stressed that the mist rises from the ground and is close to the ground; it is not a water canopy around the planet.

[2]I have added brackets to make the mention of the second group clearer.

[3] They also follow the same formula as with the ante-diluvians.