The local flood interpretation of Genesis 6-8 has biblical and non-biblical support. In this article we will set out the case for a local flood using an historical argument. It will be evident that we regard the Genesis story as true, but this point of view is not presupposed in our analysis.
The Genesis story is set in a Mesopotamian locale insofar as the “foothills of Ararat”[1] are mentioned as the resting place of the ark (Gen 8:4). This indicates to the reader the fact that the flood concerned Mesopotamia. The existence of other accounts of a great flood in this region supports this presumption; these other accounts do not betray a global perspective. We can see this if we compare the various accounts.
While the Mesopotamian flood stories have been dismissed as non-historical and categories such as “myth” and “legend” have been applied to them, this is a discussion that we do not need to enter for our purposes. Our argument is that they are evidence for the fact of a catastrophic flood in the region, whether or not we regard any or most elements in the story as a-historical. Their witness to the fact of a local widespread flood is a strong argument for the view that the Genesis account is likewise a story a local flood.
Gilgamesh
The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic is well known and we cannot review its content here; our purpose is to point up the local perspective of that part of the story that relates to a Mesopotamian flood.[2] The following points indicate the local perspective:
- Utnapishtim, the hero, is a resident of Shuruppak, a city on the Euphrates. The gods responsible for the deluge were worshipped in this city (XI.11-14).
- Utnapishtim asks about the reasons for the forthcoming deluge and is informed by Ea, his god, that another god, Enlil, hates him and he has to leave the city and go to a subterranean place where Ea dwells; he cannot go to the land of Enlil. The rain of the flood will come upon the men of Shurippak (XI. 38-47).
- Utnapishtim states, “Whatever I had of the seed of all living creatures [I loaded] aboard her” (XI.83); that is, the animals local to him were loaded on a ship.
- A violent storm begins the deluge and the gods are involved. For example, Ninurtu, the god of the wells and irrigation works causes the dykes to give way (XI.102). The involvement of this god gives a local scope to the flood insofar as it is important to state that the irrigation canals were overrun.
- The scope of the flood is “the land”; the “land” is broken like a pot (XI.107); the “land” is lit up by lightening (XI.104); the flood overwhelms the “land” (XI.128).
- After seven days, the flood “subsides”, a description which indicates a local flood receding (XI. 130).
- After the storm, Utnapishtim looks out of the window of the ship and sees on the horizon a stretch of land; the ship sets down on Mount Nişir, a mountain known to Utnapishtim before the flood (XI.139-140). Utnapishtim comments that “all mankind has turned to clay” (XI.133).
- After the flood, and after sacrificing to the gods, Utnapishtim says of Enlil, the god who brought about the deluge—“…without reflection he brought on the deluge and consigned my people to destruction” (XI.168-169). His focus is his
- Ea discusses the action of Enlil in bringing about the flood and says to Enlil at one point, “instead of thy sending a deluge, would that a famine had occurred and [destroyed] the land” (XI.184). The possibility that a famine could have served the purpose indicates a local scope.
- Utnapishtim is made to settle down after the flood at the “mouth of the rivers” (XI.195).
These details show the local scope of the flood and this delimits the scope of statements like “all mankind has turned to clay” (XI.133) and the “seed of all living creatures” was loaded onto the ship (XI.83).
There are many details in the Gilgamesh story of the flood that parallel the OT account as well as details that do not correspond.[3] The similarities are about the sequence of events, story details such as the window, the raven, the sacrifice; the differences are in details such as the size of the ship, the length of the storm and how many were aboard the ship. The relationship between the two accounts is outside the remit of this article. Our point is that there is a fact of the flood indicated in the two accounts and Gilgamesh is clearly a local flood. This suggests that the Genesis story is likewise a local flood account.
Story of Ziusudra
This Sumerian account is very fragmentary, but it tells the story of Ziusudra a king-priest of the Mesopotamian city of Shuruppak.[4] The “Sumerian King List” lists Shuruppak as one of the five cities of Sumer, and after listing eight kings over these cities it states, “(Then) the Flood swept over (the earth). After the Flood had swept over (the earth) (and) when kingship was lowered (again) from heaven, kingship was (first) in Kish”; it then lists post-diluvian kings.[5] This gives a chronological placement of the flood in relation to Sumerian kings and the land of Sumer. As evidence of the fact of the flood, it bears some weight as the mention of the flood is unencumbered by the story-teller’s art.
The local detail that we have in the Story of Ziusudra is as follows:
- The flood sweeps over the “cult-centres”, i.e. the five cities’ temples.[6]
- The flood sweeps over “the land”; a term used to refer to Sumer.[7]
- The rain lasts for seven days and seven nights.
Again, as with the Gilgamesh Epic, there are correspondences with Genesis which we have not noted as well as differences.[8] Our point is that the account is of a local flood, of what happened to the local cult-centres; it is perhaps obvious that Sumerians would pass down a story about “what happened to them”. Embellished in the re-telling, it still bears witness to the fact of a local catastrophic flood.
Atrahasis Epic
This epic concerns an “Exceeding Wise One”, which is the meaning of the name, ‘Atrahasis’. As with the Gilgamesh Epic and the Story of Ziusudra, the account is fragmentary,[9] but the flood is clearly local to Mesopotamia.[10]
- The text begins by stating that the cause of the flood was that “The land became wide, the peop[le became nu]merous”.[11] This suggests population pressure and migration widening the borders of the land; it does not suggest a global scope.
- The epic describes aborted attempts by the Mesopotamian gods to quell the noise of mankind, including famine. The thought that famine could have solved the problem that humanity was creating for the gods indicates a local scope.[12] The mention of famine and land in the story gives an agricultural setting—a farming community supporting cities.
- The animals are “the beasts of the field” and the “fowls of heaven”, as many as “eat herbs”. Family, relations and craftsmen are taken into the ship.[13] This suggests domestic beasts and local inhabitants.
- The flood is caused by the storm-god Adad; the god Ninurtu assists by bursting the dykes.[14] The specific detail of dykes being burst indicates a local concern in the story.
- The storm and flood last for seven days and seven nights.[15] There is no mention of the fountains of the deep bursting. The quantity of rain is clearly a local indicator.
Again, these details show a parochial focus for the story. There are corresponding details with Genesis that we have not noted, as well as divergent details.[16] Nevertheless, the world-view of the narrator is Mesopotamian rather than global.
Conclusion
The genetic relationship between the Genesis account and the Mesopotamian accounts is not important for our argument. The differences between the accounts do not prevent a synchronic comparison and do not disprove a relationship of some sort. The weakest theory describing that relationship would be that they share a common oral root. Our argument is that the three accounts and other incidental references to the flood in the king-lists point to the fact of a local flood. Moreover, given that the Mesopotamian plain was subject to flooding,[17] as shown by the archaeological record, the flood of these traditions and the king-lists must have been exceptional to give rise to the stories. Contrary to Bailey who asserts[18] that Gilgamesh and Atrahasis imply a world-wide flood, we have seen that the terms of these stories are local in scope. Bailey’s reading seems influenced by Christian readings of the Genesis Flood.
[1] We discuss this expression below.
[2] Our text is taken from the convenient edition of A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (2nd Ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949).
[3] L. R. Bailey comments, “The similarities between the biblical and the Mesopotamian flood stories are so striking and so numerous that it is impossible to escape the suspicion that they are somehow related”, Noah: The Person and the Story in History and Tradition (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989), 20.
[4] The city is stated in the account and a connection is made with the Gilgamesh Epic in the text known as “The Instructions of Shuruppak” which contains instructions from Shuruppak to his son Utnapushtu, see J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 594; hereafter ANET.
[5] ANET, 265. Bailey documents a similar citation, Noah, 14, from British Museum Tablet 2310, which lists rules of the city of Lagash (a Sumerian city) and begins the list, “After the Flood had swept over and had brought about the destruction of the land”.
[6] ANET, 43-44.
[7] ANET, 43 n. 6.
[8] See Bailey, Noah, 14-16.
[9] The latest text of the epic has been presented in A. R. Millard and W. G. Lambert, Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969). See also W. G. Lambert, “New Light on the Babylonian Flood” JSS 5 (1960): 113-123. An older less complete text is presented in ANET 104-106, 512-514, and Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, 106-116, and the Millard-Lambert text has been excerpted in W. Beyerlin, Near Eastern Religious Texts relating to the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1978), 90-93.
[10] For an overview see G. Leick, Mesopotamia (London: Penguin Books, 2002), 82-84.
[11] ANET, 104.
[12] ANET, 104.
[13] ANET, 105.
[14] Lambert, “New Light”, 118.
[15] Beyerlin, Near Eastern Texts, 93.
[16] Bailey, Noah, 14-16.
[17] Bailey, Noah, ch. 3, sets out the evidence.
[18] Noah, 17.
Evidence for the existence of Jesus in the New Testament