Introduction
Throughout many cultures throughout history, flood accounts and legends have been seen plentifully.
The question lies, of course, if there is truth to these stories, which one is the most accurate? Which one is the original?
Of all the flood stories, Noah’s flood from the Bible is the most well known, but many would claim that, despite its popularity, it’s not the “original” flood story, but that it was plagiarised from already existing flood stories from surrounding cultures.
But the flood stories of the Middle East aren’t the only ones to exist either, as we know, flood stories are all over the world. And so which one can truly lay claim to originality or authenticity?
This requires an investigation of the tangible evidence and additional theoretical thought.
Narrowing Down The Candidates
To better get an idea of which was the original flood story out of all the different accounts, the easiest route would be to look at the written records, and simply point to the oldest one.
Of course, such a method is not foolproof, for it doesn’t account for continual oral traditions which may predate written down accounts, nor does it account for the potentiality of there being even older written accounts, that were merely lost to time.
On the other hand, one might claim oral tradition to be somewhat unreliable, if one is familiar with what we Brits traditionally call “Chinese Whispers” (which some might think sounds a little bit racist come to think of it), or what they call in America; “Telephone”. The game where people sit in a circle, whisper a sentence into someone’s ear, and see what it comes out as by the end of the game.
A lot of the time, the end sentence is very different to what it started out to be, and over hundreds if not thousands of years worth of passed down oral traditions, without some kind of systematic guide or safeguard, puts such oral traditions into question. And in turn, some written documents, are the ‘result’ of passed on oral traditions also.
Well, all this just makes the ordeal of asserting which story is original all that much more complicated….
However, since older writings and traditions are less likely to be victim of a longer game of Telephone, it’s likely the best place to start our investigation as opposed to anything else, as even if such stories were the result of a somewhat altered or skewed narrative passed on over time, it’s better to go with one that has had “less time” in uncontrolled oral circulation, than a story that has been passed down without a concrete record for a longer period.
This brings us to two firm candidates:
Of all these documented flood accounts, these are the two oldest written we know of to date. But which one of them is original? Are they even connected at a root source? Or do they have different origins?
It’s worth noting that both accounts are said to be important “mythological motifs” in each of their respected cultures. So regardless of the fact that some historians try to claim these were accounts of mere localised floods in their areas, they both have high religious and mythological significance to their historical cultures, which would indicate something beyond mere “flooding” in itself, which ancient cultures, in the words of the historians themselves, experienced “many times over”.
Another note, as we already addressed in the other article on the multicultural flood accounts, they both share similar themes, which may indicate a deeper connection beyond the surface at some point in time:
Eridu
- A deity feels regret over her creations
- A holy man is approved amongst the people
- Mankind was to be destroyed by a flood
- A vessel acted as the method of salvation for a small group
- Animals were saved on the vessel
- The vessel has stopped in a mountainous region
- The holy man slaughtered animals and made food to celebrate
- The holy man saved animals and acted as the foundation for a reset
Gun-Yu
- Mankind was to be destroyed by a flood
- The human race reset
- Animals survived
- Mankind thereafter developed farming techniques
- Mankind thereafter learned to dominate animals for their use
Of these two accounts, most historians would believe the Eridu account stems back further, and may originate in even older oral traditions from 3000 B.C.E, and the story itself in turn points back to a flood that was said to be even further back in time, whereas the Chinese story, at least according to scholarly opinion, may not stretch back further than the late 2000s-1000s B.C.E, for the written records are later than the date claimed to be traced, and in turn, the Chinese flood story in itself only points to the 2000s B.C.E for the proposed date of the flood event, which is long after the period which the other flood stories of these kinds claim the event to have happened.
Thus, if the Chinese flood does have connections to the deluge myths as a whole, it would show that it would be the odd one out in respects to placing a much later date on the tale, and therefore is not as reliable.
It is also well documented that the Middle East was the cradle of humanity and civilisation as we know it. For this reason, this also might give credence to the Mesopotamian flood being the older and more reliable of the two, if of course the accounts are even connected to a single source.
“Scholars generally acknowledge six cradles of civilization. Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Ancient India, and Ancient China are believed to be the earliest in the Old World…
The earliest signs of a process leading to sedentary culture can be seen in the Levant to as early as 12,000 BC, when the Natufian culture became sedentary; it evolved into an agricultural society by 10,000 BC. The importance of water to safeguard an abundant and stable food supply, due to favourable conditions for hunting, fishing and gathering resources including cereals, provided an initial wide spectrum economy that triggered the creation of permanent villages.
The earliest proto-urban settlements with several thousand inhabitants emerged in the Neolithic which began in Western Asia in 10,000 BC. The first cities to house several tens of thousands were Uruk, Ur, Kish and Eridu in Mesopotamia, followed by Susa in Elam and Memphis in Egypt, all by the 31st century BC…” – Wikipedia, Cradle of Civilization
If the Chinese story was a local flooding event that happened in the 2000s-1900s B.C.E and has no connection to the deluge at all, then the Mesopotamian account would be the one of interest to us by default, as being both the oldest account on written record in the historical cradle of civilisation, and for the sake of the topic of determining whether the Biblical Noah story is authentic and original, or merely a plagiarisation of one these alternative myths, of which the Mesopotamian account is the most similar and culturally related to.
Thus, overall, we can narrow down the account to the Eridu Genesis flood as our candidate for being the most reliable, oldest and “original deluge story” of all the legends to compare the Biblical story to.
The Hebrew Flood vs The Mesopotamian Flood
As the Eridu flood story has been inscribed on a tablet since at least 2000 B.C.E, many will be quick to presume that the Hebrew version of the story as found in the Bible, must have been a later copy or plagiarisation, and this has been suggested for some time over the past century or so.
Some more modern liberal scholars, would even go as far to hypothesise that the “original Noah story” of the Old Testament had nothing to do with with a flood, but only the removal of the curse of the land that Adam brought about, by means of Noah impressing God via sacrificing an animal, resulting in God “bringing rain” on the land to water the crops, thereby removing the “curse of drought”, and that later Jewish scribes borrowed the flood story from the Babylonians and “merged it” into the original pre-existing Noah story, whilst simultaneously deleting sections that weren’t consistent with the “new narrative”.
Many note the similarities of the Hebrew flood story to Utnapishtim, also known as the “Epic of Gilgamesh” from Babylon, which dates back in written record to roughly the 1200s B.C.E. Utnapishtim should not be confused with the earlier Eridu story, which is the oldest version of the Mesopotamian tale.
In total, there are three major Mesopotamian flood stories:
If we compare the tales side by side, we note their similarities and differences:
- “That day, [the Goddess] Nintur wept over her creatures and holy Inanna was fill of grief over her people… At that time Ziusudra was king and lustration priest.… By our hand a flood will sweep over the cities of the half-bushel baskets, and the country; the decision, that mankind is to be destroyed, has been made.… After the flood had swept over the country, after the evil wind had tossed the big boat about on the great waters, the sun came out spreading light over heaven and earth… Ziusudra, being the king, stepped up before Utu kissing the ground before him. The king was butchering oxen, was being lavish with the sheep, barley cakes, crescents together with [degraded] he was crumbling for him [degraded] juniper, the pure plant of the mountains he filled on the fire and with a [degraded] clasped to the breast he [degraded] … He will disembark the small animals that come up from the earth! …That day they made Ziusudra, preserver, as king, of the small animals and the seed of mankind, live toward the east over the mountains of Dilmun”. – Eridu
- “When the gods were man they did forced labor, they bore drudgery. Great indeed was the drudgery of the gods, the forced labor was heavy, the misery too much… They were complaining, denouncing, muttering down in the ditch: “Let us face up to our foreman the prefect, he must take off our heavy burden upon us… Everyone of us gods has declared war; We have set un the excavation, excessive drudgery has killed us, our forced labor was heavy, the misery too much! Now, everyone of us gods has resolved on a reckoning with Enlil.” [The great gods decide to create man, to relieve the lower gods from their misery]… [The human population increases and their noise disturbs the gods, who decide to wipe out mankind. The god Enki, however, sends a dream to Atrahasis….]. …Wall, listen to me! Reed wall, pay attention to all my words! Flee the house, build a boat, forsake possessions, and save life… I will shower down upon you later“… Bringing whatever he had… Pure animals he slaughtered… Sheep he chose and and brought on board. The birds flying in the heavens, the cattle and the of the cattle god, the creatures of the steppe, he brought on board… his family was brought on board… the flood came forth.” – Atraḥasis
- “The hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the Flood…. O man of Šuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutunote. Tear down the house and build a boat! Abandon wealth and seek living beings! Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings! Make [the seed of] all living beings go up into the boat. The boat which you are to build, its dimensions must measure equal to each other: its length must correspond to its width.… All the living beings that I had I loaded on it, I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat, all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I had go up… Even the gods were frightened by the Flood, and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu. The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall… On Mount Nimuš the boat lodged firm… I sent forth a dove and released it. The dove went off, but came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me. I sent forth a swallow and released it. The swallow went off, but came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me. I sent forth a raven and released it. The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back. It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me. I sacrificed; I offered a libation to the four corners of the world, I burned incense in front of the rising mountain…. The gods smelled the savor, the gods smelled the sweet savor, and collected like flies over a sacrifice. Just then the Mistress of the Gods arrived. She lifted up the large fly-shaped beads which Anu had made for their engagement: ‘You gods, as surely as I shall not forget this lapis lazuli around my neck”. – Utnapishtim
Of these accounts, the Noah story from the Bible has been noted to be the most similar to Utnapishtim, and it has for this reason been suggested that the Israelites lifted this story and made it fit into their own history, religion and legends, during or after the period of the Babylonian Exile in the 500s B.C.E.
The overall premise, is that the original flood story was created roughly in 2000-3000 B.C.E by early Mesopitamians. This story then evolved into the two later versions of the account, of which, the Hebrews plagiarised the latter.
One of the reasons for this, is not only the similarities, but also due to the fact that the oldest physical Bible scrolls we have to date can be dated back to roughly the 300s-500s B.C.E. Hence, historians simply stop there and use that as their basis for their claim… however, as mentioned earlier in this article, this does not take into account the possibility of there being older physical documents which may have been lost to time, or even oral traditions.
We must take into account, that the Hebrews wrote their documents on parachament scrolls, which was a very degradable material, as opposed to stone (which is what the Mesopitamian stories are engraved upon). We also must consider the fact that many of the oldest documents in the First Temple, may have been burned or stolen during king Nebuchadnezzar II’s sacking in 587 B.C.E when he razed the city and burned Solomon’s Temple to the ground.
It’s not impossible to suggest, that it was not the Hebrews who copied the Babylonians, but that the Babylonians copied or borrowed from the Hebrews, or, that neither copied the other, but they are both independant of each other altogether. But of course, we require some kind of tangible evidence or realistic theory for this.
A Closer Examintion of the Evidence
Whilst the Babylonian story long predates the Israelite exile and conquering under the Babylonians, we must consider that the Hebrew scriptures in themselves give us a very detailed record of events and chronology which claims to date back to the early Bronze Age and prior, of which much has been vindicated by many archaeological discoveries in the last couple of centuries, proving many long time sceptics and Bible critics wrong in their presumptions that the Bible accounts and its characters are but the figments of Jewish imaginations and legends.
Furthermore, fragements of scripture have been found which long predate the oldest scrolls we have, such as the Silver Scrolls, and Joshua’s Altar Curse Inscription on Mt Ebal.
Given that many scriptures have been proven to be much older than the current scrolls discovered to date, and that many accounts in scripture said to date back hundreds of years if not more beyond the age of the current scrolls to date have been proven to be factual historical events, it is no stretch of the imagination to suggest this includes the historicity of the independence of the Hebrew records concerning the flood account.
Comparing the Textual Evidence
To begin to see if we are able to trace any evidence of the notion of Hebrew originality, and that it was the Babylonians who were inspired by the Noah story rather than vice versa, we must examine both the flood accounts in themselves, in whether each story has direct evidence of textual plagiarisation from other sources.
When it comes to the Epic of Gilgamesh, it has been noted by scholars that the tale was likely an evolution of previous stories that came before, and that it has ‘direct’ passages, characters and phrases lifted from surrounding stories in the area. What this tells us is that the authors of this account have already proven themselves to be guilty of editing and plagiarising existing stories without even attempting to hide the fact.
In comparison, the Noah flood story from the Bible shows no signs at all of direct textual lifting or copying. Whilst it shares some of the same themes and events with the Epic of Gilgamesh, such as the releasing of birds and a man saved in an ark with animals who land on a mountain, there are ‘no’ direct sentences, phrases, or characters in the Hebrew version observed to be borrowed from the Mesopotamian-Babylonian accounts.
We should also note, that the Hebrew version contains unique details in its story which do not appear in any of the Mesopotamian-Babylonian accounts, details such as the rainbow being granted as a sign from God, but these details ‘are’ echoed in other similar flood accounts across the world in other cultures, such as that of the Indian account of Matsya and the Colombian Muisca Flood.
As previously noted, if it so happened that somehow Indian traders were influenced the Hebrews rather than vice versa, it would have been in the 800s-700s B.C.E based on the age of the Indian story. And it is possible that it may go back even further, as there is evidence that India was interacting with Israel as far back as 1000 B.C.E.
This all predates the era of the Israelite exile under Babylon by ‘at least’ over 200 years. This would mean it was possible for the Hebrew flood story to predate any later Babylonian influences during the 500s B.C.E, and with this, comes the potentiality of the ancient age of the Hebrew flood account, and how it’s possible to theorise that other lands such as India had in fact picked it up from Israel.
Comparing the Narrative Details
When we compare the details of the Mesopotamian flood accounts to the Hebrew account, we should take note to observe which of the tales has the most logical, reasonable and consistent narrative.
Whilst sceptics will be quick to point to the fact that ‘all’ these stories have extremly “fantastical elements”, such as miracles, giants, demons, and gods, what we’re looking for is the most sensible story ‘within’ the ancient framework that viewed the notion of miracles and other worldly beings as an everyday reality that all people believed in, as well as which tale has the most relative historical backing.
When we look at the earliest Mesopotamian story, Eridu, we don’t get much detail other than the fact that the Goddess was saddened over her creations. The gods collectively bring about a flood, but one man, a priest or king, survives via an Ark.
Looking into the Atraḥasis story. It appears lower gods were once men and forced to do labour. They rebel against the higher gods and so the higher gods create the human race to work instead. But then the human race becomes “too noisey” and hurt the gods ears, preventing them from sleeping, and so this motivates them to flood mankind.
This story humanises the gods, and views them in man’s image rather than the other way around, and seems to make them very petty. Furthermore, it would imply that the gods are in a local vicinity, such as the clouds above, seeing that the humans can so easily disrupt them, which clearly isn’t observed in our reality. This is different to Hebrew theology, where God is said to be in another dimension, the “heavens beyond the heavens”, and became aware of the people on Earth due to their moral corruption, not because he was annoyed by the noise they were making.
As for Utnapishtim, it clearly borrows from the story that came before, referring even to some of the same characters and copying exact passages, but it is also the most similar to the Hebrew story. However, there are small details which are more logical in the Hebrew version over that of the Babylonian version when it comes to its similar details.
For example, the Babylonian story has a dove, a swallow, then a raven, released from the Ark. In ancient sailing practices, it was common to send a larger bird first such as a raven, then a smaller bird such as a dove. The reason for this is because birds like ravens can fly further, and are used to scout out far away lands. Doves on the other hand fly shorter distances, and will be more prone to flying back to where they came from sooner. Because of this, sailors historically would send larger birds before the smaller birds. But in the Babylonian story, the birds are sent off the wrong way around. The Hebrew story is said to be more logical and consistent with ancient sailing practices in this respect.
Another detail is how long the rain fell for. In all the Mesopotamian versions, the rain lasts for only a week. In the Hebrew version, the rain lasts for 40 days and 40 nights, along with the springs of the sea opening up. Hence, we have two sources of water in the Hebrew story, and for a much longer period of time, which is more realistic for the ammount of water needed for a deluge, whether local or global.
The dimensions of the Ark in the Babylonian flood, also would point to the shape of the vessel being like a circle or square, length equal to width, and isn’t a seaworthy craft. The Hebrew version on the other hand, has dimentions which are more than adequate of a seaworthy vessel, which is impressive considering that the ancient Hebrews were not a seafaring people.
Another thing to note, is that this later Babylonian version doesn’t really give a reason for the flood, other than “the gods hearts were motivated”. The Hebrew version on the other hand, is more similar to the oldest Eridu version of the flood, in that it was said God was “saddened” over mankind. The Babylonian version doesn’t carry this detail over as opposed to the Hebrew version. This would imply the Hebrew version is from a much older source, and that they didn’t borrow from the Babylonian version.
It’s for this reason in fact, that some critical scholars would believe that the Hebrews already had a pre-existing flood story in their tradition long before the Babylonian exile, but that they then later “adopted parts” of the Babylonian story and added it to their existing traditions due to its popularity. However, the question we are then forced to ask is; “where did the original Hebrew flood tradition come from?” and “what was that tradition?”.
Another note to make in the Babylonian versions of the flood, is that its narrative also claims the human race and their ancient Mesopotamian kings go back in time for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.
“In the 4,000-year-old Sumerian King List—which lists the reigns of single kings in Sumer (ancient southern Iraq) as exceeding 30,000 years in some cases…” – Ancient Origins, Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?
Again, we know that human society and culture as we know it was birthed roughly in the pre-early bronze age in the Middle East, and Biblical chronology in this respect is more accurate to the data than the Babylonian claims.
Hebrew Chronology
One of the most ignored elements of data, is the internal chronology of the Bible itself. Whilst many would cast it aside out of bias or distrust, viewing the records and lineages of the Bible as mere mythology, it should be noted that many historical figures in the Bible record far beyond the dating of the current physical scrolls have been vinidcated via archelogical proof.
Likewise, many historical events have been vindicated, and the dating of the arrival of early human civilisation also is in line with secular historical records.
Therefore, it is wise to look at the chronological history of the Hebrew people as contained in the Old Testament itself, to see if it provides any feasible theories on how or if other nations and cultures could have learned of the flood account, either from the Israelites directly, or from other shared sources.
The most reliable dating of events and family generations can be observed in the oldest scrolls of the Tanakh, that being the Greek Septuagint, which also are consistent with the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Based on this infomation, and the estimated time of the Biblical Exodus based both on the internal textual evidence (1 Kings 6:1) and leaning of archaeological evidence typically being somewhere between the 1500s-1400s B.C.E (Early Exodus Date Theory), and going backwards in time from there, our timeline roughly will look something like this:
| Years | Event | Date |
| – | The Hebrew Exodus | c. 1520s/1420s B.C.E |
| +400 | How long the Israelites spent in Egypt & Canaan | c. 1925/1825 B.C.E |
| +30 | How long Jacob spent in the Promised Land between returning from Harran and moving to Egypt | c. 1955/1855 B.C.E |
| +100 | The age of Jacob on his return to the Promised Land of Canaan | c. 2055/1955 B.C.E |
| +60 | The age of Isaac when Jacob was born | c. 2115/2015 B.C.E |
| +100 | The age of Abraham when Isaac was born | c. 2215/2115 B.C.E |
| +130 | The age of Terah when Abram was born | c. 2345/2245 B.C.E |
| +79 | To Terah | c. 2424/2324 B.C.E |
| +130 | To Seruch | c. 2554/2454 B.C.E |
| +132 | To Ragau | c. 2686/2586 B.C.E |
| +134 | To Phaleg | c. 2820/2720 B.C.E |
| – | Tower of Babel | c. 2900s/2800s B.C.E |
| +130 | To Heber | c. 2950/2850 B.C.E |
| +130 | To Sala | c. 3080/2980 B.C.E |
| +135 | To Kainan | c. 3215/3115 B.C.E |
| +2 | From the Flood to the birth of Arphaxad | c. 3215/3115 B.C.E |
| – | The Great Flood | c. 3217/3117 B.C.E |
After calculating an approximation for these major events in Hebrew Bible based chronology, we should note some remarkable details which line up with secular history as we know it.
The flood is seen to be in the “late” 3000s B.C.E (B.C.E years being counted backwards). From that time, Noah and his descendants repopulated the land. From this perspective, it is reasonable to say that the flood story was passed down orally over time from Noah and his family’s children, grandchildren and so on.
This matches the theory some historians hold, that the earliest written version currently known of the flood account; Eridu Genesis, which dates reliably to the 2000s B.C.E, had an earlier oral history potentially going back into the 3000s B.C.E, and if such is the case, the chronology of the Hebrew scriptures are giving us a feasible reason.
Furthermore, the event of the Tower of Babel, which according to the Bible is a major event in history when false worship began to rise, people’s local languages began to change, and they dispersed from the Middle East, happens in the very early 2000s B.C.E, just at the turn of the 20th century B.C.E, that is, the end of the 3000s B.C.E. This also plays into the secular historical understandings and theories of the date of origin regarding the Eridu flood account oral history… but more than that, several historians and scholars (such as David Rohl), also now believe, that Eridu (the historical location) is a strong candidate for the location of the Tower of Babel, and maybe related to one of it’s larger unfinished Ziggurats.
If then, Babel ‘is’ Eridu, and is the place where multiple languages and cultures began, and so happened to be where one of the most well known and oldest versions of the flood story happens to originate and spread to other places, including the later Babylonian Empire, then we have further precedent to believe this story was the result of a passed down oral tradition from Noah’s family, which later became either skewed or corrupted with other religious beliefs by the likes of Nimrod and the Sumerians of that time, who some Bible scholars theorise may have even been one and the same.
Considering that the current Bible texts we have only date (supposedly) to the 500s B.C.E, the fact that the chronology lining up these dates of events, closely matching what we know about the ancient history of the early Mesopitamia over 3000 years into the past, is quite striking and begs to be taken more seriously than what many would acredit.
Drawn into a graph, we gain this perspective:
The red lines demonstrate chronological information of events which is gained solely from the Hebrew Bible. The green lines demonstrate non-Biblical sources.
The bottom horizontal axis, shows the years each historcial document was said to be authored or what our current oldest copies of such texts are, whilst the vertical left axis is the date of the historical events concerning the authorship of such works, or the dates of events told us by the documents themselves.
What we observe, is a convergence of chronological details.
We must remember, that the Hebrew people decend from Abraham. He in turn according to the Bible, as did all peoples, came from Noah’s ancestry. In comparison to the pagan rebelling nations, the scriptures would have us believe Abraham turned from his worship of pagan gods of Mesopotamia, and then remained loyal to true worship, and in turn had a relationship with the true God YHWH (Joshua 24:2-3).
If this is to be the case, then based on the observed infomation, we can theorise that a faithful rendition of the flood was passed down to the Hebrew people by Abraham and his immediate family, whilst those who were associated with Babel, carried with them their own oral traditions and versions, including that of the Atrahasis version, of which interestingly also came at a later time ‘after’ the Hebrews first entered Canaan sometime before their time in Egypt:
- “It had been 430 years that the children of Israel lived in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt“. – Exodus 12:40 (Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch & Dead Sea Scroll Versions)
Eventually, the Hebrews are enslaved under Egypt, but then are freed, moving ‘back’ into the land from which they came, the Promised Land of Canaan. During this time they became a strong nation, and certainly would have gained the attention of their Middle Eastern neighbours, especially with stories going around as grand as the splitting of the Red Sea, the humiliating of Egypt, and the battle of Jericho.
As we observe in their own texts that the Babylonians are the ones more prone to borrowing from other cultures and legends to form their own, we can reason that they wrote the Utnapishitm version of the flood potentially by plagiarising both the older Sumerian, Akkadian and the Hebrew versions of the flood story, long after they (the Hebrews) had moved into the land of Canaan and established their own nation, culture, lore and religion.
What we should carefully take note of, is that according to the Hebrew chronology of events which are gained merely by calculating their family lineages, is that every time they enter a new land, only ‘then’ afterward, do we see similar flood stories from other neighbouring cultures cropping up in the secular historical record, which I find a suspicious pattern.
This isn’t something blatantly intentional by the Hebrew scribes, but rather this revelation is a side effect of the mere observation of the Israelite genealogy. Nothing in these Biblical writings suggests other cultures copied them at one time or another or vice versa, thereby motivating such genealogical dates, but it is something that can be observed theoretically by the plain observation of the events on the Hebrew timeline.
By the time of Babylonian domination of the Israelites in the 600s B.C.E, it would seem likely that both cultures would have had their own versions of the flood, sharing similar themes and details, but with the Hebrew version being more unique in its independency, and more consistent in its logical narrative both.
Jewish Motive & Religiosity
Another piece of the equation we must bear in mind, is the culture of the Hebrews and the fierce religiosity of Judaism, which stems back even into ancient times.
The theory of plagiarisation accuses the Jewish scribes and priests of not having any true dedication to their own foundational beliefs and culture, in which forbade the adoption of religious practices of other nations with threat of the death penalty:
- “Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land YHWH the God of your ancestors, is giving you. Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of YHWH your God that I give you…. When YHWH your God cuts off before you the nations you are entering to dispossess, and you drive them out and live in their land, be careful not to be ensnared by their ways after they have been destroyed before you. Do not inquire about their gods, asking, “How do these nations serve their gods? I will do likewise.” You must not worship YHWH your God in this way, because they practice for their gods every abomination which YHWH hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. See that you do everything I command you; do not add to it or subtract from it“. – Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 12:29-32
The Jews made a practice of debating over and denouncing later post exilic texts, such as the Book of Enoch, Book of the Giants (both of which are flood narrative stories), Wisdom, and other books, on the basis that they were inspired by Babylonian, Greek or otherwise foreign stories and philosophies which contradicted previous Hebrew traditions.
There were many debates between the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes between the 3rd-1st Centuries B.C.E/A.D over the canonicity of the Pentateuch (five books of Moses), Neviim (prophets) and Ketuvim (writings) sections of the Tanakh, as well as the Sefarim Hachizonim (outer writings) . The one side accepting all sections, but the other the Pentateuch alone, but all universally agreed that the Pentateuch was canon, the section of the Jewish Bible that includes the flood account and the traditions of Moses.
No such debate exists in neither ancient Jewish nor Christian history over the canonicity of Noah’s flood. But there is much debate over certain texts that can certainly be attributed to new teachings creeping into Judaism post the exile period, including, as aforementioned, versions of the flood story like the one contained in post-exilic “Book of the Giants”, which was rejected ‘due’ to its Babylonian influences.
It’s not to say that the Bible doesn’t quote from other sources at times, for this is even admitted in scripture, where certain “lost books” are quoted, and other places where some things are more clearly quoted verbatim from outside sources.
And it’s certain that some non-Jewish practices did become introduced to the Jews by the likes of Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Indians, and other groups during and after the exile (practices such as mysticism and Kabbalah which were written into the book of Zohar, which was not considered Kosher by many Jews, even to this day, and certainly not by Biblical standards). This certainly seemed to have likely happened during the time king Nebuchadnezzar II demanded the most intelligent young prospects from Israel be “taught by the wisemen and magicians” of Babylon (Daniel 1:3-4).
The only reason the later Hebrew people managed to get away with the adoption of pagan religious practices in the community is likely because after the time of the Babylonian exile, it was a time of great instability, and the nation was constantly being dominated by larger powers, such as Greece and later Rome.
However, these traditions were always debated amongst the Jews, and were seen as “set apart” or “supplementary” to the Tanakh, and not derived from it, nor added to it. Just as it is with Talmud and the writings of various Rabbis.
“According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, “On the other hand, the Zohar was censured by many rabbis because it propagated many superstitious beliefs, and produced a host of mystical dreamers, whose overexcited imaginations peopled the world with spirits, demons, and all kinds of good and bad influences.”… Many classical rabbis, especially Maimonides, viewed all such beliefs as a violation of Judaic principles of faith….” – Zohar, Wikipedia
“The Jews have never considered these works (The Apocrypha) to be divinely inspired. On the contrary, they denied their authority. At the time of Christ we have the testimony of the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus that they were only twenty-two books divinely inspired by God. These books are the same as our thirty-nine in the Old Testament. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these. The same testimony is found in Second Esdras – the Ezra legend. This work was written in A.D. 100. Therefore these books were never part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture.” – Blue Letter Bible
“After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel“. – The Talmud, Yamaha 9b
When it comes to direct quotes from other works (for example, wise sayings in Solomon’s writings that appear to be borrowed from other works in surrounding cultures, or wise quotes from pagan sources made by the Apostles sometimes in the Christian New Testament) these quotes are never integrated in a way that changes, reforms or contradicts existing Hebrew culture or religious traditions, but are considered “secular supplementary materials” of the time, and of their integration we at times even find answers to within the Bible texts themselves.
For example, Solomon admitted that the wisdom granted to him by God in part came from the “reading of many books” (Ecclesiastes 12:12), which would likely come from his various foreign visitors and perhaps his non-Hebrew wives and concubines.
In this it would be no different from a modern Chrisitian giving a sermon and quoting a line from a movie to introduce some kind of point. Such supplementary material not proving some kind of “total lack of originality” in the scriptural accounts or stories.
Whilst it is not to be denied that several manuscripts of the Bible at some points contain copyist mistakes, nor can it be fully denied that some texts have been inserted at seemingly random or inappropriate points, such as the song of the Jews looking forward to the rebuilding of Jerusalem inserted at the end of one of David’s Psalms (Psalm 69:35), these kinds of scribal errors and insertions do not take away or alter any of the Jewish lore, traditions or culture, nor do the insersions themselves contain false data. They can be plainly observed as scribial mistakes, without actually being considered as “falsified”, “retroactive”, or “reformed” events or statements, but only as misplaced. They do not consist of altered or inserted narratives.
Critics often can’t make up their mind over whether:
- The Noah story was an old Hebrew flood tradition which was later modified with Babylonian account features.
- There was no flood story at all, and that the ‘whole’ narrative is borrowed but edited.
- The Hebrew character of Noah existed, but wasn’t involved in a flood story at all, but his story and the Babylonian flood story were “spliced togther”.
In this respect, the positions of the critical scholars gravely contradict one another.
For example, some critical scholars suggest “Noah” is a Babylonian name; “Nukhu”, but this contradicts the idea of other critical scholars who claim that Noah was a pre-existing Jewish figure that the Babylonian flood story was tacked on to. Furthermore, neither the name “Noah” nor “Nukhu”, nor the meaning of those names, appear in any Babylonian account. It’s for this reason some liberal scholars will opt for the idea that Noah was indeed an historical Hebrew figure in Judaism, but that the later scribes altered his story to squeeze in a flood narrative.
However, this doesn’t explain why the Jewish scribes, who were heavily bound by tradition and religion, would have been willing to borrow a Babylonian account, and to even go as far to alter Noah’s story.
Some critical scholars would argue, that the reason they did this was because they came to see the Babylonian flood story as secular fact and sought to add it to their own texts, but out of reverence for their version of history they merged it with the so-called “original Noah” account.
But if it was indeed the case that the Jewish scribes merely saw validity in Babylon’s flood account as a secular historical fact, they could have simply added the flood story as it stood originally with the original Babylonian character, at the most removing the Babylonian gods which they would have considered false.
If for some reason the Jews didn’t like the original Babylonian protagnist but saw the rest of the story as factual, then they could have easily added an altogether new character, or made a Hebrew version of the Babylonian character’s name, without disrupting the history and tradition of thier pre-established and revered patriarch Noah and the so-called “original Genesis account”.
If we argue that the Jews wanted to cling to “parts” of the “original Noah” story out of respect for history, tradition and religion, then it makes no sense for those same Jews to be then deleting parts of that story they revere such much, and to replace it with a story that originated from a religion and culture they despised and were enslaved by.
Furthermore, in order to make such changes, in accordance with Jewish tradition over 70 Jewish scribes would have had to conspire to agree to this, and we see no such evidence in any record, nor variety of manuscript.
Therefore, the idea that the Jewish scribes would have decided to adopt an enemy pagan nation’s lore or religious stories, and to then drastically rewrite them so that they fit into Hebrew lore, even to the point of altering pre-existing narratives of respected figures in Hebrew history, for no good motive, and with nobody noticing or complaining, is quite far fetched, and completely dismisses how strict Jewish religious tradition has always been from the very start.
Conclusion
Overviewing our main points.
We see that the oldest “written” record is not a guarantee of something being the “original” record, but only the oldest surviving record.
The Hebrew scriptures time over, have been vindicated historically through internal evidences and archeology both. Providing evidence of reliablilty and the age of the traditions contained within, well beyond the date of the current manuscripts we have in possession.
We see that the Jewish scribes had an aversion to adopting religious practices and lore from other cultures, even with the threat of the death penalty, and many later Jewish texts post the Babylonian period were debated over amongst the Jews, and many were rejected because of their clear Greek and Babylonian influences. The Hebrew flood accounts in turn have no signs of textual dependency on any outside sources. On the other hand the Mesopotamian accounts show clear signs of direct textual plagiarisation, and those cultures had no qualms in doing so.
When we calculate Hebrew chronology through the Biblical genealogical records, we gain dates, not only that are more accurate to modern secular historical data, but we also find a pattern that whenever the Hebrew people moved into a new land, only then do records of flood accounts similar to the Biblical one, appear on the scene.
It is also to be noted, that whilst the Babylonian accounts share many details with the Hebrew accounts and surrounding accounts from other peoples, the Hebrew version is very independent in many of its details in comparison, but such details and themes can also be spotted in other deluge stories from far away cultures around the world, which may point to the ultimate original narrative being fragmented amongst many nations, with all the major key themes and details, as noted in the multicultual evidences, being within the Hebrew version, which may strongly imply its authenticity and originality as the root source.
The Hebrew version in turn, also out of all the flood stories in the world, has some of the most logical and grounded features, such as the type of vessel that acted as the means of salvation, the length of the time the rain and underwater springs took to flood the area, and practical details, such as the releasing of certain types of birds in a specific order.
What we can ultimately gather, is that it can be argued that there was an original flood account, which was spread to all peoples, beginning in the Ancient Near East or Middle East, likely gaining a larger spread at Eridu (or Babel), the ancient pagan captial of the early human world. Each independent culture retained their own version of said story, and later, various cultures may have been directly or indirectly influenced by the Hebrew nomads and developing Israelite nation, who quickly were gaining fame in the Ancient Near East.
The Hebrew version of the story, is likely to be the most reliable, based upon not only its minute details, but the constant vindication that the scriptures have received over the years in terms of their overall historical reliability in the face of constant criticsm.
Proselyte of Yah 