The Biblical account of a flood and science

[Ken Pell]

Do you think there is a connection between this story and our Biblical account of the flood?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html

When I read articles like this I often think of the myths that can be found in many cultures (think Sumeria) regarding a global or catastrophic deluge. This one does not mention deluge (actually famine) but they have no way (that I can read) to tell what really instigated the potential extinction of humankind.

[Ryan Scott]

It seems like this might be good evidence to help understand the seemingly contradictory scientific notions that there was a localized flood and that every civilization seems to know about a great flood. If the world was repopulated from a small group, it would stand to reason that some of their traditions would be carried around the world.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Do you think there is a connection between this story and our Biblical account of the flood?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html

When I read articles like this I often think of the myths that can be found in many cultures (think Sumeria) regarding a global or catastrophic deluge. This one does not mention deluge (actually famine) but they have no way (that I can read) to tell what really instigated the potential extinction of humankind.

No. If we are going to embrace scientific evidence, then we have to take the whole ball of wax. The study was based on DNA evidence and traced the near extinction to Africa with some 2,000 people surviving drought induced famine some 70,000 years ago (a lot of speculation). It also noted that similar DNA research suggests that humanity arose from a primordial "Eve" in Africa 200,000 years ago.

None of this comes even close to the biblical story of Noah. For example, the ark contained Noah’s family, which would yield a greatly reduced gene pool for DNA evidence, far less than 2,000. Also, the time line in Genesis could not possibly be as far back as 70,000 BC (the “traditional” date deduced from the biblical timeline is sometime around 2,300-2,500 BC). And the biblical story suggests that Noah was a Semite or a Near Easterner, not an African; the flood story seems to have taken place in the Mesopotamian basin (“east” from the later land of Israel). Yet the Noah story does closely resemble the Akkadian and Sumerian Epics (for example, The Epic of Gilgamesh), which were written long before Genesis.

There are simply not enough similar features to suggest a connection between the biblical story and this research, but there is clearly a connection between the Noah narrative and the Gilgamesh Epic.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ken Pell]

No. If we are going to embrace scientific evidence, then we have to take the whole ball of wax. The study was based on DNA evidence and traced the near extinction to Africa with some 2,000 people surviving drought induced famine some 70,000 years ago (a lot of speculation). It also noted that similar DNA research suggests that humanity arose from a primordial "Eve" in Africa 200,000 years ago.

None of this comes even close to the biblical story of Noah. For example, the ark contained Noah’s family, which would yield a greatly reduced gene pool for DNA evidence, far less than 2,000. Also, the time line in Genesis could not possibly be as far back as 70,000 BC (the “traditional” date deduced from the biblical timeline is sometime around 2,300-2,500 BC). And the biblical story suggests that Noah was a Semite or a Near Easterner, not an African; the flood story seems to have taken place in the Mesopotamian basin (“east” from the later land of Israel). Yet the Noah story does closely resemble the Akkadian and Sumerian Epics (for example, The Epic of Gilgamesh), which were written long before Genesis.

There are simply not enough similar features to suggest a connection between the biblical story and this research, but there is clearly a connection between the Noah narrative and the Gilgamesh Epic.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

What you say has merit and may be correct. I have never put much confidence in dating methods used in theories though.

Your post raises questions.

Q#1: Since when and why does it have to be "the whole ball of wax" or nothing at all? Why can't there be elements worth considering or worth excusing from the hypothesis w/o it having to be all or nothing?

Q#2: Is there something definitive suggesting Noah's ark was east of Israel?

Q#3: Why does Noah's small family and the 2,000 number used in the study suggest that they could not be one and the same event? It would not take an extremely long time to get to 2,000 people and the "primordial eve" theory suggests they all had a common ancestry anyhow.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Your post raises questions.

Q#1: Since when and why does it have to be "the whole ball of wax" or nothing at all? Why can't there be elements worth considering or worth excusing from the hypothesis w/o it having to be all or nothing?

I was referring to methodology. If we make the move to use scientific evidence of any kind to attempt to verify Scripture, then we have to accept negative evidence (that makes the biblical accounts more unlikely) as well as positive evidence (that supports or verifies biblical accounts). We cannot select only evidence that we think supports something and disregard other evidence that does not. In almost all cases there is more negative evidence from scientific approaches than positive.

Q#2: Is there something definitive suggesting Noah's ark was east of Israel?

The entire narrative between Genesis 4 and 12 takes place in the “east” (3:24, 4:16, 11:2). If we assume that direction is located from the place of writing of the stories in Israel (which most biblical directions are), then the “east” would be the area of Akkad/Sumer/Babylon and the Mesopotamian valley. If we do not make that assumption, then directions have no meaning since we have no point of reference. In the narrative, “east” functions metaphorically to communicate threat, failure, and potential sin (for example, Gen 25:6; the “east wind” is usually threatening, Gen 41:6, Ex 10:13, athough it can be used by God for good, Ex 14:21). “East of Eden” becomes a metaphor for conflict, danger, and the struggle between good and evil (note Steinbeck’s novel, East of Eden; Lot chooses to travel “toward the east,” the location of Sodom, Gen 13:11). Note that in preparation for the Abraham stories, the narrative recounts a move “from the east” (11:2), with the story of Abraham beginning in Ur and then Haran, a stopping place on an eventual move out of the east to Canaan. This metaphor works out in the NT as the Magi come “from the East” to find the Christ child (Matt 2:1).

Q#3: Why does Noah's small family and the 2,000 number used in the study suggest that they could not be one and the same event? It would not take an extremely long time to get to 2,000 people and the "primordial eve" theory suggests they all had a common ancestry anyhow.

That was based on the fact that the DNA evidence suggests a distribution or diversity between about 2,000 people. With only a single family, and many of those related, the DNA distribution would be very much smaller. It is not about the number of people but the diversity of the DNA.

Good questions.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Eric Vail]

There are simply not enough similar features to suggest a connection between the biblical story and this research, but there is clearly a connection between the Noah narrative and the Gilgamesh Epic.


Some of the research I've been doing on comparative studies in ancient near eastern (ANE) literature bring into question our ability to make conclusions with certainty about transference of ideas across languages and people groups in the ANE. R.J. Clifford's Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible presents a very middle of the road position on this.

There is no doubt that Genesis has a great example of the ANE genre of flood myth. We do need to use great caution, however, in finding which scholarly conclusions are holding up under continued scrutiny. The landscape is shifting on what was once considered a closed matter. Many of the classic comparisons (e.g., Gen 1 with Enuma elish) are crumbling, or at the least are becoming suspect. After what I've been reading, my senses perked when I saw your statement that there is "clearly a connection" between two ANE sources.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Some of the research I've been doing on comparative studies in ancient near eastern (ANE) literature bring into question our ability to make conclusions with certainty about transference of ideas across languages and people groups in the ANE. R.J. Clifford's Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible presents a very middle of the road position on this.

There is no doubt that Genesis has a great example of the ANE genre of flood myth. We do need to use great caution, however, in finding which scholarly conclusions are holding up under continued scrutiny. The landscape is shifting on what was once considered a closed matter. Many of the classic comparisons (e.g., Gen 1 with Enuma elish) are crumbling, or at the least are becoming suspect. After what I've been reading, my senses perked when I saw your statement that there is "clearly a connection" between two ANE sources.


All true. But notice that I did not suggest the nature of the "connection" nor to what extent or in which direction any borrowing of ideas took place, which was the primary concern of much 19th century historical work. Neither did I mention the differences between the biblical stories and the ANE accounts, which rarely took much space in classical historical-critical work.

On the other hand, most any superficial examination of the ANE accounts and the OT will reveal an extent of similarity of some details that renders denial of any “connection” problematic. The similarities are simply too many and too close (for example, the release of a bird in the middle of the flood) to suggest only random accidental use of similar themes. That does not solve the debates about which way the borrowing took place, nor does it address the social context that may have produced a common pool of stock cultural images (which seems to be the most plausible source of connections; see Speaking the Language of Canaan (http://www.crivoice.org/langcaan.html)). But it does suggest that some “connection” between the accounts must be taken seriously. In that sense, there is “clearly a connection” that is very hard to deny.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Eric Vail]

Thanks for the clarification. All the debate seems to focus on the nature of the cross polinization (with some claiming there is none) and the extent of borrowing. The fact that our scriptures share literary forms with its neighbors mean that Israel had to have known about those forms. There is still the unsolved mystery of proving which samples we can say with certainty that they had heard. No one has yet been able to prove conclusively that 'any of the suspects were at the scene at the time of the crime' (so to speak).

[Dennis Bratcher]

Thanks for the clarification. All the debate seems to focus on the nature of the cross polinization (with some claiming there is none) and the extent of borrowing. The fact that our scriptures share literary forms with its neighbors mean that Israel had to have known about those forms. There is still the unsolved mystery of proving which samples we can say with certainty that they had heard. No one has yet been able to prove conclusively that 'any of the suspects were at the scene at the time of the crime' (so to speak).

It is not really this ambiguous and extends to far more than literary forms. It was fashionable around the turn of the 19th century to claim that all of the Genesis stories were borrowed to create a Hebrew mythology similar to that of Akkad, Sumer, or Canaan, or that much of the OT was created during the Babylonian exile. Conservatives reacted with the claim that the OT was written first, the mythologies were borrowed from the OT historical accounts, and that the “pan-Babylonian” theories were creations of biblical skeptics or atheists trying to discredit the authority of Scripture.

We now recognize that both were polarized positions and that the truth of the composition of the OT lies somewhere between. For example, the full texts of the Gilgamesh Epic we have date to the 7th century BC (the Assyrian era). However, there are fragments of the story on tablets that date to 2,000 BC (or earlier), roughly the period of Abraham (c. 2000-1800 BC). Considering that even with the most conservative dating the OT was not written until at least 1400 BC (early date for Moses), that means that the story existed before any of the OT was written. There is a similar history for the Enuma Elish, or for the Egyptian Instructions of Amenemopet (although there is a more debate about the role of this writing in relation to Proverbs).

As a function of the development of the methodology of historical research, the original debates were formulated in terms of literary sources. That is, it was assumed that literary documents provided the source for any borrowing that occurred. However, in the last quarter of the 20th century the basis of the debate shifted toward social setting, oral conventions of story-telling, and oral traditions as a milieu for the creation of literary texts. With the work of both Brevard Childs and James Sanders, the focus in biblical studies shifted from trying to prove or disprove historical theories to trying to understand social locations and the development of theological confessions within a social matrix. Thus literary documents were seen as the coming together of a community’s faith and beliefs that were already more or less fully formed, rather than being seen as foundational documents.

The resut is an awareness of the use of literary convention and the incorporatioon of commonly shared cultutral metaphors in order to express the communities’ beliefs and faith. Thus, for biblical theologians the debate was no longer about which direction borrowing occurred but about how metaphors and images were used to express faith and theology (historians still need to pin down origin so remain concerned with which came first and when).

The result of all that is that most biblical scholars today who do not have an axe to grind acknowledge the common elements of the OT that are shared with other ANE peoples (for excample, the symbolism of water as threatening and chaotic). That sharing is simply undeniable with any serious examination of the material. But it is not nearly so important to many now who borrowed from whom as it is in understanding the common stock of cultural images that were used in vastly differing contexts as a vehicle of communication.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.