Whose Giant Boat Is This Anyways?

We now enter into one of the most famous passages of the Bible. Perhaps the most well known by Christians and non-Christians alike. I am of course referring to the account of the flood (if you haven't yet guessed by the title of this post). If you have read any of my previous posts, I'm sure you already know where this one is going, expecially if you chose to follow the links to some of the Ancient Near Eastern texts provided, you will have already read those stories which will pertain to what we are talking about here.

First we shall examine the archaeological evidence surrounding the flood. Secondly, we shall look at the Sumerian and Babylonian accounts of the flood as a comparative study. It is of course my opinion that the flood, as told in Genesis 6, is not an historical event, rather a myth which is designed to teach the reader something about the nature of God. You will see how I have come to this conclusion from the evidence to follow.

Let us take a look at the archaeological evidence. Is there any evidence of a world-wide flood to be found? Or, let us bring the scope down a little. Is there any evidence of a flood covering the whole of the Ancient Near East (which would constitute the whole world in the eyes of the ancient person)? I remember being told by fundamentalist Christians that archaeology does indeed support a world wide flood. However, after having read about it for myself (and not merely trusting what I am told) I found that this is not the case.

Large deposits of water-borne clay and sand due to a prolonged inundation have only been found on three Mesopotamian sites. These are Ur, Kish, and Shuruppak. Sir Leonard Woolley, one of the first archaeologists to excavate at Ur, dug 14 test pits. Seven of these pits revealed water-borne deposits at varying levels. The deepest and thickest of these is during the Ubaid period (between 4500BC and 4300BC). The other thinner layers were dated to about 2800-2600BC. The layers which were found at Kish were dated around the same time as the thinner layers at Ur. At Shuruppak, there is one single 'sterile layer' dating to around 2900BC.

This archaeological evidence does not reflect a widespread inundation of the entire Ancient Near East. Rather, it merely suggests limited, localized inundations probably due to river overflow and changes of course. It is important to note, that Eridu, which lies only 20km from Ur in a shallow depression and has been excavated down to its virgin soil, shows no sign of a flood. Thus, we can conclude from this that there is no archaeological or physical evidence of a flood which covered the entire of the Ancient Near East, let alone the entire planet.

Another interesting factor to consider is that there are those who claim that Noah's Ark has been found. One can find an article related to this here with links on the site to both sides of the arguement. I personally do not think that this is Noah's Ark. I believe that those who do claim that it is 'the ark', are trying to force scientific evidence onto the situation, and not analyzing things objectively. They are so desperate to prove that the Bible (in particular the flood story) is historically and scientifically accurate, they will grasp at even a small hope, and twist science to their advantage. I believe that this account is a myth as we shall soon prove as we move on to the textual evidence. Also, even if this was the giant boat from the flood, it would belong to Atrahasis, not Noah as we shall soon see.

We will move on to the textual evidence. These discoveries are not new, and it is surprising to me that most Christians have not heard of these texts. Or if they have, are not telling others about them (I, for one, grew up having no idea that the Bible was not the first account of the flood). It was in 1872 that George Smith, a British Assyriologist, first announced that he had discovered among the tablets in Ashurbanipal's library another account of the flood so similar, that it would be impossible to call it a coinicidence. What he had found at that point, was the "Epic of Gilgamesh." It is within this story that we find the account of the flood which was discovered by George Smith. One can read a translation of it here. It is far too lengthy to quote in this post, but I will quote some of the highlights. I strongly recommend following the link and reading the entire thing for yourself. You will see the striking resemblance. Here are some examples.

O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu: Tear down the house and build a boat! Abandon wealth and seek living beings! Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings! Make 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. Roof it over like the Apsu.I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea: 'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered I will heed and will do it. But what shall I answer the city, the populace, and the Elders!'

Here is another quote:

Six days and seven nightscame the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land.When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding,the flood was a war--struggling with itself like a woman writhing (in labor).The sea calmed, fell still, the whirlwind (and) flood stopped up.I looked around all day long--quiet had set inand all the human beings had turned to clay!

And another:

When a seventh day arrived 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.Then I sent out everything in all directions and sacrificed (a sheep).I offered incense in front of the mountain-ziggurat.

Thus it is painfully obvious that these stories are strikingly similar in events. So, if you have never heard of this before, you are asking yourself this question. "Which one of these accounts came first?" The Gilgamesh epic found in Ashurbannipal's library dates to about 650 BC. That is how old the tablet is. The writing of Genesis is dated to somewhere around 1400BC (although we do not have any physical document of Genesis dated from that period. This is merely an estimate based on content). So, if you are a hard core historical accuracy bible buff, at this point you are standing and throwing your hands into the air in victory crying "YES! YES! Those Babylonians stole it from us, precious!!" But, I must ask you to please take a seat, as the battle is not over. The account of the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh was not originally in that story. It was taken from a much much earlier Sumerian account of the flood and inserted into the Gilgamesh Epic.

The Sumerian account of the flood, also known as "The Poem of the Supersage (Atrahasis)" is where the account of the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh was taken from. We have about two thirds of the account (physical tablets) which date to around 1700 BC, thus beating out Genesis by at least 300 years (and that being the assumption that the date of the writing of Genesis is correct). However, the oldest record of the flood we have dates to about 2100 BC, albeit it is not a full account, but merely a fragment. The New York Times published an article of its discovery in 1910. You can read the article here. So, I'm sorry to break it to you, but the Sumerian account of the flood antedates the Genesis account by at least 700 years. Again, it would be unlikely that the dominant culture of the time (Sumerian) in 2100 BC was looking for ideas to write about from a small enigmatic tribe of nomads (the Israelites).

So, I think we have established that the flood never did happen, as there is no scientific evidence to prove so. Secondly, we have also proven that the Israelites didn't come up with the flood story to begin with, rather it was a creation of the Sumerians. So what does that leave us with? Well, it certainly does not negate the value of the Genesis account of the flood, for it is within these stories that we find out more about the nature of God. The Israelites took the story of the flood, and inserted their own theme into it, in order to show something about God. So, next we will examine the two themes presented in the two different accounts and we will see that the Israelites had their own unique spin on the story - changing one's outlook on life.

In the Genesis account, we find that the reason for the flood is a moral issue. God sees the wickedness of humanity and wishes to blot them out. However, he finds one righteous man, Noah, through whom he will proliferate humanity after the rest of humanity is wiped out. In the Sumerian version, we find that the background to the flood was that humanity had grown too numerous and so noisy that the gods couldn't sleep. Thus Enlil decided to put an end to them. He used several ideas such as epidemic and famine, and finally flood. There seems to be no moral issue at stake here, but simply that the humans were noisy (and no doubt we are).

In Genesis, God warns Noah, the only righteous man alive, and has him build a giant boat to avoid the flood. In the Sumerian account Ea warns Atrahasis of the impending doom, and instructs him to build a boat as well. Why is Atrahasis chosen? Certainly not for any moral reason. From there, the two accounts are very similar as they simply recount the events of the flood.

Thus, it is my opinion that the Genesis account is simply meant to show us something about God. God does not tolerate wickedness, and rewards righteousness. The wicked were destroyed and the righteous were saved. Pretty simple and obvious. The Babylonian version is an explanation as to why bad things happen to us.

Ea spoke to Valiant Enlil, saying: 'It is yours, O Valiant One, who is the Sage of the Gods. How, how could you bring about a Flood without consideration Charge the violation to the violator, charge the offense to the offender, but be compassionate lest (mankind) be cut off, be patient lest they be killed. Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a lion had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a wolf had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that famine had occurred to slay the land! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that (Pestilent) Erra had appeared to ravage the land!

This account gives an explanation as to why all these things happen to humanity; to keep our population in check. It is an explanation of suffering. It is probably not a very comforting explanation, but an explanation none the less.

In conclusion, I think that we can see that there is no scientific or archaeological evidence for the flood having ever happened. Rather, it was a myth composed by the Ancient Near Eastern people. Also, we have seen that the Sumerian account was the first account of the flood written and that the Israelites borrowed this story into their own mythology. However, both accounts have very different themes. It is my opinion that the Israelite version of the flood was borrowed from the Sumerians and changed to demonstrate the qualities of the God that they worshipped.

I would like to end with a quote by Jean Bottero, from his book "Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia":

"It is this Flood, the one in the Bible, that lingers in our memory, imbued as we are - like it or not - with the scenes and teaching of that ancient book. But the aim of history is to seek to understand by 'going back', by 'what was there before', children by their fathers and rivers by their sources. That is why, in addition to what they recover en masse from our oldest forefathers in direct lineage, from those incomparable Sumerian and Babylonian civilisers and their heritage that has come down to us, filtered, reworked, enriched, sometimes impoverished, by the millennia, Assyriologists can also throw light on the Bible for us. They do so by reintroducing its content into its 'historical continuum', which illuminates it so particularly. Peaceable and unobtrusive, these people's calling is not exactly easy; spending one's life deciphering, analysing, penetrating the secrets of thousands of clay ' notebooks', hatched with spiky and daunting cuneiform characters! One may wonder, however, whether this arduous immobility is not more fruitful than all the mighty to-ings and fro-ings to bring back a few worm-eaten planks, which with touching naivety are assumed to be a relic of the shipwreck of an 'Ark' as fabulous as the Giant's seven-league boots."