The chiastic format of the Noah story

The Noah story is prose and not history. It also contains a number of literary formats typical of biblical writing. 

​

One of these is number associations. This topic was introduced in relation to the creation story and it will be reviewed here as it pertains to the Noah account.  

 

In ancient Mesopotamia, a seximal system based on number 6 was frequently used to describe aspects of the physical world.1 We have vestiges of this even today with our 60-minute hour (6 x 10), 24-hour day (6 x 4), and 360-degrees circle (6 x 60). These time periods are otherwise quite arbitrary. The physical world was created by Elokim, and it is not surprising, therefore, that God’s creative activity was described in the Bible within an seximal framework. Hence, there are six days of creation.

 

In Mesopotamian literature, the number seven, one above six, was considered to be a number reflecting perfection. Consider, for example, the following passage from the Gilgamesh myth:

 

For six days and [?] nights

The wind blew, flood and tempest overwhelmed the land;

When the seventh day arrived the tempest, flood and onslaught

Which had struggled like a woman in labour, blew themselves out (?). . . .

When the seventh day arrived,

I put out and released a dove.

The dove went; it came back,

For no perching place was visible to it, and it turned round.2

 

Since God is absolute perfection, the number seven is found throughout the Bible in sentences relating to both Elokim and YKVK and this number often becomes a code for the involvement of God.  

 

In the beginning of the Book of Genesis, the number seven is associated mainly with Elokim. Hence, the seventh day of the week is sanctified by Elokim as the Sabbath day. It is in sentences involving Elokim that Noah waits seven days before setting foot in the ark, and it is in an Elokim-section that the birds are sent in seven day periods seeking land. These number associations within the story imply that God is involved in all that is transpiring.

​

Important key words repeated seven times may be found within paragraphs and this also signifies the involvement of God. For example, the most important word in the following paragraph is the word “covenant” and it is found seven times:3

​

And Elokim spoke to Noah, and to his sons with him, saying: “And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the bird, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; nor shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; nor shall there anymore be a flood to destroy the earth.” And Elokim said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for everlasting generations. I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud. And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between Elokim and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.” And Elokim said to Noah: “This is the sign of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.” (Genesis 9:8-17)

 

The message of this inconspicuous repetition of a word may well be that the rainbow is part of the natural world, but now that it is a symbol of Elokim’s covenant it becomes elevated one step above the natural and now serves a loftier purpose.

​

The number forty is found a number of times in the Bible and is associated exclusively with YHWH. Moses was twice secluded with God for 40 days on Mount Sinai. The Children of Israel wandered for 40 years in the wilderness. The number 40 is indicative of a very strong and tangible relationship between man and the Divine from a spiritual or physical perspective. Hence, YKWK shuts up Noah within the ark for 40 days.  A contrast may also be intended here between the supernatural aspects of the 40-day period of the flood involving YKVK and the natural aspects of the 150-day (6 x 25) period of flooding engineered by Elokim. These number associations are not incidental to the story but an integral aspect of the account.

 

Another literary form used in the Noah story is a chiastic structure, i.e., sentences with mirror image symmetry. In the excerpts below it can be seen that the flood develops and recedes in relation to days 7, 40 and 150.

 

And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. (Genesis 7:10). . . .  And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights”(Genesis 7:17). . . .  And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days (Genesis 7:24).

 

When the flood dissipates, the order of the days is reversed:

 

And the waters then receded from upon the earth, receding continuously; and the waters diminished after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. (Genesis 8:3)  ……  And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made (Genesis 8:6)…… And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. (Genesis 8:10) …… And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which did not return back to him anymore. (Genesis 8:12)

 

This chiasmus indicates that just as Elokim orchestrated the beginning of the flood so also He organized its resolution.

​

An even more elaborate chiastic structure has been pointed out for the flood story as below,4 with the important center of the chiasmus (i.e. the tip of the horizontal pyramid) being the following summarizing verse:

​

God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the animals that were with him in the ark (Genesis 8:1).

 

This chiasmus again shows God’s total involvement in every aspect of the flood from its beginning to end:   

 

A1. Noah  (6:10)  [P]

B1.   Shem, Ham and Japheth (6:10)  [P]

C1.       Ark to be built (6:14-16)  [P]

D1.            Flood announced (6:17)  [P]

E1.               Covenant with Noah (6:18-20)  [P]

F1.                  Food in the ark (6:21)  [P]

G1.                   Command to enter ark (7:1-3)  [J]

H1.                       7 days waiting for the flood (7:4-5)  [J]

I1.                           7 days waiting for the flood (7-10)  [J]

J1.                                Entry to ark (7:11-15)  [J and P]

K1.                                   Yahweh shuts Noah in (7:16)   [J and P]

L1.                                        40 days flood (7:17a)   [J]

M1.                                           Waters increase (7:17b-18)  [J and P]

N1.                                                Mountains covered (7:19-20)   [P]

O1.                                                   150 days waters prevail (7:21-24) [P]

P1.                                                         GOD REMEMBERS NOAH (8:1)   [P]

O2.                                                    150 days waters abate (8:3)   [P]

N2.                                                 Mountain tops visible (8:4-5)

M2.                                              Waters abate (8:5)   [P]

L2.                                         40 days (end of) (8:6a)   [J]

K2.                                     Noah opens window of ark (8:6b)   [J]

J2.                                   Raven and dove leave ark (8:7-9)   [J]

I2.                                7 days waiting for waters to subside (8:10-11)   [J]

H2.                            7 days waiting for waters to subside (8:12-13)  [J and P]

G2.                        Command to leave ark (8:15-17)  [P]

F2.                      Food outside ark (9:1-4)   [P]

E2.                Covenant with all flesh (9:8-10)  [P]

D2.      No flood in the future (9:11-17)  [P]

C2.    Ark (9:18a)   [J]

B2.   Shem, Ham and Japheth (9:18b)   [J]

A2. Noah (9:19)   [J]

 

I have indicated in square brackets the proposed sources of these sentences according to the Documentary Hypothesis, and this is the topic to which we will now turn.

 

Reconnecting the pieces of the Documentary Hypothesis

 

The Greek translation of the Bible, the Septuagint, introduced the Bible to the Western world, and the Bible would eventually become one of the foundations of Christianity and Christian culture.

 

Nevertheless, the Bible was written exclusively for the Jewish people and they were the ones who extracted meaning from its pages. At least initially, source criticism was a non-Jewish project that questioned what the Jews had extracted from their Torah over the centuries. 

 

As discussed in the chapter on “The names of God in the Bible” and briefly reviewed her, it was Julius Welhausen, living in Germany in the 19th century, who brought together the ideas in source criticism that had been developing over the previous centuries. He proposed that the Pentateuch was derived from four primary sources, a Jahwist source (J source) that used exclusively the name YKVK and which was considered to have been written in the southern Kingdom of Judah in about 950 BCE; an Elohist (E) source that used the name Elokim and was written in about 850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel; a Deuteronomist source (D source) written in about 600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform; while much of the remainder of the Torah was from a Priestly source (P source) written in about 500 BCE by Aaronic priests in exile in Babylon. Others have argued that the Priestly source was composed much earlier during the First Temple period. The God of the Priestly source reveals himself in stages, first as Elokim, then to Abraham as Kel Shaddai, and finally to Moses as YKVK.  

Each of these sources reflects a perspective germane to the writers of that era, and they were joined together by a redactor to produce the Pentateuch we recognize today.

​

As discussed in the chapter “Is the second creation story factual or allegorical?”, there are significant differences between the two creation accounts in Genesis. The Documentary Hypothesis suggests that this is because they come from different sources. The first creation story is derived from a Priestly source (P), while the second creation story comes from a Jahwist (J) source. This is why chapter 1 of Genesis uses the name Elokim for the name of God while the second creation story in Genesis chapter 2 uses predominantly the Tetragrammaton linked together with Elokim as YKVK Elokim.  

 

The Noah story is significant because it is the first account in the Bible to contain a mixture of YKVK and Elokim sentences within the same story. It is therefore regarded by biblical critics as a patchwork of P and J sources. They also point out that it is possible to prize apart these two sources to reveal the original P and J flood stories, the P flood story containing the name Elokim and the J story the Tetragrammaton. Consider, for example, the following “two accounts” of God’s decision to bring about a flood, shown first as the composite story and then as two separated stories: 

​

5. And YKVK saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6. And YKVK regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7. And YKVK said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, to creeping things, and the birds of the air; for I regret having made them. 8. And Noah found grace in the eyes of YKVK. 9. These are the generations of Noah; Noah was a righteous man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with Elokim. 10. And Noah fathered three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11. And the earth had become corrupt before Elokim, and the earth was filled with corruption. 12. And Elokim looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. 13. And Elokim said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before me; for the earth is filled with corruption through them; and, behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. 14. Make yourself an ark of gopher wood ……..” (Genesis 6:5-13)

 

PROPOSED “YAHWIST” SOURCE:    

6:5. And YKVK saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6. And YKVK regretted   that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7. And YKVK said: “I will destroy man whom I have created from    the face of the earth; both man, and beast, to creeping things, and the birds of the air; for I regret having made them.” 8. And Noah found grace in the eyes of YKVK. 7.1 Then YKVK said  to Noah: Go into the ark you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. . . .

​

PROPOSED “PRIESTLY” SOURCE:

6:9. These are the generations of Noah; Noah was a righteous man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with Elokim. 10. And Noah fathered three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11. And the earth had become corrupt before Elokim, and the earth was filled with corruption. 12. And Elokim looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. 13. And Elokim said to Noah: “The end of all flesh has come before me; for the earth is filled with corruption through them; and, behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. 14. Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. . .  

 

Clearly, there is something different about these two “sources” as they wind their way through the Noah narrative. However, I propose that this is because the Torah is describing two types of relationships between God and man with respect to the destruction of the world and the rescue of Noah. 

​

Elokim is a transcendent God who created the universe and hallowed the Sabbath. He is also the God of all humanity. YKVK is an immanent God who seeks relationships with humanity.  

 

In the “J” passage above, YKVK approaches man, discerns his thoughts and recognizes his corruption. Noah has developed a relationship with YKVK based on his spirituality and deeds, and his righteousness makes him worthy to be saved. Elokim, on the other hand, looks down on the world from the heavens above. A world that is totally corrupt cannot endure. Noah is seen by Elokim not in terms of developing a relationship, but with respect to his suitability for repopulating the earth. The flood story is, in the main, a passage about God’s judging of humanity and is therefore predominantly an “Elokim” account.  

 

Another passage from the flood story thought by Biblical critics to be derived from P and J sources is worth examining since contradictions within the text do seem to indicate different textual sources.  

 

In a presumed P source, Noah is asked to bring two animals from each species into the ark, whereas in a subsequent J source he is requested to bring seven pairs of each pure animal and one pair of each impure animal. Biblical critics view the redactor as having such reverence for his original sources that joining them together was considered to be of greater importance than eliminating obvious contradictions:

 

PROPOSED “PRIESTLY” SOURCE: 

6;18. “But with you will I establish my covenant;   and you shall come into the ark, you, and your sons,  and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shall you bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20. Of birds after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every sort shall come to you, to keep them alive. 21. And take to you of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to you; and it shall be for food for you, and for them.” 22. Thus did Noah; according to all that Elokim commanded him, so  did he.  

 

PROPOSED “YAHWIST” SOURCE:    

7:1. Then YKVK said to Noah: “Come you and all your house into the ark; for you have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2. Of every clean beast you shall take to you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of beasts that are not clean one pair, the male and his female. 3. Of birds also of the air by seven pairs, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4. For in another seven days I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 5. And Noah did according to all that YKVK had commanded him.

 

However, it is suggested that this is an incorrect analysis of this passage. There are not two textual sources here but one. The reason for the apparent contradictions is that the YKVK and Elokim aspects of God have different agendas.

​

With but one exception, all sacrifices in the Pentateuch are offered to YKVK.  This makes considerable sense, since a sacrifice is a means of drawing close to an immanent Deity. The single exception is with respect to Jethro and his sacrifice highlights the rule.5 Hence, following his deliverance from the Flood, Noah offers sacrifices to YKVK:6

​

Then Noah built an altar to YKVK, and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Genesis 8:20).

 

With this understanding, it can be seen that there is no contradiction in the number of animals brought into the ark. Elokim is concerned about the general providence of the world and directs all animals to come in pairs of their own accord to the ark and Noah brings them into the ark as instructed (Genesis 6:20). In addition, YKVK tells Noah that he himself collect and bring into the ark seven pairs of pure animals for future sacrifices:

 

6:18.“But with you will I establish my covenant; and you shall come into the ark, you, and your sons, and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shall you bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20. Of birds after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every sort shall come to you, to keep them alive. 21. And take to you of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to you; and it shall be for food for you, and for them.” 22. Thus did Noah; according to all that Elokim commanded him, so did he. 7:1. Then YKVK said to Noah: “Come you and all your house into the ark; for you have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 2. Of every clean beast you shall take to you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of beasts that are not clean one pair, the male and his female. 3. Of birds also of the air by seven pairs, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4. For in another seven days I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth”. 5. And Noah did according to all that YKVK had commanded him (Genesis 6:18-7:5).

 

In general, the presumed redactor of the Biblical critics limited his “cut and paste” jobs to complete sentences, and it is unusual for the two names of God to be found within a single sentence. When it occurs, it is quite illuminating:

​

And those who went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as Elokim had commanded him; and YKVK closed him in.” (Genesis 7:16).

 

The Documentary Hypothesis would regard this is an example of the redactor joining together J and P phrases within a single sentence to maintain the flow of the narrative. However, there is an alternative explanation. This verse is a transitional verse. The transcendent God Elokim has instructed Noah to bring all animals into the ark, but it is YHVH who will now care for Noah as the earth reverts to its primeval beginnings. Noah and his family are saved in a rudderless ark, without a crew, totally dependent on the protection of YKVK. It is appropriate, therefore, that YKVK, in an embracing manner, shuts him into the ark.

 

There still remains a major challenge to a unitary account and this is that the “two” flood stories seem to be of different durations — the flood of the J source lasting for only 40 days while the P flood story lasting 150 days:

​

PROPOSED “YAHWIST SOURCE”:

(7:17). And the flood was on the earth forty days, and the waters increased and raised the ark and it was lifted above the earth; (22). All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life died, of everything that was on dry land, died. (23). And He wiped out all existence that was on the face of the ground – from man to animals to creeping things and to the bird of the heavens; and they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah survived and those with him in the ark. (8:2). And the rain from heaven was restrained. 

 

PROPOSED “PRIESTLY SOURCE”:

(7:18). The waters strengthened and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark drifted upon the surface of the waters. (19). And the waters strengthened very much upon the earth, all the high mountains which are under the entire heavens were covered. (20). Fifteen amos above did the waters strengthen and the mountains were covered.  (21). And all flesh that moves upon the earth expired – among the birds, the animals, the beasts, and all the creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all mankind. (24). And the waters strengthened on the earth a hundred and fifty days. (8:1) Elokim remembered Noah and all the beasts and the animals that were with him in the ark, and Elokim caused a spirit to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided. (2). The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed (3). And the waters diminished at the end of a hundred and fifty days. (4). And the ark came to rest in the seventh month, on the seventeenth of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat…….

 

The Biblical timeline of the flood has puzzled Biblical exegetes throughout the ages. Discussions can be found in the Midrash and Talmud,7 and the topic is discussed extensively by Medieval biblical commentators such as Rashi and Nachmanides, albeit without consensus.8 An explanation that hangs well together is provided by the Biblical scholar Cassuto. Because his explanation is somewhat complex, it is discussed in detail in the reference section.9

 

One needs to appreciate what Cassuto has achieved. He has integrated the 40 days of a J source with the 150 days of a P source and shown that they both fit neatly into the dating provided by the Torah. 

Moreover, note that J sentences usually avoid dates. Also, how eviscerated the dating system becomes when P verses stand alone. Moreover, in the J version, God discusses in His heart that He will never again destroy every living creature but makes no formal commitment to mankind. This covenant is only present in the P version. Hence, it is only with the “cut and paste” activities of the so-called redactor that purpose is brought back to the story.

​

More support for the unity of this story is the two chiastic structures discussed in the previous section, which are a complete mix of P and J sources.

 

Could a redactor have juggled these J and P sources to produce a story with such a natural flow and elegance? It is possible – but unlikely.

​

Another strong argument against source critique ideas as it pertains to the Noah story is Mesopotamian mythology! The Noah story is based on a mythic story and much of its details are followed quite closely. However, once the story is split into J and P sources most of this semblance is lost. For example, both the Gilgamesh and Atrahasis myths mention the hero offering a sacrifice on his deliverance. However, this is not present in the P version.  

​

Many other general arguments can be raised against biblical criticism. This hypothesis assumes that when the redactor made his composite edition, the entire nation immediately accepted it. This is a highly unlikely scenario. Incorporating a new portion into the Torah may not be too much of a challenge, but getting it accepted is another story entirely. Moses needed a sound and light show on Mount Sinai and the guest appearance of God Himself to convince the people of his version of the Bible. The Jewish people are natural doubters.  

​

There is, moreover, a specific Biblical prohibition against adding or subtracting to the Torah. It is very difficult to believe that God-fearing Jews would deliberately violate this command just to have everyone’s favorite part of the Five Books of Moses included in a final version.  

 

In one of his popular books, the influential Bible critic Richard Friedman notes that the Torah contains a pleasing “balance between the personal and the transcendent quality of the Deity.” To Friedman this is coincidental and occurred with no intention on the part of the redactor.9 The reality is very different. This balance is a fundamental construct of the Torah.

 

All this, however, does lead to a fundamental question — why is the Bible, and particularly the Book of Genesis, written in this unusual way using a mixture of YKVK and Elokim sentences? 

​

Two answers are suggested.

​

There are two strains within Judaism, tribal and its universal mission to be priests to all humanity. These are reflected in the two names of God. Abraham was the forefather of the Jewish people, but his name also means the father of a multitude of people.  It is not surprising, therefore, that the two names of God are prominent in the chapters about him The story of Noah is the first time in the Torah that these two concepts are molded together in a single narrative.

 

Second, a single Deity being both immanent and transcendent at one and the same time would have been a radically new concept in the ancient world. In our own time, we have no difficulty in oscillating between these two perceptions of God because we are so familiar with both. An orthodox Jews can stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon in awe at Elokim’s creative powers, and at the very next moment pray towards YKVK the afternoon prayers without feeling any dissonance. This would not have been the case in the ancient world. The world needed to be educated about these two aspects of God. The Bible is the workbook. 

 

And it was successful!

 

A new stage in the moral development of civilization

 

A passage in the Noah story has puzzled exegetes throughout the centuries since it seems to imply that nothing changed after the flood, including man’s propensity to wickedness:  

 

YKVK smelled the pleasing aroma and YKVK said in his heart: I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing, as I have done.  Continuously, all the days of the earth, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease (Genesis 8:21-22). 

 

The Biblical commentary the Akeida formulates the problem in this way:

 

If man’s bad qualities brought about the flood in the past, why should they not do so in the future?  Does God then play favorites?” 

​

One answer given by Midrashic and later commentators is that there were changes in the nature of the world after the flood that limited man’s ability to sin.10 However, no such changes are mentioned in the text other than that the fear of man would now be upon the animal kingdom, and this hardly seems relevant to our question (Genesis 9:2-3). 

 

To my mind, the most satisfactory explanation is that the aftermath of the flood sets the scene for a new stage in the moral development of mankind. One particular family will flourish, their progeny will fill the earth and one their branches will provide moral guidance to mankind.  

​

An introduction to this extended family comes with the following albeit somewhat enigmatic passage about a nighttime episode after the flood in which Noah’s children noticed their father asleep naked in bed:

​

Noah awoke from his wine and realized what his younger son had done to him. And he said: “Cursed is Canaan, a slave of slave shall he be to his brothers.” And he said: “Blessed is YKVK, the God of Shem, and Canaan shall be a slave to them. May Elokim extend Japheth, and may He/he dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be a slave to them” (Genesis 9:24). 

 

Many questions can be asked about these verses. It was the youngest brother Ham who saw his father naked and he was the one who told his two brothers (and possibly mocked his father in front of them). Shem and Japheth subsequently covered up their father. What did Ham do to his father and why did Noah curse his grandson, Canaan, who seemingly had nothing to do with this evening episode? 

 

There is the sense when reading this passage that what happened that night was so horrific that the Torah is loath to elaborate on it. One Midrash suggests that his son castrated him. Another that he sodomized him.11 

 

A further question — do individuals living at the time of the Bible really have the power to curse people, and why would God permit such a curse to be fulfilled? 

 

An alternative suggestion is that Noah’s words were not a curse at all but a prophecy.12 Noah does not say: “Canaan will be cursed" but “Canaan is cursed.” It is a fact — Canaan and his progeny are cursed.  

The Bible is pointing out that there is something morally abhorrent about the practices of Ham and his descendants, especially those of the Canaanites. In fact, these practices are so abhorrent that the Bible feels it inappropriate to dwell upon them. It is likely related very much to their sexual practices.  

 

The aberrant sexual practices of the Canaanites reached their peak at the time of the Israeli conquest, but were already evident in their ancestor Ham. Even at the time of Abraham, pockets of extreme immorality existed amongst the Canaanites. This is illustrated by the reception the three angels receive when they arrived in the Canaanite city of Sodom to inform Lot that his city and the neighboring city of Gomorrah were about to be destroyed and that he and his family should immediately flee: 

​

They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the people of Sodom, converged upon the house, from young to old, all the people from the end. And they called to Lot and said to him: “Where are the men who came to you tonight?  Bring them out to us that we may know them” (Genesis 14:4-5).

 

This was not just a few individuals converging on Lot’s house to “know” (i.e. sodomize) the visiting angels, but “all” the people of the city. Sodom was a city that was completely sexually perverted.

 

Another of Noah’s sons was Japheth, the father of the Greek people:

​

“May Elokim extend Japheth, and may He dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be a slave to them” (Genesis 9:27).

 

Japheth’s relationship to Elokim is not described in the pages of the Bible. However, the Greek philosopher Aristotle develops the notion of a “primary cause,” although he was not familiar with the idea of Divine providence. With the appearance of Christianity in the Roman empire, there is further refinement in the Western perception of Elokim. Nevertheless, the intensity of this relationship will not be the same as that of Shem’s relationship with Elokim, even to the extent of his tents. However, Shem’s continuing relationship with God will be best expressed through the name YKVK.  

​

Says Noah, continuing in a prophetic vein:  

 

“Blessed is YKVK, the G-d of Shem. . . .”  (Genesis 9:26)

 

Shem and his descendants will possess a unique perception of YKVK, the God of relationships. This is the aspect of God what will soon be revealed to Abraham and his offspring, and will eventually be revealed to Moses at the burning bush as the God of the Israelite people. 

​

Shem’s appearance on the world stage will initiate a new stage in the moral development of mankind. Shem is the antidote to the depravity of the generation of the flood. Immorality and unrighteousness will always exist in the world since “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 21). But there is now an antidote to the natural tendencies of the world — a family destined to impart sparks of righteousness. 

​

Shem’s characteristics did not come out of the blue, but were already evident in his father Noah, the first-born son of Lemech.

 

Even from birth, Noah, had a special significance to his father: 

 

And he [Lemach] called his name Noah (Noach) (נֹחַ) saying: “This one will comfort us (yenachamenu) (יְנַחֲמֵנו) from our work and from the toil of our hands, from the ground which YKVK had cursed” (Genesis 5:29).

 

The name Noah (Noach) is derived from the root nichem (נחם), and has the meaning of “to comfort.” However, it also has another meaning of “to regret, grieve or be sorry.” That the same word has such different meanings may seem strange at first glance, but does have logic. One derives comfort from something that starts off as undesirable and that one regrets. The Torah will play on both these meanings.  

​

“I will dissolve Man whom I created from upon the face of the earth ­— from man to animal, to creeping things, and to birds of the sky; for I regret (nichamti) (נִחַמְתִּי) My having made them. And Noah (Noach) (וְנֹחַ) found grace (chen) (חֵן) in the eyes of YKVK.” (Genesis 6:7-8)

 

Lemech assumed that the relief and comfort this special son was destined to provide related just to his family. However, God saw matters differently. This Noah had the potential to bring relief and comfort to the entire world. 

 

There is another world play here. The letters of the word Noah (Noach) (נֹחַ) are the reverse of “chen” (חֵן) (grace). Noah deserved to provide “comfort” to the world because he found grace in the eyes of YKVK.  

 

The hallmark of Noah was righteousness in a generation totally devoid of righteousness. 

 

Then YKVK said to Noah: “Come to the ark, you and all your household, for it is you that I have seen to be righteous before Me in this generation” (Genesis 7:1).

 

Moreover, within several generations, there will be a new chapter in the history of the descendants of Shem when Abraham will receive a call from YKVK to leave his homeland and make his way to Israel to become the progenitor of a nation destined to become a moral beacon to the rest of humanity. 

Conclusions

 

It is highly likely that the story of Noah and his flood is based on a Mesopotamian flood story.  In the culture of Mesopotamia, no new religion could be promoted without a flood story. The flood story devised by the Bible was used to negate the pagan ideas of the surrounding cultures and to promote new and radical religious ideas – the power of a single God over nature’s elements, the importance of righteousness for the continuing existence of humanity, and the role of Shem’s descendants for the moral future of mankind. 

 

Does this mean that Noah was a fictitious character and that the Torah deliberately made up history to incorporate this fictitious person? This is unlikely. People at that time were familiar with the Gilgamesh myth and would have readily appreciated the intention of the Torah. Moreover, it is likely that an exceptionally righteous person named Noah did exist in ancient times and that his offspring populated all or much of the Near East. This also is similar to the Gilgamesh myth, which is based on a great, true-life individual living at the beginnings of civilization.  

 

Nevertheless, it is notable that the Pentateuch does not refer again to Noah, whereas the merit of the forefathers is mentioned time after time. Their historicity is of a very different nature to that of Noah’s.

 

References

1.   The Names of God Rabbi in The Koren Siddur by Sir Jonathan Sacks, pxiv, Koren Publishers, Jerusalem, Israel, First Hebrew/ English Edition, 2009. 

2.   Gilgamesh, tablet XI in Myths from Mesopotamia. Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh and Others by Stephanie Dalley. iv, p113-114, Oxford University Press, Revised edition 2000.

3.   Twelfth paragraph: the Sign of the Covenant in A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part Two. From Noah to Abraham by U Cassuto, p134, First English Edition, The Magnes Press, P.O. Box 7695, Jerusalem 91076, Israel.

4.   Wenham Gordon J. The coherence of the flood narrative. VT 28 (1977); 336-348, and discussed in Isaac M Kikawada and Arthur Quinn. A Provocative Challenge to the Documentary Hypothesis. Before Abraham Was. Chapter IV, One Noah, One Flood, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, original edition 1985.

5. Lecture 3, More about the Divine Names in the Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, p40, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York, 2006. Also, Sifre Numbers 143.

       In the Book of Exodus, following the delivery of the Israelites from Egypt, Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses and a priest of Midian, arrives at the Sinai encampment together with Moses’ wife and two children: 

 

And Jethro said: “Blessed be YKVK, who has saved you from the hand of the Egyptians, and from the hand of Pharaoh, who has saved the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. Now I know that YKVK is greater than all gods; for in the thing where they dealt proudly, He was above them. And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for Elokim; and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before Elokim. (Exodus 18:12)

      

It would seem as if Jethro recognizes YKVK as the God of Israel who delivered them from Egypt.  In the midrashic literature he is considered to have converted to Judaism (Rashi to Exodus 18:1). However, the names of God used in this passage suggest something different.  Jethro cannot wrench himself away from his background and his position in Midian as priest. In his worship to God, Jethro’s thoughts are not to the national God of Israel, but to Elokim, the universal God of mankind.  What the Bible is describing here is the first monotheistic interfaith prayer meeting in human history!  

     

There is, however, one surprising omission from this gathering.  Aaron and the elders are present, but Moses, Jethro’s son-in-law, is not mentioned as being at the gathering. There was good reason for this. Moses was on a different spiritual plane to everyone around him. How could a person with direct communication with YKVK sacrifice to a distant, universal God?  Moses knew Jethro well from the years he had been in his house. His father-in-law would never change, which is why Moses excused himself.   (According to Rashi to Exodus 18:12 based on a Mechilta, Moses was serving the meal to his father-in-law, and this is why he is not mentioned).

6.   Introduction 6 in A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part Two. From Noah to Abraham, A Commentary on Genesis V19-XI32 by U Cassuto, p36, First English Edition, The Magnes Press, P.O. Box 7695, Jerusalem 91076, Israel.

7.   Midrash Genesis Rabah 33:7 assumes that the 150 days follow the first 40 days of flooding. However, if this were the case, the ark would have rested on Mount Ararat too early, on the 17th of the 7th month, when the waters were still engorging. The Midrash resolves this problem by reinterpreting the seventh month to mean not the 7th month of the year, but the 7th month from the beginning of the flood, which would be the 17th day of the 9th month, i.e., one month later. Following a strict lunar calendar, the flood would then have ended on the 1st of the 9th month, and during this 16-day period the waters would have subsided sufficiently for the ark to come to rest on Mount Ararat.

8.   Nachaminides to Genesis 8:5. Nachmanides has a problem with the interpretation of Genesis Rabah since it seems to deviate from the plain meaning of the text, especially as the midrash will go back to using the normal months of the year a few verses later (Genesis 8:13). This leads him to the interpretation that the 40 days of the flood are included within the 150 days. Hence, the rain commenced on the 17th of the 2nd month and 150 days later (i.e., 5 months later) on the 17th of the 7th month the ark came to rest. On that very day “God caused a spirit to pass over the earth and the waters subsided” (Genesis 8:1), with the waters subsiding from being 15 amos above the mountains to an amount sufficient for the ark to come to rest on Mount Ararat. Nachmanides assumes that the waters started to abate from the time the ark rested on Mount Ararat.  

9.   The Chronology of the Flood, in A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part Two. From Noah to Abraham, A Commentary on Genesis V19-XI32 by U Cassuto, p43, First English Edition, The Magnes Press, P.O. Box 7695, Jerusalem 91076, Israel. 

 

Cassuto uses the dates mentioned in the Bible for elucidating his timeline. Hence, we read: “And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the waters had dried from upon the earth” (Genesis 8:13), and this section continues: “And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dried [completely].” (Genesis 8:14). The midrash Bereishis Rabba resolves the contradiction between these two sentences, in that the drying of the earth seems to be reported as occurring on two different dates, by explaining that on the first day of the first month there was still a crust of mud on the earth making it difficult for Noah and his family to leave the ark. (Bereishis Rabba 33:7. See also Rashi to Genesis 8:13). Only by the 27th day of the second month was the earth sufficiently dry for them to step outside. There is no reason to reject this explanation. But why the first day of the first month in Genesis 8:13? Prior to the Exodus, this date was Rosh Hashona (literally the Head of the Year), the Jewish festival commemorating the creation of the world;22 and it is likely that the Bible is implying here that with the survival of Noah and his sons the earth was destined for a new beginning. The 27th day of the 2nd month is exactly one solar year after the flood began, suggesting perhaps that God was totally in control of the natural elements both by solar and lunar dating. (Rashi to Genesis 8:14. A regular solar year is 365 days. A regular lunar year, in which 6 months have 29 days each and 6 months have 30 days each, contains 354 days).

      Cassuto’s explanation makes a number of assumptions. Like Nachmanides, he assumes that the forty period of the flood is included within the 150 days. He also assumes that this 150-day period is equivalent to five 30-day lunar months. In actuality, 5 lunar months is 147 days (and the Talmudic explanation does account for the days in this manner). He also assumes that the “fountains of the deep” and the “windows of the heaven” were closed at the end of 40 days, i.e., on the 27th day of the third month. During the first 40 days the full strength of the flood was maintained and was sufficient to cover the mountaintops to a depth of 15 amos (Genesis 7:20). He also suggests that the word vayigburu in Genesis 7:24 means not that the waters strengthened but that the waters prevailed, i.e., that the waters had sufficient power that they did not decline appreciably until after the 150-day period had passed. Nevertheless, during these 150 days the waters were already receding back into the “tehom (depths),” so that by the end of the 150-day period they had diminished sufficiently for the ark to rest upon a mountaintop. This is exactly five months from the onset of the Flood.  He also assumes that the birds were sent out at seven-day intervals. The text does not explicitly state that the dove was first sent out seven days after a raven had been sent out, although the Bible does mention that he waited yet another seven days (Genesis 8:10) with respect to sending out the dove a second time. Note in particular the 7th line of the table below (marked by an asterisk) in which the raven from a P source is sent out exactly 40 days from the tops of the mountains becoming visible, which also is a P source. This 40-day period is found in a J sentence which is part of the chiastic structure and is also a J number. 

 

9.   Chapter 14 The World that the Bible Produced in Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman, HarperCollins Publishers, 1997. (For imaginative political intrigue - this is excellent reading.) 

10. Based on the Bible’s comments about the consistency of the seasons, the midrash Bereishis Rabba 34 suggests that climatic changes after the flood would have the effect of limiting man’s ability to sin, since he would no longer be able to move swiftly from one part of the world to the other. Another change mentioned in the Torah is that after the flood man was permitted to eat meat, whereas previously he had been a vegetarian. This may relate to a change in man’s role in the world, in that he no longer has complete sovereignty over the animal world, and to an extent is now part of it.  Whether these changes would be sufficient to prevent another flood situation is questionable.

11.  Rashi to Genesis 9:22 based on TB Sanhedrin 70a.

12. The Story of Cain and Abel, Introduction, p192 in “A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One. From Adam to Noah” by U Cassuto, p192, First English Edition, The Magnes Press, P.O. Box 7695, Jerusalem 91076, Israel.