Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

An International Journal of Nordic Theology

ISSN: 0901-8328 (Print) 1502-7244 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sold20

Genesis 6,5-9,17: A Rewritten Babylonian Flood

Myth

Amanda Norsker

To cite this article: Amanda Norsker (2015) Genesis 6,5-9,17: A Rewritten Babylonian Flood Myth,
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 29:1, 55-62, DOI: 10.1080/09018328.2015.1025545

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2015.1025545

Published online: 17 Apr 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 762

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sold20

Download by: [FU Berlin] Date: 30 July 2017, At: 13:42

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 2015
Vol. 29, No. 1, 55 62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2015.1025545

Genesis 6,5-9,17
A Rewritten Babylonian Flood Myth

Amanda Norsker
Arendalsgade 8, 2. th.2100 Copenhagen
amanda.norsker@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: This is a short comparative reading of the flood stories in Atra-

asis III, Gilgamesh XI and Genesis 6-9, which contains a look at the
similarities in structure and the nature of some differences of the Babylonian
and Hebrew narrative and philological attention to the sending of birds motif
in Gilgamesh XI 146-155 and Genesis 8,6-12. This is done to present some of
the clearest evidence of the Genesis account being a rewriting of the
Babylonian flood myths based on a familiarity with a written version of the
Gilgamesh flood story.
Key words: Story of the Flood, Gilgamesh epos, Atraasis

When reading tablet XI of The Epic of Gilgamesh or Atra-asis tablet III, the
similarities between these flood myths and Genesis 6,5-9,17 are obvious.
Although the three stories differ in many ways, there are some resemblances
in the structural order of events, and some passages are strikingly similar.
Arguably, the motifs of the story of the flood in Genesis and its narrative
structure can be fully understood only when read in its inter-textual context:
the Babylonian flood myth found, amongst others, in Gilgamesh and Atra-
asis. Oral tradition, fragments, and different versions of the same story
render the Near Eastern flood myths one interwoven tradition and somewhat
inseparable in terms of date and content. Nevertheless, it is not at all
improbable, and can be useful to assume, that Gilgamesh XI has been
strongly influenced by Atra-asis, and that the writers of Genesis 6,5-9,17
had knowledge of the Gilgamesh myth, as well. It is already commonly
accepted that the flood story of Gilgamesh XI is a rewritten version of the
deluge account in Atra-asis III.1 Looking at the similarities of the structure
of the narrative and similar passages, it can be argued that the story in
Genesis 6,5-9,17 is a part of this tradition of retelling, and reinventing, the
story and is yet another rewriting of the Babylonian flood myth. This is
especially evident when comparing the common paragraph, the sending of

1. For evidence of this, see The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, Jeffrey H. Tigay
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982).

2015 The Editors of the Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

56 Amanda Norsker

birds, in Gilgamesh XI,146-155 and Genesis 8,6-12, along with the

subsequent offering to the gods/Yahweh in Gilgamesh XI,156-162 and
Genesis 8,20-21. This article will be using the three texts as read in Papolas
Atra-asis, the Sin Leque Unini version of Gilgamesh XI and Gen 6,5-9,17 in
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.2

Three Variations of One Myth

Even to the casual reader of the three narratives a close connection between
the storylines and structures of the texts is apparent; the stories have the same
basic sequence of events: a god warns the hero of the coming flood, the ark is
built, the flood hits and stops again, the hero uses birds to test whether the
water is receding, he brings an offering before the gods/Yahweh, who smell
the offering and regret bringing the flood.3 This fundamental structure alone
is evidence that these myths have not sprung to life independent of each other.
In addition to the common features, there are, of course, passages from the
Babylonian myths that are not found in Genesis, and some of these are main
events in the Babylonian storyline. However, this does not necessarily
indicate a large gap or distance between those myths and the formation of the
Genesis narrative, since most dissimilarities can be explained by the different
traditions in which the myths are found.
For example, both Enki (in Atra-asis), Ea (in Gilgamesh) and Yahweh
warns a human about the flood and instructs him to build an ark. The heroes
of Atra-asis and Gilgamesh are not chosen for any apparent reason, other
than being the servant of the god, but in Genesis the reason for picking that
particular human is clear and empasised: Noah is a righteous man (Gen 6,9

).
The importance of Noahs righteousness has its basis in Yahwehs
motive for bringing the flood: the humans have become evil and the earth is
corrupted.4 Therefore, a man worth saving must be the one man that did not
follow evil ways, but walked with God (Gen 6,9  

). In the
Babylonian myths, however, the grounds for the flood are not the evil of
humans but their noise. This is not a part of the actual stories of the flood, but
precedes them in tablet I of Atra-asis: the humans have become numerous
and are making too much noise, which disturbs Enlil and he cannot sleep. He
tries to solve his problem by sending plagues and in other ways just thin out
the human race, but his plans are prevented time and time again by Enki, who
instructs his servant in how to avert Enlils attempts. Therefore, the gods see

2. W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard, Atra-ass: the Babylonian story of the flood . M.
Civil, With The Sumerian flood story (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1999 [Oxford University
Press, 1969]), Parpola, Simo, The Standard Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh (State
Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts, I; Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project, 1997), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Fnfte, verbesserte Auflage; Stutt-
gart: Deutche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997 [1977]).
3. With the exception in Atra-asis that the god does not regret the flood following
the offering, but earlier in the text.
4. Gen 6,5 and 6,11.
 Genesis 6,5-9,17 57

no other way than to destroy all of humanity and they decide to send a flood.5
These two different reasons for the flood can be explained by the view on
humanity within each tradition. Especially the creation myth in Genesis is
significant for understanding the differentiation from the Babylonian myths
and the view of humanity in Gen 6,5-9,17. Yahweh has created man in his
own image and he has blessed them and told them to be many and fill the
earth (Gen 1,28). Even though Gen 6,6-7 states that Yahweh regrets creating
humans, human life is given value in creation. Therefore, there must be
provided a sensible reason for Yahweh wanting to exterminate his creatures;
creating them cannot simply be a mistake. The Babylonian myths, however,
are essentially tales of the gods, who do not have concerns with eradicating
humanity, simply because they are displeasing them. Creation of man is, in
this tradition, done in an effort to relieve the Anunnaki from their workload.6
Similarly, the assembly of the gods, which is a very large part of both
Atra-asis and Gilgamesh XI, does not figure in the Genesis narrative for
obvious reasons: with whom should Yahweh assemble? Thus, the conditions
of the collected narrative of the Hebrew Bible are monotheistic, maybe in
some sense a monolatric, writing, can be the cause of the very different look
of Genesis 6,5-9,17 compared to its Babylonian parallel stories.

From Tumultuous to Clean and Simple

As is evident from these summaries, Genesis 6,5-9,17 and Atra-asis III
have only parallel passages which are also contained in Gilgamesh XI,
whereas Gilgamesh XI shares motifs with both Atra-asis and Genesis that
are not common for all three myths. Thus, Gilgamesh seems to be a
connecting link in the myths of flood tradition.
Gilgamesh XI and Atra-asis III have many of the same components,
however sometimes with variations and an empasis on different elements in
the story. These differentiations of the parallel motifs underlines the fact that
Genesis has its basis in some version of Gilgamesh XI and not, for example,
in Atra-asis. Some elements in the flood account of Atra-asis are toned
down in Gilgamesh and almost completely gone in Genesis. This is true
especially of the motifs that involve multiple gods. For example, the gods
almost instantly regret sending the flood in both stories, but in Gilgamesh the
hunger of the gods plays a smaller role in their desperation and regret than in
Atra-asis, where it is specifically mentioned a couple of times (Atra III iii 31,
iv 22). In Gilgamesh, the hunger of the gods is not explicit and can only be
detected in Gil XI, 161-162, which is almost identical to Atra-asis III v, 34-
35 and follows the offering of Utnapishtim

5. The Gilgamesh Epic never gives an explanation on why the gods decide to bring a
flood, but the end of tablet xi is evidence that the reason is the same as in Atra-asis:
in Gil XI 184-192, Ea suggests to Enlil less drastic measures, ways of thinning out
the human population without exterminating all of humanity.
6. According to the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish.
58 Amanda Norsker

Gil XI, 161 DINGIR.ME i-i-nu i-ri-a DG.GA 162 DINGIR.ME ki-ma
zu-um-b-e UGU EN SISKUR.SISKUR ip-tah-ru:
The gods smelled the good smell. The gods gathered like flies around the
offering.7
When they finally smell an offering, the gods rush to it, indicating that they
have been hungry when there have been no offerings from humans because
of the flood. Despite the fly image being very telling, the motif of hungry
gods, in Gilgamesh, is more clearly recognized when readers are familiar
with an account that mentions the hunger explicitly, like the Atra-asis text.
In the Genesis version of the myth, there is no mention of hunger or an
indication of desperation from Yahweh. Yet, the motif can be detected in the
text with the awareness of the Babylonian myths. As in its predecessors,
Yahweh smells the offering and regrets the flood in the Genesis story:
Gen 8,21

:
Yahweh smelled soothing smell and Yahweh said to his heart, I will never
again curse the earth because of man, for the tendency of human heart is evil
from its youth. And I will never again kill all living beings as I have done
now.
Here the promise never to destroy all of humanity, or other living beings,
follows directly after Yahweh smelling the offering. The offering are, in the
Babylonian accounts, followed by the Beletili8 blaming Enlil (along with Anu
in Atra-asis) for what has been done and promising never to forget it, by
wearing Lapis Lazul around her neck.
As in Gilgamesh and Atra-asis, the narrative order in this segment
indicates that the reason for the gods/Yahweh regretting the flood is
connected with them smelling the offering. Apart from the line in 8,21, which
says that man is evil from youth, 9 there is no reason given for Yahweh
regretting the flood.
It appears that hunger and desperation as the explanation for the gods
regretting the flood is a motif that seems to fade from Atra-asis to Genesis.
It is an outspoken and a dominating theme in Atra-asis; it is more subtle and
not very obvious in Gilgamesh and, finally, in Genesis it is almost
undetectable and not noticeable without knowledge of the parallels in the
Babylonian myths, which provide the context.
A similar development from Atra-asis to Gilgamesh and on to Genesis
can be found in the elements of chaos in each story. Descriptions of the flood
in Atra-asis are dominated by destruction, confusion and desperation,

7. The parallel in Atra-asis: Atra III v, 34 [i-i-nu i-l]u e-re-a 35 [ki-ma zu-ub-b]i
e-lu ni-q-i pa-a-ru : The gods smelled the smell. They gathered like flies around the
offering.
8. Mistress of the gods. In Atra-asis III she goes under the name Nintu, and in
Gilgamesh XI, Ishtar, but it is essentially the same godess.
9. However this reason seems abrupt and without grounds within the text.
 Genesis 6,5-9,17 59

whereas the chaos has a less violent depiction and has taken a more poetic
form in Gilgamesh. This is, for instance, the case in these two parallel
paragraphs describing the same moment:
Atra III iii 11 [.... it-ta-a-a] a-bu-bu 12 [ki-ma q-ab-l]i e-li-ni-i 13 [-ul]
i-mu-ur a-hu a-ha-u
14 [-ul] -te-ed-du- i-na ka-ra-i 15 [a-bu-b]u kima li-i i- a-ab-bu 15 [ki-
ma p]a-ri-i na-e-ri
17[x x (x)-ni]m a-ru 18 [a-pa-at e]--tu ama la-a-u
The deluge came forth. Like a battle over the people. One person could not
see the other, 10 they did not recognize each other in the destruction. The
deluge bellowed like a wild ox. Like a roaring wild ass the wind. The
darkness thickened, Shamash (the sun) was gone.
Gil XI 111 ki-ma qab-li UGU [x i]-ba-u- [xxx] 112 ul im-mar a-hu a-ha-
113 ul u-ta-ad-da-a UN.ME ina AN-e11
Like a battle it came over the peope [] One could not see the other, they
did not recognize eachother in the rain.
The Atra-asis elaborates on the chaos and destruction of the storm, com-
pared to Gilgameshs more subtle descriptions.
In Genesis there is almost no chaos. The depiction of the flood itself is
sparse; it gives only little information and is without any descriptive details.
The Genesis story simply states that the springs of the deep and the windows
of the heavens opened, the flood hit the earth, the water rose, and every living
being died (Gen 7,10-24). This does not mirror the Babylonian texts,
especially Atra-asis which is very dramatic and descriptive, as the example
above shows. Again there seems to be a development in the narratives, a
scaling down of the dramatic chaos of the flood from Atra-asis through
Gilgamesh to Genesis.
The considerable difference in the textual picture of the flood itself and
the evasion of the hunger and desperation motif in Genesis can also be
ascribed to the different understandings of deities: the multiple gods of the
Babylonian tradition can quarrel, go behind each others backs, and they are
fallible. By contrast, the god of Genesis, the creator and only god, cannot be
chaotic and unreasonable. As is evident in Genesis 6,5-9,17, Yahweh can
certainly err, but it is unthinkable that he does so in a chaotic and cruel
manner. As the creation myth indicates, with parallels to greek mythology,
Yahweh is not a god of chaos, contrarily he makes order out of and controls
the chaos.

10. Literally Brother could not see brother.

11. A.R. George notes that AN, a sumeogram for amu (sky or rain), should not
necessarily be read with the e-ending: because the last sign of the row is not
preserved, this is only a qualified guess. It could just as well be a ti changig the
meaning to because of the sky/rain. Cf A.R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic.
Introduction, Critical Edition And Cuneiform Texts, Vol. I & II (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2003) p. 886.
60 Amanda Norsker

When he realizes that humanity will never change (Gen 8,21) and the
deluge, therefore, was unnecessary, there is no show of remorse as in the
Babylonian myths; the flood cannot have been an act of setting free an
uncontrollable storm and chaos water, but it must be a clean elimination of
evil humanity to start from scratch.

The Sending of Birds

In addition to the common motifs, structural similarities, and developments in
the traditions, there are more philological aspects which empasise the close
connection between the texts of Gilgamesh and Genesis. As Atra-asis and
Gilgamesh have some phrases that are close to identical 12 , Genesis and
Gilgamesh have some very similar phrases, paragraphs and passages.13 The
most obvious of such passages is Gil XI 147-159 which corresponds to Gen
8,6-12 and describes the hero sending birds to see whether the water has gone
down.14
In this common passage of the two stories, there are, apart from the motif,
also striking similarities in wording and sentence structure, which serve as
evidence of the writers of Genesis knowing a written version of the flood
story in Gilgamesh.
An example of this is found when comparing the verses Gil XI 153 (as
well as 147 and 150) and Gen 8,7:
Gil XI 153 -e-i-ma a-ri-ba -ma-ir : He took out a raven and let it go
Gen 8,7 : He sent a raven and it went flying out
and back
In these two verses, which both describe the sending of a raven, the same
verb is used.15 In Gilgamesh, (w)au(m), in Genesis, . Though represented
in two different languages, the same verb is used in both phrases, and in both
languages it contains the roots: Yod/Vaw-Tsade-Aleph. In Gilgamesh this
verb is used in the -stem, which gives it a causative meaning equivalent to a
Hiphil in Hebrew, while in Genesis the verb is in the Qal Stem and does,
therefore, not agree with Noah as a subject, as -e-i-ma agrees with the

12. For example, Atra-asis III iii 14 and Gilgamesh XI 13.

13. These are of course more difficult to detect, since the texts are written in two
different languages.
14. Unfortunately, a big lacuna in tablet III of Atra-asis, streechig from column IV
verse 27 to column V about verse 30, prevents us from comparing what might be an
equivalent to these passages. The evidence that this lacuna is covering a passage
similar to Gen 8,6-12 and Gil 147-159 is the remaining two words of Atra III a-na
a-a-r[i..., translated to the winds, which corresponds to Gil XI 156 a-na 4 TU.ME,
to the four winds. This correspondence of words in the same part of the narrative
indicates strongly that Atra-asis have contained, in the same place, its own version
of the sending of birds similar to the one oin Gilgamesh.
15. In Gilgamesh this verse is a repetition of verses 147 and 150 with the only
difference being the kind of bird: in Gil XI 147, the bird sent is a dove, and it is a
swallow in Gil XI 150.
 Genesis 6,5-9,17 61

subject Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh, but here the subject is the raven. Thus, in
Genesis the raven , it goes out, and in Gilgamesh Utnapishtim -e-i-ma,
he takes it out or lets it go out. We are dealing with different usages of the
same word, but in a very similar textual context; a commonality in both the
location of in the overall narrative and the content of the specific verses.
The following verses, Gilgamesh XI 154 and Genesis 8,8, are also
obvious objects of comparison. Here it is the similarity of the composition of
the verses that is striking.
Gil XI 154 il-lik a-ri-bi-ma qa-ru-ra A.ME i-mur-ma : The raven went
and saw where the water withdrew16
Gen 8,8 : And he sent out a
dove to see if the water had decreased from the surface of the earth
As the previous verse, the difference between Gilgamesh XI 154 and
Genesis 8,8 lies in the subjects of the verses. In Gilgamesh, the raven is the
subject, it goes out and sees that the water is going down. As Noah sends the
dove out to see if the water has gone down; the dove does not fly out and
look at the water, as the raven does in Gilgamesh, but it is sent to look at the
water. Furthermore, the verb is, in Genesis, used where there is a noun,
qa-ru-ra, in Gilgamesh, making another grammatical difference to these two
verses. However, the use of verbs meaning to look17 followed by a term for
the withdrawal or abating of the water are remarkably similar and give the
same textual image to these two verses: the bird is sent out and looks to find
where the water is going down.
Another, already mentioned, example is the reaction to the offering. Again
it is evident that Genesis is not far from the Gilgamesh myth. However, all
three texts have almost the same line:
Atra III v 34 [i-i-nu i-l]u e-re-a : The gods smelled the smell
Gil XI 161 DINGIR.ME i- i-nu i-ri- DG.GA : The gods smelled the
good smell
Gen 8,21
: And God smelled the soothing smell.
In Atra-asis the sentence is simple, then, in Gilgamesh, the adjective
good is added, which is implied in Atra-asis, since the gods rush like flies to
the offering when they smell it. The sentence in Genesis is almost a direct
translation of Gilgamesh; however, instead of , which would be the direct
translation of DG.GA, the sumeogram for bu(m), is used. This
adjective is most likely employed because , often along with , is
a fixed term in the tradition of the Hebrew Bible, used to describe burnt
offerings to Yahweh.

16. qa-ru-ra is a noun meaning withdrawal, so a literal translation is the withdrawal

of the water.
17. In Gilgamesh amaru(m) and in Genesis .
62 Amanda Norsker

Conclusion
There can be no doubt, that Atra-asis, Gilgamesh, Genesis and other Near
Eastern flood myths are connected and stem from the same tradition.
Although so many different fragments and traditions make it impossible to
determine with certainty a particular sequence of the myths, it appears from
comparing the three biggest and best preserved written versions of the myths
that there is some development and, thereby, an indication of the order of, at
least, the written texts. Gilgamesh XI has long been considered to be a
rewriting of Atra-asis XI, and the similarities of some phrases and wording,
along with the many parallel motifs, points towards the Genesis account
being a rewriting of the Gilgamesh flood story. This is, in addition, supported
by the fact that Gilgamesh XI is the one out of the three myths that contains
all of the parallel paragraphs, whereas Genesis 6,5-9,17 and Atra-asis III
have nothing in common that is not a part of the Gilgamesh story.
Thus, there is evidence of a development from Atra-asis to Gilgamesh to
Genesis. And the progression is clear: it moves from a description of a
chaotic and violent flood, caused by, but not necessarily controlled by, a
group of gods, who do not realize that they are dependent on the humans they
are destroying, to a sparse depiction of a contained and calm flood, that fills
the necessary requirements of exterminating humanity without creating a
chaotic state, sent by one God with good reason and full control. The
development is seen in the scaling down of chaotic elements and fallible gods
in Gilgamesh, which is almost undetectable in Genesis, but still, some traces
of these old motifs are left, especially in the sending of birds, smelling of the
offering and regretting the flood. What seems incomprehensible in the
account of the flood in Genesis, like Yahweh regretting that he killed almost
all living things, is put into perspective when familiarity with the origin of the
text, the Babylonian flood myths is actual. It is difficult to act the part of
several gods, when you are only one.