UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
"The dove, the rainbow, and the unicorn": 170 years of the flood story retold for
children in words and pictures
England, E.E.E.
Publication date 2013
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
England, E. E. E. (2013). "The dove, the rainbow, and the unicorn": 170 years of the flood story retold for children in words and pictures.
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
45
Part One, Chapter Three: The Genesis Narrative
And the Lord was sorrowful to see his creatures filled with such evil passions.
Gisèle Vallerey, Stories from the Old Testament, 1965
The Genesis flood story can be considered a “stand-alone” story, or it can be part of the biography of Noah, including his naming (5:29) and drunkenness (9:20–29; Lewis 1968, 3; Peters 2008, 17–18). It can also be part of the primeval narratives (Gen 1–11), Genesis, Torah/Pentateuch, Hebrew Bible or Bible. It can be interpreted in its final form (how it is currently presented in the Masoretic Text), or interpreted as two different stories by two possible authors (pp. 46-48).
My reading of the flood narrative focuses on the elements most relevant to the retellings. The retellers included in this study will usually be working with English translations of the Bible in its final form. As such I work with the final form of the narrative. Additionally, many of the textual and historical components of the narrative, which are more traditionally focused on by commentators but largely irrelevant to the retellings, are barely considered. These include other Ancient Near Eastern flood traditions and the technical design of the ark.1 Instead, my analysis of the flood story is a literary reading, with most of the discussion focusing on how the actors and events of the story are presented in the narrative. This is with the specific intention of providing the most helpful discussion for reading, understanding, and interpreting the retellings. In turn, the retellings can then be used to reinterpret elements of the narrative discussed in this Chapter.
I begin by outlining my reasoning for discussing the flood story in its final form. I explain why I open the narrative at Gen 6:1 and reluctantly close it at Gen 9:19. I consider the structure of the flood story within those boundaries. In the second part of this Chapter, I
1
Good commentaries include summaries and bibliographies of the main debates. Cf. Cassuto (1974, 3-47), Wenham (1987, 159-166), and Westermann (1994, 398-405, 418-421).
46
explore the events of the narrative, specifically how they impact upon the interpretation of the actors. I conclude the Chapter with my summary of what the story is about, specifically God’s changing relationship with his creation.
Narrative Boundaries and Structure
This section lays the foundation for discussing the flood story as a narrative. It includes an exploration of the structure and narrative boundaries of the story, starting with the source critical analysis. Source criticism is the idea that biblical texts were written in different times and locations by different “writers” and later edited together by the so-called “redactor.”2
The flood narrative is attributed to the Yahwist and Priestly writers.3 The former is characterized by the name Yahweh, anthropomorphism, the divine promise of land, the blessing and fulfillment of descendants. The Priestly writer stresses covenant, ritual, and religious laws and practices. The God in the Priestly writings may be considered transcendent and less immediate than the Yahwist’s deity. The writing styles are also different: Sean McEvenue compares the style of the Priestly writer to children’s literature, because of the use of repetition and simple syntax (1971, 12–18; cf. Brueggemann 1982, 75–76).4
Despite relatively minor disagreements, scholars broadly agree about which elements of the Hebrew text can be attributed to which writer. Chart 1 presents an adaptation of Claus Westermann’s breakdown of the Genesis text (1994, 395–398; cf. Skinner 1910, 147–150; Gispen 1974, 232–233).
2
For different approaches to source criticism (and the flood) see Skinner 1910 xxxii–lxvii; de Fraine 1963, 8–16; Segal 1967, 1–21; Habel 1975; Barton 1992, 162–165; Rofé 1999.
3
The dates of the Yahwist writer have been thoroughly contested, having been dated to c. 540 BCE (Van Seters 1998, 14), c. 800-700BCE (Arnold 2008), c. 900-800BCE (Westermann 1994, 1), and c. 950-850 (Gooder 2000, 14). The Priestly writer is less contested, with dating around the late exilic to early postexilic period (c. 500-400 BCE, cf. Gooder 2000, 14; Van Seters 1998, 14).
4
McEvenue notes that this is viewed favorably for young children, but in works attributed to the Priestly writer it is viewed negatively (1971, 12-18).
47
Chart 1. The Yahwist and Priestly flood stories
Story events Yahwist Priestly
The sons of God (not included by Westermann) 6:1–4 God’s decision (and announcement) to destroy
humanity and preserve Noah
6:5–8; 7:1–5 6:9–22
Noah executes God’s command 7:7, 10 7:11, 13–16a
The flood comes 7:12, 16b, 17b 7:17a
The effect of the flood 7:22, 23a, 23c 7:18–21, 24
The end of the flood 8:2b, 3a (6) 8:1–2a, 3b–5
Sending out of the birds 8:6–12, 13b
Exit from the ark 8:14–19
Sacrifice 8:20–22
God’s blessing and covenant with Noah 9:1–17
Noah’s genealogy, life span and death (sic) 9:18–195
Westermann’s breakdown implies that the Yahwist does not present an exit from the ark, the blessing and covenant, or Noah’s death. Conversely, the Priestly writer does not present the daughters of humanity and the sons of (the) God/s procreating, the sending out of the birds, or the sacrifice. Where the sources overlap, there are differences. The Yahwist includes 7 pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals (7:2–3); the Priestly writer includes one pair of all animals (6:19–20; 7:15–16). The Yahwist offers approximate indications of time by using the duration of 7 days (7:4, 10; 8:10, 12) and 40 days (7:4, 12; 8:6); the Priestly writer gives a form of precise dating (7:6, 11; 8:5, 13) and the duration of 150 days (once for the waters to rise and once to abate, 7:24; 8:3), approximately equaling a year (pp. 77-79).
As late as 1990 Victor Hamilton was able to write the following on the source critical approach to Genesis: “To challenge it is to wade into the waters of heterodoxy, to risk the charge of hopeless obfuscation, or at worst, to be labeled ‘fundamentalist’” (1990, 12). Nevertheless, it has been gradually falling out of favor since the late 1970s, and today it is used far less than in its heyday (Stern 2008, 182–186). This is not because it is wrong or does
5
Genesis 9:18-19 is the repopulation of the earth by Noah’s sons; Westermann’s description is of 9:28-29. Additionally Westermann discusses 9:18–19 as Yahwist (1994, 482) but in his chart it is listed under Priestly (1994, 396).
48
not work but because its uses are restrictive. The source critical approach necessitates an understanding of the historical development of the text before the text itself can be analyzed. This results in exegesis being based on the alleged foundation of a text which can only ever be hypothetical and explored through circuitous means (Fokkelman 1975, 2).
Perhaps the greatest challenge to the usefulness of source critical theory for the flood story came in 1978. Two scholars published two separate articles interpreting the flood story as unified and coherent. Gordon Wenham raised the significance of the redactor and the final form (1978, 336–348). The most significant and far-reaching of his arguments was the extended palistrophe he proposed (pp. 50, 77). Bernhard Anderson built upon the traditional approach, which dominated flood scholarship (1978, 23–39). He used contemporaneous alternative and modern approaches to narrative studies. He used the dramatic movement within the flood story as a reason to elevate the final form. Critically, neither scholar discounted the source critical approach but rather argued for it to be superseded by interpreting the redactor’s narrative: the final form.6
This is the approach I adopt (cf. Frye 1982, 203; Berlin 1983, 112; Sternberg 1985, 64, 68, 75).7
Although the final form means that the story is treated as a single narrative, it is nonetheless inevitable that commentators impose structures on it. Victor P. Hamilton provides one of the more detailed examples (1990, 261–329). He separates the procreation of the sons of (the) God/s and daughters of humanity (6:1–4) from the flood narrative while including the drunken Noah narrative (9:20–29):8
6
Some later scholars have supported the source critical approach. The most detailed and most frequently cited is J. A. Emerton’s “An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis” in two parts (1987; 1988).
7
For views critical of this approach and analysis of the narrative incorporating the composite sources see David Damrosch’s The Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical
Literature (1987); Robert C. Culley’s Themes and Variations: A Study of Action in Biblical Narrative
(1992), and Amelia Devin Freedman’s God as an Absent Character in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A
Literary-Theoretical Study (2005). 8
49
F. The Sons of the Gods and the Daughters of Humankind: Illicit Relationships (6:1– 4)
G. The Great Flood (6:5–9:29)
G.1 The Reason for a Flood (6:5–10)
G.2 Corruption and Violence in the Earth (6:11–12) G.3 The Command to Build the Ark (6:13–22) G.4 The Command to Enter the Ark (7:1–10) G.5 The Start of the Flood (7:11–16)
G.6 The Cresting of the Waters (7:17–24) G.7 The Floodwaters Recede (8:1–5) G.8 The Emergence of Dry Land (8:6–14) G.9 Noah Leaves the Ark (8:15–22) G.10 God’s Covenant with Noah (9:1–17) G.11 Noah’s Nakedness (9:18–29)
This breakdown is helpful because it successfully divides the narrative into clear stages. But it has its drawbacks. Dividing a narrative in this way, specifically with the provision of subtitles, creates an impression about the content of the story (Genette 2001, 309–311). Hamilton’s structure includes 4 sections focusing on the flood waters and 3 on the ark. This overemphasizes the flood as an event. The flood is central to the narrative but, as this study demonstrates, it is not the purpose of the story. The flood is a by-product of the themes of
Spirit-Human Marriages and Their Aftermath (6:1–8)
The Story of Noah (6:9–29)
The Story of Noah: Blessing on the New Humanity (9:1–17) The Story of Noah: Coda to the Noah Story (9:18–29); and Claus Westermann’s (1994, 363–494)
The Sons of the Gods and the Giants (6:1–4)
The Flood (6:5–8:22); Blessing and Covenant (P) (9:1–17, 28–29) Noah and His Sons (9:18–27).
50
crime and punishment, re-creation, and God’s relationship with his creation. To represent these themes an alternative analysis is required.
One such possibility is to analyze the flood narrative as a chiasm or palistrophe: two generally interchangeable terms referring to the manner in which different elements of a narrative mirror each other in reverse. A boat on water is a relevant example:
A: The boat is boarded B: The waters rise
C: The boat floats BB: The waters recede AA: The boat is emptied
Gordon Wenham’s chiastic framework is probably the most cited (1978, 336–348; cf. Longacre 1985, 182). For him there are 31 items in the palistrophe, covering Gen 6:10–9:19. The central point of the flood story is when God remembers Noah (8:1). The first half of Wenham’s framework highlights the announcement, the rain, and the flood covering the earth. The second half highlights the reduction of the water and the disembarkation of the boat. For Wenham, the unity of the flood narrative can be seen in symmetrical patterns, including the periods of time (“7, 7, 40, 150, 150, 40, 7, 7,” 1978, 337; p. 77). This chiastic framework is useful for understanding how the narrative functions in its final form. It demonstrates that certain elements are key while still focusing attention on the chronology of the flood and the flood waters themselves. There is still, however, a tendency for chiastic structures to overemphasize some features while underrepresenting others. By trying to fit a narrative into a preestablished structure, the significance of events and motifs may be changed with little justification. The emphasis given to something through narratorial devices such as repetition may be ignored because the event itself only happens once or because the
51
repetitions cannot be matched in a pair (i.e., the announcement of the flood, 6:7, 13, 17; 7:4). This can result in chiastic structures appearing forced and misrepresentative of the narrative.
Instead of a chiastic structure, I impose a linear structure with subheadings, as with Victor Hamilton’s. Unlike his structure, mine is centered round the actors of the narrative. This is because the story is not about the flood as a flood but about humanity, Noah, and how God interacts with his human and animal creation. Before looking at this structure, it is necessary to justify using the narrative boundaries of 6:1–9:19.
Biblical narratives do not have clearly delineated boundaries even though the boundaries can significantly affect the nature of the story and how it is understood (Alter 1981, 132; Gunn and Fewell 1993, 111; Amit 2001, 14–21). The Genesis flood story has numerous possible opening and closing verses. For the purposes of this study, 6:1 is proposed as the opening verse. The narrative closes with 9:19, although this is a reluctant decision on my part, because it is not a clear closure and 9:17 is also viable. The choices made are explained in the following pages, beginning with the opening verse.9
There are 3 verses in Genesis that provide the most likely options for beginning the flood narrative: 6:1, 6:5, and 6:9. The latter centers around the Toledot motif (תדלות): “These
are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.” To begin the flood story with this minimizes the contextuality of the narrative as a whole. It focuses on Noah rather than God and his creation. It is also illogical from a narratological perspective, given that the destruction is announced in 6:5–7 and Noah is introduced in 6:8. With this in mind, we could conceivably begin with 6:5: “The LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the
9
The opening and closing verses commentators choose to frame the flood narrative are diverse, for example: 6:1–9:17 (de Fraine 1963, 79–96); 6:5–9:17 (Gispen 1974, 227–302); 6:5–9:19 (van Selms 1984, 105–134); 6:5–9:29 (Skinner 1910, 147–187). Despite the flood story being part of the biography of Noah, few commentators structure the narrative in this way. One example is John H. Sailhamer in The Pentateuch as Narrative (1992, 116–130). For him the “Story of Noah” is 5:1–9:29.
52
thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.” In 6:5–8 there are 3 events: God saw, God regretted, and God announced. This is a complication, change, and unraveling structure where the complication can act as the exposition or incipit and the unraveling as a resolution or conclusion (Amit 2001, 47). Unlike 6:9, opening the narrative with 6:5 focalizes God and God’s relationship with his creation. Nevertheless, 6:1 is narratologically more coherent as the opening verse: “When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them.”
Genesis 6:1–4 is about the growth of the human population, specifically (and unusually) daughters (pp. 55-68). It is about their (forced or voluntary) procreation with the sons of (the) God/s, and God’s reaction to that procreation: God limits the life of humanity. The Nephilim are also introduced. Genesis 6:1–4 is rarely included within the flood story, probably because of the difficult language and theological content (p. 59). Many scholars have ignored the passage entirely (Knecht 1894; Nicoll and Stoddart 1910; Manley 1963). Others dismiss it as a fragment from a separate myth (Dillmann 1897, 230–231; Lowther Clarke 1952, 344; Neil 1962, 28–29; Westermann 1978, 379–381; pp. 288-289). Sometimes 6:1–4 is even treated less than favorably because it is connected with being a Yahwist addition (Hooke 1962, 182–183; von Rad 1978, 113–116). Genesis 6:1–4 is nonetheless the most logical beginning for the flood story.
The passage opens with the expression יהיו. The opening phrase can be translated as “it came to pass,” “as it happened,” or “when.” In narrative terms, the phrase is generally used to introduce an event that acts as a complication and requires a resolution (cf. Gen 26:8; 27:1; 43:21; 44:24). יהיו is therefore a clear introductory phrase. The content, however, is what leads me to consider it as critical to the understanding of the flood narrative.
Like the flood itself, 6:1-4 is about changes to the boundaries and relationship between the divine and humanity, specifically through the motif of crime and punishment
53
(Hendel 1987, 23–24). The crossing of boundaries of humanity as a theme of the flood narrative becomes more significant when 6:1–4 opens the flood narrative. The passage also highlights the epic scale of what happens to the whole population, the sons of (the) God/s, the Nephilim, all the animals, and all of the earth/on the face of the earth/on the ground (pp. 297-299). We are not talking about the cosmos of Genesis 1 or any potential war in heaven (as in 1 Enoch), but we are talking about humanity’s world on an enormous scale. Genesis 6:1–4 helps to set this scene. It adds rather than detracts from the literary cohesiveness of the story. But where should the flood story end?
If the narrative were to end with the drunken Noah narrative (Gen 9:20–29), as Hamilton suggests, the story would end with Noah’s death. This would focalize the narrative onto Noah and away from God. It would also move the narrative away from being on an epic scale, with God as the central character, to a limited family drama. Two other closing verses offer possible endings to the flood story: the conclusions to the Priestly and Yahwist stories, respectively Gen 9:17 and 9:19. Genesis 9:17 is “God said to Noah, ‘This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.’” God’s promise and covenant end the narrative. This focalizes the story through God’s relationship with humanity. It is not, however, a clear resolution. There is no indication that God’s creation carries on and obeys his new rules, nor that society is re-created. A solution is for 9:19 to finish the flood narrative: “These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled.” This provides evidence for the fulfillment of God’s re-creation because humanity is repopulating the earth as instructed. Given that I choose 6:1 and the population of humanity on the earth as the opening of the narrative, this also brings the narrative full circle. The difficulty with choosing 9:19 as the conclusion to the flood story is 9:18: “The sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan.”
54
“Ham was the father of Canaan.” This sentence does not seem to be relevant for the flood story. It is a reference to the curse of Canaan in Gen 9:25 (Westermann 1994, 482; cf. Oosterhuis and van Heusden 2004, 39). So, what is to be done with this sentence, remembering that Gen 9:20–27, and therefore Canaan, has already been excluded from the narrative? Should the difficulty be ignored and accepted as an anomaly, or should 9:18–19 be rejected as the conclusion to the flood narrative? I reluctantly choose 9:19, although I return to this decision in the concluding Chapter (p. 322). The boundaries of my flood story are therefore Gen 6:1 and Gen 9:19. To analyze the story further, a somewhat arbitrary structure has been created. It focuses on the events as they relate to the actors:
A) The restriction of life (6:1–4)
B) The crime and punishment (6:5–7, 11–13, 17; 7:4) C) Noah the (relatively) righteous (6:8–10, 22; 7:1, 5) D) The ark (6:14–16)
E) The occupants and contents of the ark (6:18–7:5) F) The flood and the destruction (7:6–24)
G) God remembers and the waters abate (8:1–5) H) The birds (8:6–12)
I) The beginning of the new creation (8:13–19)
J) Noah’s sacrificial offering changes God’s mind (8:20–22) K) God gives humanity and animals new rules (9:1–7)
L) God makes a covenant with humanity and the animals (9:8–17) M) Noah’s sons fulfill God’s command (9:18–19)
55 The Genesis Story/The Actors’ Stories
In the following pages the flood narrative will be analyzed using the structure just presented. Rather than focusing upon technical, historical, and theological elements of the text, narratological components are the core material analyzed. Specifically, actors and their roles are concentrated upon, particularly those which have the greatest impact upon the story, the narrative, and/or the children’s retellings.
A. The Restriction of Life (Genesis 6:1–4)
The biblical narrator “structures time, sketches space, brings characters on and takes them off again, misleads the reader at times, and enforces his point of view through thick and thin” (Fokkelman 1999, 55). Rather than treating the narrator as reliable (Alter 1981, 116–117; Sternberg 1985, 5110), I assume that he is not (Gunn and Nolan Fewell 1993, 53–53; Freedman 2005, 30). This is because the narrator, as created by the producers of the text, is not free from ideology. The narrator always chooses what is included and left out of the narrative and how it is presented. Bearing this in mind, let us progress to the narrative.
Human beings (םדאה, 6:1) are the first actors referred to. They multiply on the face of
the ground (המדאה, 6:1). This Hebrew wordplay sets the scene as universal in scope and epic in scale, but firmly situated on earth (as opposed to in the heavens). Unusually, the focus is on the second group of actors, the “daughters”/ “daughters of humanity” (תונב, 6:1; םדאה תונב, 6:2). Given the generally patriarchal nature of biblical texts, this may already hint that something negative and/or sexual may be about to happen. Indeed it does: the third group of actors we meet are the םיהלאה־ינב (6:2). Literally, they are either “the sons of (the) God” or
10
In academic fairness, Sternberg and Alter qualify their assertion that the narrator is reliable by stating that he does not relate everything that he knows. (Alter 1981, 114; Sternberg 1985, 52).
56
“the sons of (the) gods.”11
Throughout the twentieth century these sons have been most frequently regarded as angels (Worcester 1901, 305–307; Greenwood [c. 1904], 155–159; Gordon 1907, 294; Vawter 1960, 85; Gooder 2000, 37–38).12 However, more ambiguous terms have been used, including “divine heavenly beings” (Ryle 1914, 94), “semi-divine beings” (Fritsch 1959, 41) or the “upper inhabitants of heaven” (von Rad 1978, 113). Without further evidence, I take the phrase at face value leaving the option open for the beings to be sons of God or sons of many gods.
It is worth noting that the sons are specifically of God/gods, while the daughters are of humanity. In this regard the daughters are positioned as having less power (less worth? less “morality”?) than both the male and (semi)divine beings. The sons of God saw that the women were fair (בוט, 6:2) and took (חקל, 6:2) from them whoever they chose. There is no way of knowing whether the taking was consensual intercourse, marriage, or rape; nor indeed whether the human families would have approved, condoned, arranged, or objected to the different types of union.
The next event is God’s speech; the narratological location of which works in counterpoint to the introduction of the speech. God’s speech is located immediately after the union between the divine/human groups. This implies that God is reacting to the union.13 However, God’s speech is introduced with the waw (in the waw consecutive formula, although, because this is in speech, it is not translated), which again implies an ellipsis or pause: we do not know how long has passed between the union and God’s speech. When this
11
Were I using a source critical analysis rather than the final form analysis, I would choose the interpretation “the sons of the gods” (or even Gods) because elsewhere in 6:1–4 the named God is Yahweh as opposed to Elohim, which is the God after whom the sons have been named.
12
Other more unlikely possibilities include: “Sethites” (Dillmann 1897, 233–235) and religious men who “were ensnared by the lust of the eyes” (Churton 1882, C6r) into marrying the daughters of men from the ungodly race of Cain (Churton 1882, C5v). It has also been suggested that this refers to kings who presented themselves as God (Jagersma 1995, 83). This assumes too much from the text, and so I stay with a more literal interpretative approach.
13
A nice summary of the interpretation of 6:1–4, including positive and negative interpretations of the passage, is Ellen van Wolde’s “Een Kleurrijk Miniatuur” (1992, 29–41).
57
is combined with the complete absence of comment on the union by God, we cannot be certain that God’s speech and action is in response to the union. Furthermore, God is speaking to an unnamed listener, possibly himself. This would indicate that if he is punishing a group of beings, he does not seem to be letting them know, which would seem to limit the point of a punishment.So what exactly does God say?
“My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.”14
The interpretation of this verse has been fraught with complications.
חור is the critical word (Skinner 1910, 144). In 6:3 it is widely translated as “spirit.” חור, however, has multiple meanings including “wind,” “breath,” and “(life-giving) spirit” (KBL, 3:1197–1201; BDB, 924–926; CDCH, 415–416; see also 6:17; 7:15, 22; 8:1, and even 8:22). Despite the significance of this term, ןודי and the phrase וימי ויהו have had the most impact on
the retellings. ןודי is from the verb ןוד (3rd m.s. Qal imperfect) meaning “remain,” “abide,” or “to stay” (CDCH, 76; KBL, 1:217). It is only found in 6:3 (Davidson [1848] 2006, 297) and is therefore subject to much conjecture.15 The phrase וימי ויהו consists of the verb היה (3rd m/f.pl. Qal perfect) meaning “to happen,” “come to pass,” and “become” plus the noun with possessive suffix “his days.” This verse seems to mean that God’s life-giving spirit/breath will remain in humanity for 120 years. But does this refer to each individual having a maximum life span of 120 years, or does it suggest that God’s spirit will only remain with the whole of humanity for 120 years? Until the close of the nineteenth century, Western commentators widely believed the latter:
14 In the NRSV the use of “mortals” rather than “man/humanity” (םדא) leaves open the possibility that
the restriction only refers to either the daughters of humanity or the offspring of the daughters of men and sons of (the) God/s. I am not aware of the former interpretation in scholarly literature and the latter is rare (Peake 1920, 142; Erith 1928, 47).
15
The uniqueness of this word has led to confusion about the meaning of the verse and 6:1–4 as a whole (cf. Speiser 1956). Although most scholars accept “remain/abide,” not all do. This is partly because BDB’s entry for ןוד directs people to ןיד meaning “to judge” (BDB, 189, 192). םגשב is also unique (Davidson [1848] 2006, 119), meaning “indeed/surely/in as much as,” but this has less of an impact on the history of interpretation.
58
Yet the Father of mercies is slow to punish the wicked, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. . . . he now strengthened the preaching of righteous Noah by the terrors of a rising ark, and spared the guilty age a hundred and twenty years. (Sutcliffe [c. 1839], 20; cf. Clarke 1857, 73; Keil and Delitzsch 1864, 136; Churton 1882, C6r; Spurrrell 1896, 73).16
This is a logical interpretation that is based upon the passage’s position before the flood. By the end of the nineteenth century it had been replaced with the common reading that God restricted the human life span to 120 years. This is based partly on the acceptance that 6:1–4 is a separate tradition and therefore not associated with the destruction (Ellicott 1897, 35; Cassutto 1974, 295–298; Hamilton 1990, 265–269; Westermann 1994, 364–365).
The phrase “his days will become” (וימי ויהו) and the gradual declining ages of
humanity (Wenham 2003, 43) seem to support the restriction-of-life concept. Nevertheless, this does not exclude the idea that God will only remain with humanity for 120 years. As with many things in the flood story, the safest thing to do is to leave options open. Certainly for my purposes, the key is not what the “original” Hebrew may mean but, rather, how it has been interpreted in commentaries and retellings. Either way, God is restricting human life.
It seems a stretch to suggest that God is punishing humanity, the sons of (the) God/s, or their offspring, because neither God nor the narrator states that a wicked act has taken place (cf. Niditch 1985, 38). Nobody even gets told about the restriction. Likewise, it would seem unlikely that God’s action is not a reaction to the union. The union between the daughters and sons follows the same patterns as seen elsewhere in Genesis 1–11: it presents the breaking of boundaries between the human and divine, the outcome of which is God’s
16
Some twentieth-century scholars have favored this interpretation (Greenwood [c. 1904], 165; Sutcliffe 1953, 189; Davidson, 1953, 83). For further discussion see Cassutto 1974, 295–298; Hamilton 1990, 265–269; Westermann 1994, 373–376.
59
apparent need to restrict life, possibly because of the group of actors introduced for the only time in 6:4.
The Nephilim (םילפנ) in 6:4, like the sons of (the) God/s, are a mystery. At best scholars make educated guesses based upon other versions of the narrative, other sources, and cognate languages. The most common contemporary understanding of the word is as “giants.” More specifically, they are giants “with a mythical origin” (KBL, 2:709). Nephilim may also refer to “fallen ones” (also suggesting an overstepping of the boundaries of humanity; Westermann 1994, 378) with the further clarification of dead antediluvians and early inhabitants of Canaan (DCH, 5:723; cf. Hendel 1987, 22). The only other use of the word in the Hebrew Bible is in Num 13:33 where it refers to “the giant-like early inhabitants of Palestine” (KBL, 2:709).17
A common argument is that the “and afterwards” (ןכ־י רחא םגו) from 6:2 is a gloss to explain why the giants are still on the earth after the flood (cf. Dillmann 1897, 231, 240–241; Ryle 1914, 95; Kraeling 1947, 195; Westermann 1994, 377; Gooder 2000, 37). The implications for the narrative are: (1) the Nephilim went somewhere else during the flood, (2) the Nephilim do not have the “breath of life” (םייח חור, 6:17; 7:22) and were therefore not destroyed), and/or (3) the narrator is wrong and not all living things were destroyed. This is returned to in Chapter Nine (pp. 300-303).
In addition to the Nephilim, gibborim (םירבג) causes some difficulty. This is generally understood as “heroes,” “mighty ones,” and/or “warriors” (DCH, 1:302–305; KBL, 1:172). These heroes are described as being men of renown/reputation/name (םשׁה ישׁנא). The Hebrew syntax of 6:4 is complicated, and there is a general lack of agreement about who the heroes
17
Beyond these two occurrences it is only witnessed twice in the whole of the classical Hebrew corpus (DCH, 5:82).
60
are.18 Are they the children of the sons of (the) God/s and human women? Is this another way of talking about the Nephilim? Is 6:4b merely a description of the Nephilim? For this study it matters little whether the Nephilim and heroes are different or the same. What matters is that they are the offspring of the (semi)divine beings and human women. As such their very existence breaks boundaries, crossing the dividing line between divine and human.
As an introduction to the flood narrative, 6:1–4 sets the scene. It suggests that God is already watching and reacting to the activities of his creation. God is already restricting humanity’s life span. God is already primed to react to more overt and explicit wickedness. God is in charge of his whole creation across the whole earth. Meanwhile, it would seem that somewhere there are some (heroic?) divine/human (gigantic?) hybrids and some badly misbehaving humans.
B. The Crime and Punishment (Genesis 6:5–7, 11–13, 17; 7:4)
The next time we encounter God, it is the first time he sees wickedness, a wickedness (ער) that belongs to humanity (6:5). Despite this, the punishment includes the blotting out of “people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them” (6:7). God regrets making animal life despite the fact that they seem to have done nothing wrong. In 6:11–13, however, God does not explicitly state humanity.19 The extradiegetic heterodiegetic narrator (p. 37) and God’s direct speech both refer to “the earth” being corrupt and filled with violence (in God’s sight):
And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end
18
For discussion on the structure, complexities, and translation of Gen 6:4, see Gispen 1974, 225– 226; Wenham 1987, 142–143; Hamilton 1990, 269–270; Westermann 1994, 377–379.
19
The Yahwist only blames humanity, while the Priestly writer blames “all flesh.” Despite the fact that the Priestly writer is often privileged by flood commentators (he does not, after all, present God’s anthropomorphism in such emotional or visceral forms as regret or smell), the “pick-and-choose” approach to source criticism results in the Yahwist’s account being favored.
61
of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth.” (6:12–13)
The key terms here are “all flesh,” “corrupt,” and “violence.” “Corrupt,” תחשׁ is used twice to
refer to the earth (3rd, f.s. Niphal imperfect) and once for “all flesh” (3rd, m.s. Niphal perfect). In the Niphal it means “morally corrupt,” or “ruined” (BDB, 1007–1008; CDCH, 456–457). It is the same verb God uses when he says he will destroy the earth (Hiphil and Piel, 6:13, 17) thus acting as wordplay as well as, perhaps, foreshadowing of God’s postdestruction laws. The Hebrew noun מחס is translated in both 6:11 and 6:13 as “violence” (BDB, 329; CDCH, 123).20
The Hebrew for “all flesh” is רשׂב־לכ and literally refers to “all flesh, man and beast”
(KBL, 1:164) and “creature in general” (DCH, II:277). The same word is also used to refer to the flesh to be eaten as meat (9:4; cf. Ex 12:8). “All flesh” is not, therefore, exclusively used to refer to humanity. In this specific instance it is not clear whether the Hebrew is referring to animals as well as humans or to both, with the focus being on humanity (Gispen 1974, 252-253). Narratologically, it is logical that animals are included in God’s observation as having committed violent acts, given that nonhuman animals are punished (Cassuto 1974, 54). If nonhuman animals are corrupt, a new pattern of corruption in Gen 6:1-13 emerges. Boundaries are broken when the sons of (the) God/s procreate, but God does not actively punish them; rather, he quietly reacts (6:1–4). God then notices that humanity is wicked and decides to wipe it out (6:5). The flood is announced when God sees that all flesh, including nonhuman animals, is also corrupt (6:12–13, 17). As an interpretation, there is an apparent flaw with this: why does God save the animals if they are corrupt? After all, he has not yet realized that the human heart is evil (8:21). But God has noticed that the human heart strives
20
God does not investigate the transgression: he either does not need or want to investigate it further (cf. Gen 3:9–13; 4:9–10; 11:5). The strongest reaction to humanity’s transgression does not follow God’s investigation.
62
for wickedness (6:5), and even perhaps that Noah is not totally righteous (7:1, pp. 64-68). This paradox, that God destroys most forms of life on earth and then protects them even though he knows them, or at least discovers them, to be flawed, runs to the core of the narrative and God’s character within it (pp. 89; 92-93; 95-97).
The punishment theme is closely connected to God’s internal state; 6:6–7 offers an insight into God’s character through his feelings:
“And the Lord was sorry” (םחנ, 6:6; DCH, V:663; BDB, 636–637; CDCH, 269)
“it grieved him to his heart” (6:6, בצע, a unique form of the Hithpael future 3rd m.s.
meaning “grief,” “hurt,” and “pain” BDB, 780; CDCH, 338)
“I am sorry that I have made them” (םחנ, 6:7; DCH, V:663; BDB, 636–637; CDCH,
269)
God has grief in his heart (ובל־לא, 6:6; cf. 8:21), mirroring human wickedness and the evil in
the heart of each human (ער קר ובל, 6:5), which he sees. Spurred on by “regret,” “sorrow,”
and/or “repentance” (םחנ , Niphal 6:6, 7), and “grief,” and/or “pain” (בצע, Hithpael 6:6), he announces that he will destroy his own creation. The use of “heart” (בל, 6:6; 8:21), the verb
“to see” (האר, 6:5, 12; 7:1; 9:16), and the verb “to say” (רמא, 6:3, 7, 13; 7:1; 8:15, 21; 9:1, 8,
12, 17) can also suggest a physical body. Physical anthropomorphism is almost always rejected outright, whereas emotional anthropomorphism is partially accepted:
It is when the sentence, God was sorry that he had created humans, is continued with: “And he was grieved at heart,” that the real intent of the passage is explained. It is painful for God to be the judge of his people. (Westermann 1994, 410)
63
This interpretation relies on understanding םחנ as “grief” and not “regret,” which would imply change: Gen 6:6 “is not to be taken as meaning that God can change His purpose, or can mourn over the failure of them” (Blunt 1878, 16; cf. Ellicott 1897, 36). For Western commentators throughout the last 170 years, God cannot be seen to repent or regret, but for some he can be allowed to feel grief. That some emotions are acceptable while others are not is a further suggestion of an ideological approach, specifically one which does not accept the idea of a God who changes his mind.
God announces the punishment 4 times, once to nobody except perhaps himself (6:7; Culley 1992, 135), and 3 times to Noah (6:13, 17; 7:4). Like other repetitions, the repeated announcement is not accidental: it informs the audience of what is important (cf. Amit 2001, 3, 7; Brenner 2004, 78). This first instance is particularly significant because it creates a dramatic and engaging story. It is more authoritative when God speaks; therefore, when God speaks to himself, his speech has further weight. By experiencing God’s thoughts firsthand it “might deter us from concern about his role in the story” (Humphreys 2001, 65). This reasoning for narratorial control is not conclusive: the narrator does not explicitly agree with God’s claim that humanity and the animals are wicked and corrupt. This is in contrast to the claim that Noah is righteous (pp. 64-68). The narrator only narrates what God saw and felt. The narrator could have chosen to emphasize God’s decision by stating that “humanity was wicked” before or after narrating God’s actions. This would have acted as further support for God’s punishment of humanity. The inclusion of 6:1–4 in the flood story (or at least directly before it), can be interpreted as demonstrating that God did, in fact, see wickedness.
The events of 6:1–13 in the final form present the sons of (the) God/s and female humans transgressing boundaries by procreating. God did not necessarily punish them, but he did react to ensure that the boundaries were maintained. God then noticed that all of humanity was wicked. God then extended this wickedness by seeing that all human beings, and perhaps
64
nonhuman animals, were violent and corrupt. God felt deeply emotionally affected and decided to destroy the world. But, the narrator interrupted God’s sentencing of God’s own creation with some backstory about a man named Noah.
C. Noah the (Relatively) Righteous (Genesis 6:8–10, 22; 7:1, 5)
Within the last 170 years in predominantly Christian Western commentaries, analyses of Noah have almost always been positive.21 He has been considered a “remarkably complete man of God” (Kidner 1967, 87). Such interpretations have often been embellishments of the Hebrew, with copious amounts of gap filling: “Nor is a word said of the sadness of the one righteous man, who, safe himself, looked upon the destruction which he could not avert” (Dods 1891, 62). Noah himself does not lead the reader to have this opinion; rather, the narrator and God do. They both describe him as righteous (קידצ), thereby emphasizing the significance of Noah’s character (6:9; 7:1; Jagersma 1995, 94). “Righteous” is the standard translation for קידצ as used in 6:9 (DCH, VII:75), but it can have the nuance of “innocent” and/or of “just, upright, devout” (KBL, 3:1002). The latter highlights Noah’s righteousness as a form of faith, of obedience, something which impacts upon the history of interpretation of Noah, including the retellings.
Noah is the first character in the Bible to be described as righteous (Amos 2004, 49). He is also described as “blameless” (םימת): a rare cultic term (perhaps hinting faithfulness to
God again), infrequently applied to biblical characters (the only other named actor described as blameless is Job and he refers to himself as such, Job 12:4).
Noah also walked with God (6:9). The only other biblical character to do this was Enoch, a man who did not seem to die but who was taken by God (Gen 5:24; cf. Cassuto
21
The ancient history of interpretation of Noah is varied, perhaps, because it was connected to the Jewish-Christian polemic; broadly speaking Christians glorified Noah while Rabbinic commentators vilified him (Kolyun-Fromm 1997, 57; cf. Gispen 1974, 251).
65
1972, 281-286). This has a potential dual meaning for Noah. On the one hand it suggests that Noah was so righteous and blameless that God considered him appropriate to be walked with. On the other hand, Noah died: God did not “take him,” perhaps implying that Noah was not as pure as Enoch. This lack of perfection is also implied by the “in this generation” motif: “for I have seen that you alone before me are righteous in this generation” (7:1).22
This may suggest that God considered Noah’s righteousness to be relative to the people who were corrupt and ultimately destroyed. Furthermore, as David Clines points out, the first thing said about Noah is that he found favor in the eyes of the Lord (6:8).23 This suggests that Noah’s finding favor and not his righteousness was the motivation for him being on the ark. It is possible that Noah finding favor with God had nothing to do with his righteousness. Indeed, the only time God used direct speech to describe Noah’s character was one of the references to his being relatively righteous (7:1; Clines 1998, 183).
It seems counterintuitive to assume anything other than Noah finding favor with God (6:8) because he was righteous (6:9; Harland 1996, 66). Nevertheless, it may be possible to suggest that Noah found favor with God and was therefore given righteousness as part of his relationship with God (Harland 1996, 47; Clark 1971, 261–280). These readings are based on the final form text. Source critical readings give different characterizations. The Yahwist shows a flawed Noah who was only righteous at the time of the flood (“righteous in this generation”) and who got drunk and (callously, unjustifiably?) cursed an innocent grandchild (p. 67). In contrast, the Priestly writer presents an absolute assessment of Noah as righteous, with the rare use of “blameless” and the comparison with Enoch (Gen 5:24). Furthermore, in the Priestly narrative, Noah died when he was an ancient 950 years old (Gen 9:29), thus his
22 הזה רודב ינפל קידצ יתיאר ךתא־יכ 23
Different translations of this phrase are possible, particularly “found grace” (KJV), and “winning favour” (NEB). See Hamilton (1990, 276) for discussion. Given the strong moral adjectives of 6:9, and considering that “Noah walked with God” (6:9), it is likely that Noah found favor (or perhaps grace) rather than won it.
66
cycle was completed morally and in accordance with God’s commands (Harland 1996, 52– 53). Although I focus on the final form of the text, this difference between the sources is relevant, because the retellings present the Priestly Noah, the Noah who is righteous in absolute terms (pp. 140-143).
There are other possible characterizations of Noah. The occasional commentator suggests that Noah’s muteness is “remarkable” because he does not plead as Abraham does for the innocents of Sodom (Gen 18.23–33; Dennis 1998, vii; Amos 2004, 49). If Noah had a speaking role, I would agree, but he does not. The gap is there, but it does not seem to offer cause to judge Noah negatively or positively. Noah’s name (חנ) is, however, an indicator of his character.
When Noah is born, Lamech names him as one who will bring relief from work and toil (Gen 5:29). Interpretations of the name חנ largely revolve around its similarity to םחנ
meaning “sorrow,” “comfort,” “compassion,” and “console” (BDB, 636–637; CDCH, 269) and הונ meaning “rest,” and “settle” (BDB, 628–629; CDCH, 264–264; cf. Kraeling 1929;
van Wolde 1994, 23–26; Marks 1995, 25–29).24 Here we have a key hint at Noah’s purpose as an actor: to give compassion, to console, and to cause rest. This is seen throughout the narrative and is highlighted through various types of wordplay. In terms of Noah being a wordplay on “rest,” the ark comes to rest on the mountains (חנתו, 8:4) and the dove returns to
the ark having found no resting place (חונמ, 8:9). The wordplays more specifically connected with God are, perhaps, more significant for understanding the narrative because they demonstrate a connection between Noah and God. We have already seen such an instance: God feels sorrow. Through the wordplay with Noah we have some kind of foreshadowing
24
“Comfort” loses favor in commentaries published after the opening years of the twentieth century (cf. Alford 1877, 29; Spurrell 1896, 67).
67
that Noah is also going to console God when he feels that sorrow. By inserting Noah and his righteousness as an intermission into God’s plan some relief has already been afforded to the reader: all is not lost!
Finally, the intertextual narrative following the flood story, the drunken Noah narrative (Gen 9:20–29), gives indications as to his character. This has a minimal role in the retellings, but briefly: Noah is a viniculturist, gets drunk, and curses his (probable) grandson Canaan when his son Ham sees him while he is naked.25 In the narrative Noah’s character is questionable. Accepting that drunkenness may or may not be a crime, why does Noah curse the descendants of the perpetrator of the crime? With extremely rare exceptions (Scalfo [c. 1966], DBID 170) flood retellings only allude to the Noah of this narrative when Noah is illustrated planting grapes. This in itself is hardly a negative character trait.26 In general, the flood narrative gives a broadly positive, but flawed, impression of Noah.
The location and presentation of Noah’s righteousness say something not only about Noah but also about God and the narrator. Through Noah finding favor with God, and God explicitly stating that Noah is righteous, the emphasis remains with God as the dominant character. At the same time, the narrator is ensuring that the reader understands that God made the right choice in favoring Noah because Noah is righteous. Meanwhile, the disclaimer “in this generation” could demonstrate both the unreliability and reliability of the narrator. The narrator could be showing that Noah was imperfect and God chose only the best available, or the narrator could be changing events to suit: Noah cannot be seen to be perfect
25 The narrative does not explain what Ham’s offense was. It is possible that the narrative refers to
castration (cf. Cassuto 1974, 150-151), or of voyeurism causing shame and derision (cf. Cassuto 1974, 151-152; Embry 2011, 419). Both of these maybe associated with forbidden sexual acts, as is the potential explanation that Ham’s offense was paternal or maternal incest (cf. Brenner 1997b, 107-09; Sietze Bergsma and Walker Hahn 2005; Stone 2005, 55-7). A simpler explanation is that the offense was Ham’s decision not to cover his father (Westermann 1994, 488).
26
I cannot pass without sharing the most amusing thing I have read by a scholar on this intertext. “In an act of escapism that leads directly to the biblical account of his demise, Noah plants a vineyard” (Klitsner 2009, 9). This apparently led Noah to drown by inundating his body with alcohol.
68
by God because of his later misdemeanors. Either way, Noah is righteous, but only relatively so, and it is Noah who is told to build the ark.
D. The Ark (Genesis 6:14–16)
The ark (הבת) has been the focus of much debate over the millennia, possibly more than anything else about the narrative. This is because the historicity of the flood was heavily dependent upon the practicality of the ark as an enormous floating vessel. The detailed but simultaneously vague description of the ark (6:14–16; 8:6, 13b) has helped to keep this debate simmering along; even today replica arks keep getting built.27 In brief, the textual ambiguities that have kept the debate alive for so long are:
הבת is first mentioned in 6:14, and is almost always translated into English as “ark.”
The Hebrew word may derive from an Egyptian word referring to a chest, box, or coffin (Skinner 1910, 160; Hamilton 1990, 280; BDB, 1061; KBL, 4:1677–1678). The only other usage of הבת in the Hebrew Bible is the “basket” of Moses (Ex 2:3, 5). רפג only appears in 6:14 (BDB, 172). The consensus is that it refers to a
water-resistant wood, although it is transliterated as “gopher” (NASB, KJV), and translated as “cypress” (NRSV, NIV, NEB), “teak” (Scullion 1992, 65) or resinous wood (NLT).
םינק (6:14) is usually translated as “rooms” or “compartments” (NIV, KJV) but
elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible it means birds’ nests, and a change in the pointing can
27
Johan Huibers, a Dutch Creationist, started building his first ark in 1992. He has since built many versions. The most recent full-sized replica is a seaworthy attraction, which opened in 2012 (http://www.arkvannoach.com/). The American organization “Answers in Genesis” are building “The Ark Encounter.” This is a theme park centered around a full-sized ark and due to open in 2014 (http://arkencounter.com/). A similar theme park, also with a full-sized ark, opened in Hong Kong in 2009 (http://www.noahsark.com.hk/eng/index.php).
69
change the meaning to reeds (Ullendorff 1954, 95–96; Wenham 1987, 173; Hamilton 1990, 281; Scullion 1992, 65).
רהצ only appears in 6:16 and is usually translated as “roof” (NIV, CEV) but
sometimes “window” (KJV, NASB), because of its similarity to רהצ meaning “noon” or “midday” (Armstrong 1960, 328; Hamilton 1990, 282). Its uniqueness has led some to suggest that it is an unusual type of window, such as a skylight (Skinner 1992, 81; Alter 1996, 29).
In addition to these (and other) ambiguities of language are various gaps that have been discussed, such as what shape the ark was and what the roof was like. Although the ark is fascinating in its own right, it is not discussed here in depth, but will be returned to (pp. 276-277; 299).
Finally, it is worth noting that the description of the ark is relayed entirely by God in direct speech. This demonstrates the concept of “narration-through-dialogue” (Alter 1981, 69) and emphasizes the dramatic qualities of the story by “showing” not “telling.” More importantly, it demonstrates the significance of God as the dominant character. By having God describe the ark, rather than the narrator, it remains God’s ark. God also describes who must enter the ark, to which I now turn.
E. The Occupants and Contents of the Ark (Genesis 6:18–7:5)
God describes who must enter the ark in direct speech: Noah’s sons (6:18), Noah’s wife (6:18), Noah’s sons’ wives (6:18), pairs of different kinds of animals (6:19–20), and 7 pairs of clean animals (7:2–3). Additionally, Noah is told to take on board enough food to feed those on the ark (6:21).
Noah’s sons are the first people God tells Noah to take on the ark. That God refers to them as an unnamed collective suggests that, for God at least, the sons’ status rather than
70
individual identity are the important factor. When the sons are named it is always by the narrator and Shem is always mentioned first (6:10; 7:13; 9:18).28 He says and does nothing. Along with his brothers (but not his wife, mother or sisters-in-law), God addresses him, gives him commands, and blesses him. He has no characterization within the flood story itself other than through his name (םשׁ). The name (םשׁ) may mean “name,” “reputation,” “fame,” (good) “standing,” “commemoration,” and “continuation” (KBL, 4:1548–1550). This is connected to the heroes of 6:4, who have a reputation/name (םש), and the tower of Babel in Gen 11:1–9,
which is built by people who want a reputation/name (םשׁ, 11:4; BDB, 1027–1028; CDCH, 467). Whereas the “name” of the heroes and the desire for the name by the builders breaks the divine/human boundaries, Shem as the forefather of Israel embodies the “name” (Gen 9:26; 10:21–31; 11:10–26).
Ham (םח) is mentioned in the same passages as Shem; therefore, the same general points are relevant. He is, however, mentioned second in the list of 3 sons (6:10; 7:13; 9:18). The etymology of his name may be related to “father-in-law” (םח) and the adjective “warm”
or “hot” (םח) because all 3 share the same two letters (and identical pointing, cf. BDB, 325– 326).29 There are no other indicators in the flood story itself about his character, although in the drunken Noah narrative (Gen 9:20–29) he sees Noah naked and tells his brothers. The text gives the impression that an inappropriate act has been committed because upon realizing the action the (righteous) Noah curses Ham’s son Canaan. Exactly why Ham was in the wrong we do not know, although there may be a play on words with the noun סמח meaning “violence” (6:11). Nonetheless, we have no actual suggestion as to what Ham’s character is,
28
It has been suggested that Shem (or even Noah) was the author of the flood story (Filby 1970, 66). This is extremely unlikely, although at least one retelling has taken this approach to (deliberately) comical effect (Coleman 2004, DBID 210).
29
It has also been suggested that it is connected to both the Western Semitic sun god hammu and the Egyptian word for “(divine) majesty” (van der Toorn 1999, 383–384).
71
and there are very few retellings where the drunken Noah narrative has an influence on Ham’s representation (pp. 154-157).
Like Ham, Japheth (תפי) is mentioned in the same locations as Shem, with the difference that he is last on the list (6:10; 7:13; 9:18). As with his brothers, there are few suggestions as to his character other than through his name and intertextual references. The word תפי has only one clear meaning: the name Japheth. There is, however, a similarity with the adjective meaning “beautiful” (הפי). The wordplay in Gen 9:27 creates more explicit
associations: תפילםיהלא תפ י (“may God enlarge/make space for Japheth,” BDB, 834; Wenham 1987, 202). It hints at the spread of Japheth’s descendants because they are blessed. Again, however, there is little to explicitly characterize Japheth within the flood story itself, and there are few retellings where his character is differentiated from the other sons (pp. 156-157).
The sons are the most difficult group to evaluate as functioning or nonfunctioning actors. This is because they do not actively do anything in the narrative. Yet, they are blessed and God does speak to them. For the most part, the passivity of the sons makes them nonfunctioning actors, but this is questioned later in this Chapter (pp. 95).
If Noah’s sons lack characterization, the women of the narrative fare worse because they are nameless. There are only 5 references to Noah’s wife, always as “wife.” Two references are in scenes where God speaks (6:18; 8:16) and 3 are in narratorial summaries (7:7, 13; 8:16). In 7:7 and 7:13 Noah’s wife, along with the other occupants of the ark, enters the ark. The occurrence of the same event happening twice is usually considered (in final form analysis) a repetition. There is, however, another possibility. The repetition of the same event twice is impossible and creates a contradiction. Contradictory time is a form of narrative duration (the relationship between discourse time and story time), proposed by
72
Brian Richardson (2002). It describes the literary technique of presenting events in conflicting ways thereby making it unclear as to what happened when (pp. 294-295). The dominance of summaries and contradictions can be interpreted as enhancing Noah’s wife through repeated representation. As literary techniques, however, the contradictions also keep her more distant from the key protagonists and events than the other actors involved in the contradictory summaries. This is because the other actors, specifically Noah and his sons, exist outside the contradictory time to a greater extent.
When God refers to Noah’s wife, it is to tell Noah that he will need to take her onto the ark with him (6:18), and to tell Noah to take her out of the ark (8:16). Phrases where she is mentioned are generally structured in the same way: “and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you” (6:18b). It has been noted that: “In Gen 8:16, God mentions Noah’s wife before his sons. In Gen 7:7, 13 and 8:18, however, it is the narrator who mentions Noah’s sons before his wife” (de Regt 1996, 95). This could be interpreted as suggesting that for God, Noah’s wife has higher status than Noah’s sons, but that the converse is true for the narrator. This does not hold true, however, during God’s direct speech. In 6:18 God mentions Noah’s sons before his wife. Either way the order of the actors says little about the character of Noah’s wife herself, although it may say something about the status she is given by God and the narrator. When God tells Noah to leave the ark, he tells him to leave with his wife and for his sons to leave with their wives. The ordering has been changed into pairs, thereby emphasizing the procreative potential of the pairings. This order of disembarkation suggests that at least one purpose of the ark is to maintain society through the different generations and marital relationships. It ensures that society and order can be restored from the chaos (Niditch 1985, 23). It could be possible to argue that this results in the social status of Noah’s wife being increased. If it is, it is because of her breeding potential and her social role and not because of her as an individual. This is based upon the
73
idea that Noah and his sons are told to go forth and multiply (9:2; cf. 9:19; 10:1, 2, 6, 22; p. 90).
Noah’s wife is always unnamed and defined by her husband. This lack of a personal name differentiates her, and focuses away from her, onto the named men of the narrative (Reinhartz 1993, 119; Bohmbach 2000, 39). She has practical significance as someone who is presumably Noah’s companion (Frymer-Kensky 2000, 177). It is also widely assumed that Noah’s wife is the mother of Noah’s sons, although this is never explicitly stated. By not having her role as mother defined, Noah’s wife’s identity is further denied. This factor is in addition to her subordination to the background of the narrative as someone who is mute, passive, and only present when she enters and leaves the ark. She does not threaten Noah’s dominance by acting. She is silent, which is symptomatic of the patriarchy of biblical narratives (cf. Brenner 1997b, 110–135; Fuchs 2000, 116–176). All of this combines to make her a nonfunctioning actor.
Of the human occupants on the ark, Noah’s sons’ wives are always last to be mentioned. This always happens in the same verses as Noah’s wife (6:18; 7:7, 13; 8:16, 18). Just like Noah’s wife, they are unnamed, and we can glean nothing of their character without the use of gap filling and conjecture. In fact, Noah’s sons’ wives would seem to have even less status than their mother-in-law, because they remain the possession of their husbands: they are not even given the status of daughters-in-law (הלכ cf. Gen 11:31; Gen 38:11; 1 Sam 4:19). As with Noah’s wife, they are nonfunctioning actors.
It is a shame that biblical feminist scholars have largely ignored the women of the flood narrative. The namelessness and apparent invisibility of the presumed mother and her daughters-in-law appear to be the primary reason why (feminist) Bible scholars have not
74
discussed them (Brenner 1989; Hyman 1998).30 Occasionally the wives are referred to in minimal terms but often still connected with the male roles in the story (Pardes 1993, 181; Frymer-Kensky 2000, 177). Two exceptions do question the silence and near invisibility of the women. One notes: “The earth is flooded but women remain bystanders. She stands near but never active. She is needed for progeny. She is mute. But She is there” (Selvidge 1996, 10). More recently, gaps in the narrative have been questioned asking: “What did she [Noah’s wife] think, fear, want, or need? . . . Was she around when God made the covenant with Noah?” (Kirk-Duggan 2010, 244) These gaps, and others, are filled in many retellings, although the silent, inactive presence dominates (pp. 158-171).
As well as the humans, God and the narrator state that animals must enter the ark. This is done in far more detail than for the humans. When the animals are grouped together by type, their collective names are descriptive:
ףוע: collective noun—“flying creatures, fowl, insects” (BDB, 733; CDCH, 316)—
associated with the verb to “fly” (ףוע). It is sometimes part of a construct chain with
“heavens/sky” (םימשׁהףוע, 6:7, 20; 7:3, 8, 14, 21, 23; 8:17, 19, 20; 9:2, 3).
המהב: “Beast, animal,” A collective noun meaning “beasts,” used in opposition to
man, birds, reptiles, and wild animals. Also means “living thing, animal,” “wild animals,” and “unclean beasts” (6:7, 20; 7:2, 8[x2], 14, 21, 23; 8:1, 17; 9:3, 5, 10). The exact usage is contextual and somewhat arbitrary (BDB, 97; CDCH, 41). The main designation is nonhuman animal, which is also not flying, swarming or creeping. שׂמר: collective noun, “creeping things, moving things” from the verb to “creep, move
lightly” (שׂמר ; BDB 942–943; CDCH, 424). The verb form and noun are used in the
30
Only the women of Gen 6:1–4 seem to be discussed and their impact on the flood story is rarely considered beyond a cursory remark (Davies 1993, 194–201; Pippin 1998, 47–59).
75
narrative (6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 21, 23; 8:17, 19). They do not necessarily have the same negative connotations as in English (Gen 1:21), but שׂמר is also used negatively elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Ezek 8:10).
רופצ: collective noun, “birds” related to the onomatopoeic ףפצ meaning to “chirp,
peep” (BDB, 861, CDCH, 384; 7:14).
ץרשׁ: A collective noun meaning “swarmers, swarming things” also “small reptiles and
quadrupeds” from the verb to “swarm, teem” (ץרשׁ ; BDB, 1056–1057; CDCH, 479–
480). The verb form and noun are used in the narrative (7:21; 8:17; cf. 9:7). They do not have the same negative connotations as in English (9:7, cf. Ex 1:7; Lev 11:20–21). I have listed all of the animals because the specific animal occupants of the ark are rarely discussed, rather being (dismissively?) described as a redactional “catalog” (cf. Cassuto 1972, 305; Wenham 1987, 175; Westermann 1994, 406–407). The details of the animals themselves have been treated as by and large irrelevant. This is despite the fact that the biblical text repeats the lists of the animals as separate groups in detail and often. Biblical scholarship has ignored this (perhaps it is too obvious?) and has focused upon the details more heavily connected to source criticism: the clean animals, unclean animals, and numbers of animals. The detailed lists of animals protected on the ark and blotted out in the flood highlights the significance of animals in the narrative. It draws attention to the question pertaining to the guilt or innocence of nonhuman life, and the respective justice or not or God’s actions (pp. 61-62; 126). The detailed lists show the sheer scope of the flood and God’s power, but also the importance of nonhuman life on earth. If the animals were not as important, it is unlikely they would be cited more frequently than the female occupants of the ark. If number of citations is interpreted as a signifier of status, the animals are more important than the wives. Add to this the naming conventions where birds are described with
