Arca Lui Noe

11 01 You shall make.
doc 1 26/01/2011

You shall make a tbh
Table of Contents
YOU SHALL MAKE A TBH 1
1.1. NOTES: 1
1.2. ABSTRACT: 1
1.3. GENESIS 6:14 2
1.3.1. Genesis 6:14 r. gopher wood..................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.2. Genesis 6:14 r: 'pitch' ............................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.3. Genesis 6:14 c . ; 'nests' ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.4. GENESIS 6:15 9
1.5. EXCURSUS: QUESTIONS OF GENRE 11
1.5.1. Universality................................................................................................................................................ 11
1.5.2. Genre and the Flood Narrative.................................................................................................................. 12
1.5.3. The Bible and Fantasy................................................................................................................................ 14
1.5.4. The Bible and Humour ............................................................................................................................... 18
1.5.5. Studies of Humour in the Flood Narrative................................................................................................. 19
1.6. EXCURSUS: A LITERARY COMPARISON OF THE ANE TALES - MANY WAYS TO TELL A STORY 23
1.6.1. Atrahasis .................................................................................................................................................... 24
1.6.2. Gilgamesh .................................................................................................................................................. 26
1.6.3. The Biblical Narrative................................................................................................................................ 30
1.7. GENESIS 6:16 35
1.7.1. A s (har) you shall make .................................................................................................................... 35
1.7.2. Finishing it one cubit above. ...................................................................................................................... 40
1.7.3. Put an entrance in the side of the tbh. .................................................................................................... 48
1.7.4. Lowest, second and third you will make..................................................................................................... 49
1.7.5. You shall make it!....................................................................................................................................... 51
1.8. UNDERSTANDING THE TBH. 53
1.8.1. Tbh and Creation.................................................................................................................................... 53
1.8.2. The Tabernacle,Temple and Tbh............................................................................................................ 55
1.8.3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 58
APPENDIX 2 59

1.1. Notes:
This is a first draft paper prepared as part of initial research into a doctorate on The Flood
Narrative. It is E. A. Harper 2011. Should you wish to use this paper in your own
research, I should be honoured but please contact the author for a more up to date version.

1.2. Abstract:
Genesis 6:14-16 appears in most translations as a mundane practical set of instructions.
Brief and incomplete, nevertheless, they gave Noah a blueprint for a sea-going vessel that
would house all living things. Closer examination suggests that all is not as it seems. The
passage is full of hapax legomena, words that have puzzled readers since the earliest
translations. Common words are eschewed for cryptic expressions that might confuse more
than they illumine first time readers. More poetic than practical the divine instructions are
full of cultic resonances and allusions to temple and tabernacle. They raise significant
questions of genre and draw the interpreter into comparative studies with Atrahasis and
Gilgamesh.
11 01 You shall make.doc 2 26/01/2011

1.3. Genesis 6:14
Since the inception of the plot marker in 5:29 the plot line has oscillated between
complications that deepen the problems the narrative must solve and allusions to the plot
marker that revive hope. The text now returns to the latter with instructions to Noah, the
hero of whom we anticipate so much. For the returning reader 6:13 and 14 provide a sharp
contradiction. Hardly has God uttered his all-encompassing destructive determination
(6:13) than he appears to undermine those very intentions with the command to create an
'ark' (6:14). Noah, it seems, really might be able to lead God to reverse his judgements, at
least in part.

To the first-time reader and to the character Noah, however, the instructions are perhaps
much more opaque. Hard on the heels of the decision to ruin all the earth (6:13) is this
instruction to make a : (tbh) a word unique to the flood and Exodus 2:3. It is often
suggested that it is an Egyptian loan word meaning 'chest' but that may be clutching at
straws based on the Septuagint.
1
A first-time reader might wonder, given the mood of God
in 6:12-13, whether this tbh will be the means of God's destruction rather than Noah's
salvation. Perhaps God is going to implicate our hero in his project to ruin the earth? That
would be plot complication indeed. The matter is not resolved for the first-time reader until
verses 17-18, but uncertainty as to the purpose of this tbh can only make the following
enigmatic instructions even more unfathomable.

1.3.1. Genesis 6:14 r. gopher wood
Although all ancient and modern translations clarify the text of 6:14-16 so that it outlines
the making of a boat-shaped "ark", the Masoretic Hebrew is obscure, full of curious
vocabulary and grammar that might bewilder a first-time reader who has no inkling of
water or floods prior to 6:17. Other than a hint of water in the use of : 'blot out' (6:7)
God has given now clue as to how he will 'corrupt' n the earth (6:11-13). n is used

1
There is no obvious Hebrew root from which the word might be derived. The more common explanation is an Egyptian
loan word from tbt possibly meaning a box or chest ({BDB} 1061) although this derivation would fit better the Egyptian
context of Ex 2 than the Mesopotamian flood. A Mesopotamian derivative from elippu tibitu is favoured by e.g. {Jacob 34, p.
187} although elippu is the word for boat. {Dahood 82b, p. 21-22} argues for an Old Canaanite origin based on Eblaite ti-ba
which he translates 'ark'. However, it is not clear what ti-ba means except that it is related to the gods. It does not appear in
any flood or sea-going context. The Septuagint translates tbh in Gen 6 as , 'chest, box', the word it also uses for
the Ark of the Covenant but the LXX then uses 'basket?' in Ex 2:3-5 (Moses). The Septuagint may retain an ancient
etymology or may be influenced into imagining a chest by the 'squared' (gopher) wood and the rectangular dimensions of
6:14-15.

more frequently in contexts of physical violence that knocks down people and structures.
2

There is little in 6:14-16 to suggest that the construction will be a boat.
3

Whatever this tbh is, it is to be made of . r (gopher) wood, a hapax legomenon that
seems to echo r: at the end of the sentence.
4
The word has puzzled translators through the
centuries. Philo
5
and the LXX understand the word as 'squared' (), while the
Vulgate translates it as 'smooth/ slippery' (levigatis). Most modern translations understand
it as a species of conifer tree.
6
We can only wonder if the word was as cryptic, for its
original hearers as it has been for subsequent readers. Was it an obscure word chosen
perhaps for its poetic rhyming or some lost nuance, or was it simply a named tree whose
identity has disappeared with time?
7

1.3.2. Genesis 6:14 r: 'pitch'
The word r. (gopher) rhymes with, : r , is also obscure with its unique Qal verb and
cognate accusative noun. Uniformly rendered 'pitch',
8
the translation seems based as much
on what the reader, envisaging the making of a boat, expects to find at this point in the
story, as any Hebrew lexical derivation. The word for 'pitch' elsewhere is nrt or :.
9

Pitch-like substances occur in the Mesopotamian flood narratives at this point and it is
often suggested that the use of r: is influenced by Gilgamesh's kupru.
10
If indeed the
word is an Akkadian loan-word then the reader might well wonder why perfectly good
Hebrew words were eschewed. In particular it is perhaps strange that there are not more
linguistic resonances with Exodus 2 which apparently outlines a similar process of creating
a wood and reed 'tbh' covered in bitumen ( : ) designed to float upon the waters to save
Moses.
11

2
Gen 6:11 (violence), Ex 12:23 (striking people down), Dt 20:19-20 (cutting down trees), Josh 22:33 (warfare)
3
A more normal word for boat might be .x Prov 30:19, Jon 3:1. {Brichto 98, p. 141}. The rabbis strongly emphasised that it
was not a boat but a box that Noah was to make so that he was saved, not by his nautical skills, but God's will {Zlotowitz 80,
p. 230}. Cassuto suggests that the author deliberately avoids the 'boat' idea of the Mesopotamian narratives {Cassuto 49, p.
61}. Yet, although there is much boat imagery in Atrahasis and Gilgamesh there are also details such as the apparently
cubic dimensions in Gilgamesh ({Gilgamesh 49} XI:57-59) that take even those stories outside of normal boat building.
4
{BDB, p. 172i}. {Jacob 34, p. 188} finds this 'surprising' (merkwrdigerweise) but does not seem to consider whether the
rhyming may have been intentional.
5
{Philo Q&A on Genesis, p. II:2}
6
NRSV, NIV have 'cypress wood', NEB, REB 'ribs of cypress', influenced perhaps by the Targum's translation as 'cedar
wood' ({Targum Onqelos}, {Targum Pseudo-Jonathan}). KJV, Tanakh go for the literal transliteration 'gopher wood', NLT,
NJB develop the rhyme with r: 'pitch?' to suggest pitch-wood i.e. 'resinous wood'.
7
{Westermann 76, p. 420} says "This detail can only have had its origin in an environment where this was a well-known
tree". However as it is not clear that it is a species of tree but may instead be an adjectival description, other options must
be considered. Westermann seems driven by practical not poetic concerns.
8
All ancient and modern translations translate the word as 'pitch' (LXX: Vulg: bitmen). However there are no
other Hebrew uses of the noun with the meaning of pitch.
9
nrt: Ex 2:3, Is 34:9, :: Gen 11:3, 14:10, Ex 2:3.
10
{Gilgamesh 49} XI:65-66, {Atrahasis 69} III:i,ii. The Akkadian word for pitch in Gilgamesh is kupru {BDB, p. 498ii},
{Wenham 87, p. 173}. However there are no other surviving Hebrew uses of the noun with the meaning of pitch.
11
One might have expected the Ex 2:3 wording to appear here i.e. : : : : 'you will bitumen it with bitumen'). Although
this paper has concentrated on intertextual resonances within the primeval narrative there are also many resonances with

It is possible that the r: wording was chosen for its poetic qualities,
12
or from pressure of
some Mesopotamian Vorlage but it is also possible that the writer intentionally avoided the
explicit words for bitumen and/or deliberately chose r: for its semantic field.

The Piel form of r: is elsewhere used in contexts of atonement or propitiation, especially
in ritual texts, to suggest the removal or covering of wrong doing, while the noun is most
frequently a 'ransom' paid to redeem a life.
13
Taking our cue from the Piel, and without the
need of a loan-word, sense can be made of the Qal verb in Genesis 6:14 as a literal
covering, in contrast to the metaphorical Piel, i.e. 'you will cover it with a cover inside and
out'.
14
It would thus be a general, if rather vague, instruction. Pitch would, of course, be a
suitable covering and one that might well occur to a returning reader who knows that the
tbh must be a watertight 'boat'. The traditional reading could then be seen as a free
translation but not an erroneous attempt to make sense of the Masoretic text. However the
reading then misses the notion of atonement and ransom that hangs tantalisingly in the
Hebrew background, and turns the verse into a rather prosaic, practical set of instructions.
The Hebrew-speaking reader might wonder if this tbh will, in some mysterious way,
cover over, and atone for the violence of the earth (6:5,11-12) or even for the curse upon
the dm and its causes (5:29). Will the tbh provide a ransom for its contents, the
preservation of lives?
15
This is one instance where attempting to read the narrative both as
a first-time and as a returning reader might enable the returning reader to break out of the
familiar ingrained interpretation and be challenged anew by the strange suggestive nuances
of the text.

the Exodus narrative, as briefly explored, for instance by {Moberly 83, p. 113}. But while there are links of theme, theology
and plot to Exodus 2, the linguistic links do not seem to be as strong as with, say, Genesis 1. One can hypothesize, for
instance, that the writer of Exodus 2 knew the Noah narrative and conceived of Moses being saved in a tbh but found the
construction language of Gen 6:14-16 too obscure to emulate. This would make more sense than the alternative: the
borrowing by the writer of Noah of the Moses account but concealing the links by replacing the clear statements of Exodus 2
with vague instructions. However, all such historical reconstructions can only be speculative.
12
{Cassuto 49, p. 61}
13
The Piel form of the verb r : appears to mean 'cover over' wrong doing in contexts of atonement and propitiation Gen
32:21, 2 Sam 21:3, Dt 21:8. {BDB, p. 497-499}. The noun r: means 'a ransom' in e.g. Ex 21:30,Jb 33:24, Prov 13:8 (13x)
{BDB, p. 498ii}, while in SofS 1:14, 4:13 r: refers to a plant, possibly henna and in 1 Sam 6:18 it means 'village'. In
specifics none of these verses fit the Genesis context, but if the root meaning is 'cover over' then it both makes sense and
gives suggestive nuances.
14
So Ibn Caspi {Zlotowitz 80, p. 231}.
15
Interestingly {Midrash Rabbah, p. 243} XXXI:9 draws out a similar idea from the following word c.; 'nests'. "R. Isaac said:
Just as a en (pair of birds) cleanses a leper, so shall the ark cleanse thee." R. Isaac's logic or word play may be hard to
follow but the association with cleansing is interesting.

1.3.3. Genesis 6:14 c . ; 'nests'
Not only is the tbh to be made of . r (gopher) wood and covered, it is to have ; c .
(qinnm). At first sight this appears to be the plural of ; 'nest',
16
and so it has long been
understood.
17
Although birds will get substantial mention later in the story it is odd that
space is explicitly and exclusively made for them in the tbh and not also for people or
animals. As the word is sometimes used as a metaphor for a home or lodging place,
18
the
word is more usually translated, again from earliest times, as 'rooms' or 'cells'.
19

However the metaphorical use of ; for a human dwelling place is always in an extended
metaphor where the bird imagery is quite explicit.
20
Again it would be strange to use this
word in a set of potentially prosaic instructions when words like ~ 'chamber' and :
'room' are available or even words such as c ~ : : 'separations' which would have carried
resonances with Genesis 1.
21
The reader might wonder if c . ; was also chosen for poetic
reasons, although, apart from its metaphorical character, its poetic qualities are unclear.

The phrase is awkward in other ways too. Grammatically the position of c . ; means that it
could be affixed to the first imperative use of the verb :, in a type of genitival
relationship ('Make a tbh of gopher wood nests') or it might belong with the second
imperfect use in an emphatic position ('nests, you shall make'). As the former option
would render a truncated second phrase ('you shall make the tbh'), it is universally
assumed that c . ; attaches to the second verb.
22
This, however, leaves that verb with a
double accusative. : is not a verb that takes two accusatives,
23
so one would expect one
of the nouns to behave adverbially. However, it is not clear which of the two nouns is the

16
Dt 32:11, Ps 84:4, Prov 27:8 etc. although always singular.
17
LXX , {Philo Q&A on Genesis} II:3 has an extended image of the ark as representing the body with the eyes, ears,
nose as nests in which sight, sound and smell nest.
18
Num 24:21, Job 29:18, Jer 49:16.
19
Vul: mansiunculas 'chambers, little dwellings'. {Targum Onqelos} :~: 'dwelling place'. {Targum Pseudo-Jonathan} has
'make 150 cells' ;. Most English translations have 'rooms' NRSV, NIV, KJV, Tanakh with the exception of NEB, REB and
NJB see below.
20
e.g. Obad 1:4: "Though you soar aloft like the eagle, though your nest is set among the stars, from there I will bring you
down, says the LORD.", Prov 27:8 Like a bird that strays from its nest is one who strays from home. {Ullendorff 54, p. 95}
21
~ Dt 32:25 is often used for a private inner chamber, a personal room Gen 43:30 often a bedroom Ex 7:28. Although it
is never used for animals it's use is not restricted to humans e.g. the chamber of the whirlwind Job 37:9, chambers of death
Prov 7:27, c.f. also Job 9:9; : can be a larger less intimate room 1 Sam 9:22, Neh 13:5 but it can be the room of an
individual 2 Kgs 23:11, 1 Chr 9:33 a storage room 2 Chr 31:11, Neh 10:38-40. ~ : : is used in Gen 1:6 and the root is a key
word in the creation account which the flood so often echoes but which, surprisingly, is one of the few words not found in the
flood narrative. It might even have been possible for the writer to use : : 'dwelling place, abode'. Although it usually means
tabernacle and the dwelling place of God Ex 25:9 it can be used of humans Jb 18:21, Is 32:18 and animals Job 39:6. It
would enhance the temple nuances of the passage. In a similar vein : : 'dwelling place' Lev 25:29, Ex 35:3, would be no
more awkward than c . ;, although it more often means a geographical dwelling location it can indicate housing.
22
The MT has a disjunctive zaqef qaton accent on r . s : preceding c . ;. LXX uses the accusative rather than the dative
which would be needed if it belonged to the first phrase.
23
An English verb that can take a double accusative would be 'taught'. 'I taught the class Hebrew.' The main LXX
manuscripts retain the double accusative although it is equally awkward in Greek. The Vulgate inserts a preposition see fn
33 p6.

'true' accusative. Is the asyndetic c . ; 'nests', in its apparently emphatic position prior to the
verb,
24
the direct object or is it is : n x the equally emphatic tbh with its definite
article and accusative marker,
25
i.e. is it 'nests' or 'the tbh' that Noah is to make, and in
what sense would the other noun qualify this?
26
None of the standard adverbial accusative
entries in the grammar books fit this verse well. An accusative of material is hardly likely
('make the tbh out of nests', let alone 'make nests out of the tbh material).
27
An
accusative of result/ product is marginally better ('make the tbh into/so that it becomes
nests') but this might suggest the transformation of the tbh into separate nests.
28
The
awkwardness led some scholars to repeat c . ; to try to give a distributive effect 'nothing but
nests',
29
but it is not clear that the doubling of the noun would achieve this. Cassuto
believes it would mean "break the ark to pieces and make thereof many compartments."
30

Another option is to treat the n x, not as the accusative marker, but the preposition 'with'.
The ark, though, is hardly an assistant in the making of 'nests', nor is it to be alongside the
nests,
31
and the only plausible grammatical use would be a preposition of co-ordination
'make nests as well as/along with the tbh.'
32

Common sense suggests that the text really ought to mean ' make nests/rooms within the
tbh'. Since at least the Vulgate, translations have, therefore, used the preposition 'in'.
33

However there is minimal grammatical warrant for a locative accusative and we would
expect the preposition or possibly : to appear if this was intended.
34

24
{Jacob 34, p. 188}
25
As {Jacob 34, p. 188} notes, one would normally expect a pronoun (Ex 25:18, 29; Ex 28:15, Nums 10:2 etc.) and
therefore tbh, too, seems to be emphatic.
26
Most translations consider 'nests' to be primary and add a preposition to 'the tbh' so NRSV 'make rooms in the ark'.
This has precedent in the Vulgate: mansiunculas in arca. NASB however treats the 'the tbh' as primary 'you shall make
the ark with rooms', as does Tanakh ''make it an ark with compartments'. LXX keeps the double accusative.
27
For accusatives of material see {Williams 07, p. 20}53, {Van der Merwe, p. 245}33.3(iv), {GKC, p. 371}117hh, {Joon,
p. 423}125v. The very similar sentence construction in Exodus and Numbers would otherwise suggest that grammatically
this is an accusative of material. See below fn44p8.
28
For accusatives of result see {Williams 07, p. 20}52, {Van der Merwe, p. 245}33.2.1(i)b, {Joon, p. 423}125p. {GKC, p.
371}117ii actually lists Gen 6:14 under this heading. However in all other examples listed in Gesenius the original material
is transformed into the final product Gn 27:9 kids into savoury food, Ex 30:25 ingredients into an anointing oil etc. The tbh
is not transformed into a nest and nests are not made into a tbh.
29
For the distributive suggestion see e.g. {Delitzsch 88, p. 257}, {Ullendorff 54, p. 95}, {Gunkel 1910, p. 144}, {Skinner 12, p.
161fn}. These scholars often suggest this is source of the repetition found in a Syriac lectionary version and in {Philo Q&A
on Genesis} 2:3. As Q&A is only found in an Armenian version perhaps influenced by the Syriac this is speculative. These
scholars also often cite {GKC} 123c, but according to Gesenius it would need the waw (c.;: c.;) to achieve 'all nests you
shall make the tbh.' and Gesenius' examples all concern items naturally repeating themselves day by day/ every day,
year by year/ every year, generation by generation/ every generation. A translation 'every nest you shall make the tbh'
shows that this grammatical structure does not work in this context.
30
{Cassuto 49, p. 62}.
31
For the various uses of the preposition see {Williams 07, p. 127-129}338-347.
32
For n x of co-ordination see {Williams 07, p. 128}343 citing Gen 6:3 'destroying them along with the earth' as an example.
33
Vulgate 'in arcam', KJV, NRSV, NIV. Some variant LXX manuscripts use 'upon/ on top of it', which, as Wevers
notes, would be a suitable place for bird's nests. {Wevers 93, p. 84}
34
One would expect: : : : c . ; 'nests make in the tbh.' as e.g. Ex 26:5 : : : c.f. Gen 7:23, 8:1 or : c . ;
: 'nests make for/to the tbh'. e.g. Ex 28:42 c : : c.f. Gen 6:16. There is a controversial category of accusative of
place but, if that exists, it indicates the location where the verb is carried out and would mean something like 'when you are
at or in the tbh then make nests there'. {Williams 07, p. 20}54b, {Waltke 90, p. 170} 10.2.2b.

It is not only the grammar but also the logic of the section which does not fit the concept of
'nests'. Instructions to make rooms, one might expect, would come after one has made the
'decks' in 6:16, not before.
35
According to the logic of the rest of the verse, it is sometimes
suggested that 6:14 concerns the materials from which to make the tbh wood and pitch
and therefore it would be most logical for c . ; to refer to some building material.
36

However, in the light of the uncertainty over r: 'covering', it might be better to say that
6:14 is primarily about creating the outer framework or shell of the tbh not its materials.
6:15 then follows with the measurements for this shell. 6:16 seems to give the finishing
touches to this outer shell and only then are there, apparently, instructions about the
interior of the tbh. The construction order in Gilgamesh follows a similar pattern of
shell, followed by dimensions and concluding with interior, although in more detail.
37
The
building of the temple has a similar movement from the outside inwards.
38
If this logic is
correct then the making of compartments should come at the end of v16, not in the middle
of v14 and some early source critics moved the phrase accordingly.
39

Because so much is awkward with c . ; as 'nests' in v14, an amendment to the text, rather
than a rearrangement, has also gained some popularity.
40
If c . ; is repointed c . ; then it
becomes the plural of . ; 'reeds' or perhaps better 'stalks'.
41
The change is minor but has
various benefits. Although 'stalks' or 'reeds' are not elsewhere used in the Bible for building
purposes there is some evidence that they were indeed used in ancient construction
projects.
42
Reeds certainly feature prominently in the Mesopotamian narratives and in

35
{Ullendorff 54, p. 95}.
36
{Jacob 34, p. 188}, {Ullendorff 54, p. 95}, {Driver G 54, p. 243}, {Wenham 87, p. 173}.
37
{Gilgamesh 49} XI:56-62. In line 56 Gilgamesh lays the framework, then in 57-58 the size is given, the outside framework
is confirmed in 59 and 60-62 concerns the interior 'decks' and 'sections'. However pitch is mentioned afterwards (XI:65-69)
as part of the provisioning of the ship. Unfortunately the Atrahasis Epic is missing the lines concerning the building of the
boat although the last lines are present mentioning a roof followed by upper and lower decks as in 6:16.
38
{Hurowitz 85, p. 23a} The temple construction can be found in 1 Kgs 5-7. The measurements come much closer to the
beginning of the description (in 1 Kgs 6:2), after the preparation of the materials but prior to the construction of the
framework, but otherwise the pattern is similar. The details of the making of the tabernacle in Exodus 35-39 are similar to
the Temple gathering of materials, making of the frame and making of the interior but no overall dimensions are given.
39
{Gunkel 1910, p. 144} citing Winckler and Sievers.
40
The change is to be found in the NEB and REB English translations and is advocated by e.g. {Jacob 34, p. 188},
{Ullendorff 54, p. 96}, {Driver G 54, p. 243}, {Wenham 87, p. 173}.
41
The singular is used for stalks of grain Gen 41:5, reeds 1 Ki 14:15, Is 42:3, sugar cane Jer 6:20 or a more solid stalk of a
broken staff 2 Ki 18:21. It is therefore a broader term than 'reeds' which may also be designated by : x Gen 41:2.18 and : . x
Jb 40:26, Is 58:5. The plural is used metaphorically for the branches of the menorah in Ex 25:32-36, 37:18-22 and for
measuring 'reeds' in Ezek 42:16-19 thus reeds can be solid or flexible. The repointing of the noun is probably better than R.
Yahuda suggestion that the root is an Egyptian loan word meaning papyrus fibre used to seal the joints of boats. {Jacob 34,
p. 188}. {Driver G 54, p. 243} queries whether there was such an Egyptian word. Either way, Cassuto's complaint that such
fibres would only be used for small details does not bear up {Cassuto 49, p. 62}. It is indeed possible that 'reeds' could have
been an important constituent in the making of the whole tbh.
42
{Ullendorff 54, p. 96} talks of reeds to fill gaps and crevices in boat building to give buoyancy. {Driver G 54, p. 243} speaks
of reed mats to make boats water tight. {Pederson 05} argues that the details found in Gilgamesh including the covering of
the boat in pitch and oil at the final stage match closely the pattern of making a sewn (rather than nailed) boat. While the
Noah narrative is less fulsome he believes it also fits this pattern.

some versions the hero is instructed to dismantle his reed hut and make of it a boat.
43

Reeds also fit well with the outlined logic of the passage, being a building material for the
external shell of the tbh. Grammatically too, the reading is plausible as an emphatic
accusative of material: 'of stalks, you shall make the tbh', a structure mirrored in, for
example, Numbers 10:2.
44
There is therefore much to commend the amendment. For the
final-form reader, the amendment removes one of the oddities in the passage and makes it
a little more comprehensible and 'realistic'. However, care must be taken that the change is
not being made simply to bring the story in line with our notions of a 'realistic' boat
building project at the expense of the poetic nuances and hyperbolic and extraordinary
elements found elsewhere in the narrative. Even if the amendment is made, the
construction is still obscure for the first-time reader. Wood, reeds and a 'covering' could
suggest, for instance, a mud and daub house as much as a boat.

43
The fragment CBS13532 seems to envisage a structure entirely of reeds {Atrahasis 69, p. 126-127} It was once thought
that the standard Tablet III:21-22 of Atrahasis envisaged destroying a reed house, but the text may involve fleeing rather
than destroying {Hoffner 76}. Utnapishtim is indeed to pull down his house but its materials are not clear. {Gilgamesh 03} XI
:22-24. In all cases a reed wall features at this point in the story.
44
For accusatives of material see {Williams 07, p. 20}53,{Van der Merwe, p. 245}33.3(iv), {GKC, p. 371}117hh, {Joon,
p. 423}125v. Num 10:2 reads: c n x : ; : q : : n ss j : 'make for yourself 2 trumpets of silver, of hammered
work(meaning uncertain) you shall make them'. c.f. Gen 6:14: : n x : c . ; r. s : n : j : 'make for yourself a
tbh of gopher-wood, of reeds, you shall make the tbh, c.f. also Ex 25:18, 29; Ex 27:8; 30:1. There is no need to posit a
: homonym meaning 'cover', as proposed by {Driver G 54, p. 243} for this reading to stand.

1.4. Genesis 6:15
That this is an extraordinary building project emerges even more clearly in 6:15. The tbh
is to be 300x50x30 cubits. Admittedly it is not as large as the 120 cubits square of the
Gilgamesh boat,
1
but it is certainly longer than it. It has the same height and width
dimensions, but three times the length ascribed to the palace in 1 Kings, possibly one of the
largest buildings known to a pre-exilic Israelite reader.
2
For a first-time reader there has
been nothing in God's speech, thus far, to prepare them for such a mammoth construction.
After all, the only other biblical tbh (if the reader even knows of it) Moses tbh is
small enough to hide among the reeds (Exodus 2:3-5).

Like the chronology, one can wonder whether these rounded numbers of the tbh which
resonate with the palace/ temple/ tabernacle complex had some symbolic and poetic
nuance. This is certainly as likely as the idea that the writer changed the Gilgamesh square
dimensions solely for something with 'more aesthetic and rational appeal',
3
given that the
seafaring qualities of the tbh are downplayed. Scholarly suggestions are, therefore,
numerous.
4

The giving of dimensions is found, elsewhere, primarily in the tabernacle and temple
construction narratives, and although the numbers do not match any particular building
exactly, the numbers are quite in keeping with those dimensions.
5
Perhaps, then, the most
likely symbolic nuance is that the tbh is to be seen as a holy space, a sanctuary area like
the tabernacle and temple. There is much debate about temple symbolism in the primeval
narrative but the giving of these dimensions to the tbh certainly encourages a well

1
{Gilgamesh 49} XI:57-58. {Cassuto 49, p. 63} notes that this is in keeping with the primeval narrative's general tendency to
modesty in numbers in comparison to the Mesopotamian equivalents. Sadly dimensions in the Atrahasis and Eridu
narratives have not survived, if they existed. Berosus, however, who may be drawing on these traditions, has an even larger
boat than Gilgamesh 5 x 2 stadia, but this may be his own rough translation or his view of a fitting size for the task.
2
1 Kg 7:2 has the 'House of the Forest of Lebanon' at 100x50x30 which is the closest match to the tbh except in length.
3
{Armstrong 60, p. 331} The rectangular shape is certainly more boat like than the Gilgamesh square, but the writer is not
obviously concerned to make a boat and the tbh is never called a boat. There is plenty else that is irrational in the story.
4
Philo matches the figures to the proportions of the human body in keeping with his understanding of the ark as allegory of
the body {Philo Q&A on Genesis} II:5. Augustine echoes this view {City of God} 15:26. The analogy is rather rough. The
Mesopotamian sexagesimal system for these figures is often noted. {Cassuto 49, p. 63}. Jerome in Homilies 84 finds the
Christian journey to salvation in the numbers: It begins at 50 with repentance (Psalm 50) leading to 300 which contains the
tau of the crucifixion, and finally to new life at 30 being Christ's age at baptism. {Louth 01, p. 131}. Cyril of Alexandria sees
symbolism of the Trinity here {Kerrigan 52, p. 383} in the three (hundred) and the fifty (the perfect 7x7+1) united in the one
God (one cubit above).
5
We noted fn2p9 the similarity with the House of the Forest of Lebanon. The Temple itself is 60x20x30 (1 Kg 6:2) or
60x20x120 (2 Chr 3:3). The size of the Tabernacle is not entirely clearly from Ex 35-40 but seem roughly to be a tent
30x10x10 in a courtyard 100x50 (Ex 38:11-13, {Josephius Apion} Ant iii 6 2-3). Whether any of these figures were intended
as exact measurements or literary symbolic constructs is a matter of debate c.f. {Fritz 96, p. 70} and {DeVries 03, p. 94}. For
the final form reader it is the tbh size relative to these figures that matters not the actual historical size.

informed reader to see here an echo of the tabernacle. It has similarly been suggested that
Utnapishtim's boat with its strange equal sides could be envisaged as a model ziggurat.
6

But while the desire for tabernacle symbolism may explain the choice of numbers, the
question still remains as to why the tbh is three times the length of the courtyard, and
three times the height of the tent. Is the increase because the tabernacle is designed for all
Israel, while the tbh is to contain the entire world? Is it meant to shock and awe the
reader or is there a hint of hyperbole, a touch of the tall tale injected by the numbers?

6
See {Holloway 91}. {Hendel 95c} remains sceptical but Holloway produced a robust rejoinder {Holloway 98}. The text of
XI:59 appears open to interpretation and Holloway seems correct that there is little evidence of the significance of a cube,
that makes the equal dimensions strange. It is hard to envisage why the Gilgamesh writer would choose a cube shape, over
the possibly crescent shape of the Atrahasis vessel. The evocation of temple imagery, however, might motivate a change of
shape. The word ziggurat itself appears at XI:158 and it is unclear whether it refers to the 'peak' of the mountain or to a
temple structure built on that peak.

1.5. Excursus: Questions of Genre
1.5.1. Universality
The first-time reader knows from the beginning that universal claims have been made
about the evil and corruption of the world every inclination of the human heart, 'every
day' was evil (6:5) and all flesh had corrupted its way (6:12). However the universal nature
of what God intends to do about this evil is unveiled to the first-time reader slowly. God's
first soliloquy determines only to blot out the dm from the face of the dm (6:7) along
with all living creatures. This is serious enough, but the text does not dwell on it, rather it
turns quickly to more positive things: Noah's righteousness (6:8). At 6:11 the text returns
to the subject of the corruption of the earth and takes God's decision a step further. Noah is
told not only that God had decided to make an end of all flesh but even to destroy the earth
itself (6:13).
1
But again the text quickly changes topic and the first-time reader may not yet
have taken in the full immensity of the decision. The next hint, then, is the surprisingly
large dimensions for the obscure object which God has called a tbh. But why it needs to
be so large, and what the purpose of the tbh is, will not be revealed for another four
verses (6:17-18). Indeed, the next verse returns to more mundane, human sized details.
Thus, for the first-time reader, the scale of what is about to happen may only dawn upon
them slowly as the cosmic import of the text advances, retreats and returns.
2

That the flood narrative makes universal claims is often noted: all people have sinned, all
will be wiped out, all the earth will be flooded, and all animals will be saved.
3
Therefore, it
is hardly surprising that one of the most recurrent words in the flood narrative is : 'all'. :
appears 72 times in these four chapters, a significant frequency.
4
What is not often
considered is whether the writer, in portraying the magnitude of the flood, the size of the
tbh and the totality of living creatures might be going beyond universalism into
hyperbole, or even beyond hyperbole, into the fantastic. This raises significant, if

1
It is assumed here that the n x in 6:13 should be read in the normal way as the preposition 'with' and not as 'from' as
suggested by {Althann 91, p. 123} and {Dahood 82a, p. 566n2} ***check. While reading the preposition as 'from' would align
this P verse with its earlier J equivalent, the separative meaning for n x is far from established and is, at the very least, rare.
Reading the preposition as 'with', makes good sense and fits the universal tone of the passage. Had the writer wished to say
'from the earth' he could easily have used the min phrase found so abundantly elsewhere in the story.
2
In a similar vein the waters perhaps retreat and return, gradually being pushed back in 8:3. In a slightly different way the
text spins out the rising of the waters so that they gradually overwhelm the whole world (7:17-24).
3
Sometimes this universality is only ascribed to P ***refs*** with the claim that J has a localised flood. But J, too, makes
universal claims about the blotting out of every living thing 6:7, 7:22. The denial of the cosmic nature of the J and P flood
seems often to be based on an attempt to save the historicity of the text or the reputation of its writers against scientific
claims that there was never a universal flood.
4
This makes the passage one of the greatest conglomerations of the word : in the Hebrew Bible, outdone only by
passages like the dietary laws of Lev 11 which has 40 uses in 47 verses and the dedication of the temple in 1 Kings 8 with
36 uses in 66 verses. The 72 flood occurrences occur in 41 verses so that some verses have a particularly heavy
concentration of the word.

contentious, issues of the place of exaggeration, humour and fantasy in biblical narrative as
well as wider issues of genre.
5

1.5.2. Genre and the Flood Narrative
While some have vigorously objected to the relevance of genre studies in respect to
biblical passages,
6
others argue that it is a conceit to suggest that one can study texts
without implying a genre.
7
It is hard to doubt that writers, then as now, used shared
conventions and made assumptions about how readers would read their works on the basis
of the style employed. Works would be tedious, and probably impenetrable, if writers had
to spell out every assumption. Equally readers, consciously or otherwise, make
assumptions about the text they are reading from its style. Any literary study must
therefore acknowledge the role of genre. Yet, even when readers and writers are close in
time and space there is the possibility that they will not share the genre assumptions
intended by the author. This potential for differing genre readings becomes magnified
when texts cross cultural and temporal boundaries. Conflicting genre choices has become a
major cause of contention between readers of Genesis 6-9 and it is not easy to know how
to read the genre clues.

That elements of the flood narrative are rationally impossible has been frequently noted,
especially since Western enlightenment elevated science and reason to lofty heights.
8
How
could waters cover Everest 15 cubits high and where did all the water go at the end? How
could animals from every continent travel to the ark? How could the ark fit a pair of every
species (let alone seven of clean species), and a year's supply of food? How could the
carnivores become herbivores? How could they all survive holed up together? And what
happened to all the dung? The more one attempts to think through the story 'realistically'
the more fantastic it becomes, the more questions it raises, the more ludicrous it can seem.

5
Genre is understood here, in its widest sense, to be the style of writing of smaller or larger units of text. Such styles usually
bear resemblances to styles employed in other texts, sufficient for them to be categorised and named e.g. comedy, parable,
mystery etc. These stylistic features assume certain reading conventions between writer and reader that enable readers to
recognise and interpret the styles without excessive explanation. Genre identification is often intuitive for the reader and
leads to certain interpretive conclusions. It is always possible that readers identify genres differently to those intended by the
author particularly when certain genres are culture specific.
6
e.g. {Brichto 98, p. ix} "I found the purely literary element of genre and the meta-literary conventions as to ancient
capacities and or intentions to be factors in [current biblical] interpretation (misleading ones more often than not) and of little
use in textual explication". However, this may be more a sideswipe at a particular notion of genre in the historical criticisms
(form, source and redaction), Brichto's bte noir, than its more modern use in literary thinking. His fear is the imposition of
genre categories from outside the text, rather than letting genre emerge from within it.
7
e.g. {Gerhart 88, p. 31}, {Barton 96, p. 30-34}
8
For recent negative critiques of the unrealistic nature of the flood narrative see e.g. YouTube's "Richard Dawkins debunks
Noah's Ark" with associated respondents.

There have been readers who have tried to harness science and logic, with a dose of the
miraculous, to prove that the flood really could have happened just as it is portrayed. For
these interpreters the genre clues identify it as literal history and faith requires that it also
be accurate history.
9
Equally, there have been plenty who have rejected the category of
history and classified the story as 'myth', sometimes in the popular pejorative sense, but
more often in that technical sense of 'a traditional story, especially one concerning the early
history of a people and typically involving supernatural beings or events.'
10
For others, it is
more of a legend, a catastrophic local flood that grew in the telling.
11
The debate has been,
and remains, acrimonious.
12
It also often risks anachronism as modern understandings of
genre types are often, unwittingly, foisted on ancient texts.

Recent study has aided our understanding of biblical genres by paying more attention to
the conventions of ancient genres as far as we can ascertain them from Greek, Egyptian
and ANE documents.
13
The Dead Sea Scrolls have also contributed a wealth of examples
but have themselves created fierce genre discussions.
14
The result has been the refinement
of existing categories such as 'history' and 'myth' to fit better with ancient styles
15
and the
proposal, more or less successfully, of new categories such as the "ideological retelling of
traditions".
16

At much the same time literary studies have removed the strait-jacket of either 'history' or
'myth', and reminded us of the range of genres in which writing can take place tragedy,
comedy, satire, fantasy etc. Literary studies pay as much attention to the poetics of the text
as its message and form in assessing genre. The fact that a piece is ideological with a
serious intent does not prevent it still using the whole range of literary genres. Even more
recently there has been recognition that any writing can combine elements of various
genres and generate new genres and should not, perhaps, be confined to one genre.
17

9
See for instance {Whitcomb 61} and publications of the Institute for Creation Research.
10
Concise Oxford Dictionary.
11
c.f. {Hendel 03, p. 8}.
12
The subject was one of the sparks in the Colenso controversy of the 1860's c.f. {Colenso 62, p. vii}. The internet provides
plenty of examples of this debate still continuing today.
13
The study will always be difficult because our corpus from which to draw conclusions is limited. Sadly we also have no
ancient analytical works that discuss genres, and cannot be sure that a theoretical genre framework was ever created.
{Damrosch 87, p. 37}.
14
For a microcosm of these debates compare {Brooke 94b} and his respondents {Bernstein 94a} and {Frohlich 94}.
15
See e.g. Damrosch's definition of the ancient history genre as a fusion of chronicle and poetic Epic turned into prose.
{Damrosch 87, p. 41}.
16
{Thompson 99, p. 260} This proposal originated, in its current form, with the group often labelled 'minimalists' or
'revisionists', a group of scholars not only giving a very late date to biblical material but seeing the writers as self-aware
ideologists, deliberate myth-makers not writing historiography but collecting and retelling traditions for ideological
purposes. However the category need not be dependent upon any particular dating of the material.
17
*** Do I need something more on latest Genre theory?????

The Flood narrative is certainly a writing that contains elements of various genres. It is a
story of the past, set within a linear progression of stories of the past, which lead up to the
'present' of the writer/ editor. This can be a characteristic of the genre of 'history', even if
the flood story doesn't have the scientific precision as to 'facts' that we now expect in this
genre. At the same it is a retelling of a traditional story inherited from the ANE shaped to
make particular theological claims over against other versions of the story ('ideological
writing'). It also appears to be an attempt to give a theological explanation of how the
world came to be, with the help of supernatural elements ('myth'). It is a story that may
have originated in a localised flood (legend). In content the story has aspects of tragedy a
good world ends up being destroyed and there are elements of irony woven into the
telling. All these genre claims have been well documented and debated.

Two areas that have been less discussed and which might prove fruitful in reading the text
concern the employment of humour and the fantastic as additional genres within the
narrative.

1.5.3. The Bible and Fantasy
***PS Is there a better word for this genre with fewer overtones? This is still a little rough
as I continue to work through and clarify the issues.
Fantasy is a genre that has only cautiously been discussed in biblical studies, perhaps
because it has such pejorative popular overtones.
18
In a secularist society faith is fighting
against the idea that religion is 'fantasy' in the popular sense: make-believe and deluded. In
addition, faith can have space for miracles supernatural interventions in the natural
world. It is therefore less easy to discern the fantastical genre from claims of the
miraculous, i.e. the creation of another world with differing rules from the portrayal of the
possibility of breaking the rules in this world. Yet, despite the hesitancy of biblical
scholars, it is interesting that major Christian writers such as McDonald, Tolkien and
Lewis have found the genre of fantasy a useful vehicle for conveying their theology. Might
ancient writers also have had an ancient form of fantasy genre?

The literary and theoretical study of fantasy as genre needs to be distinguished from the
psychoanalytic discussion of fantasy as a psychological state.
19
The literary study of
fantasy began as one branch of structuralist literary theory often seen as having its roots in

18
For several years SBL ran a Fantasy and Bible Unit that produced, in 1992, a volume entitled Fantasy and the Bible.
19
see {Aichele 92, p. 1}. {Boer 06} is an example of a psycho-analytic application of fantasy to the primeval narrative and a
very different approach to that being discussed here.

the 1972 work of Todorov.
20
It branches into many sub-genres and merges into other
similar genres. Fantasy theorists will usually deem myth to be a subset of the fantasy
genre; however, the focus of study is rather different. For fantasy theory the poetics of the
supernatural elements of the traditional story are the core subject of discussion whereas
those working within the genre of myth will be more concerned with comparative studies
and isolating the message or symbolic referent of the supernatural elements.

For present purposes we do not need to go into fantasy theory in depth. A working
definition of the fantasy genre, which seems applicable to modern and ancient literature, is
"the portrayal of a world in which certain things, impossible in our own world, are
presented as normal and natural" perhaps animals talk or people have divine powers.
Such fantasy can be written for many purposes. It may be simply entertainment, but it can
also embody more serious purposes. As Zipes explores in all his works, it can be used to
transmit cultural values and maintain the status quo or it can be an attempt to transform this
world, unsettling the reader by providing an other-worldly critique to promote change or
envisage inspiring possibilities.
21

Another difficulty for determining a fantasy genre in the bible, related to the problem of
the miraculous, is that fantasy theory often considers genre a question of authorial
intention. In the fantasy genre it is usually assumed that the writer is deliberately creating a
world with different rules of reality. Biblical literature certainly has no problem in breaking
the 'natural' rules e.g. Sarah has a child past child-bearing age (Genesis 18) and Balaam's
ass speaks (Numbers 22:28). But in these cases the supernatural event is directly attributed
to the intervention of the Lord, i.e. it is described as a miracle within 'our real world' rather
than a natural happening in a parallel world.
22
The primeval narrative, however, functions
rather differently to these later Pentateuchal stories. In the primeval narrative the world is
dissimilar to our own but the unusual events are not characterised as miraculous. Patriarchs
live for hundreds of years (Genesis 5), people build a tower with its top in the heavens
(Genesis 11), and a snake talks (Genesis 3). It is just these characteristics that lead scholars

20
Todorov T. The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre Cornell University Press: New York 1975. However
his work seems geared to modern fantasy. There has been debate as to whether biblical stories fit more within his definition
of 'marvellous stories' (stories where the reader accepts the otherness of the story world) or that of 'fantasy' (stories where
the reader hesitates between whether a story is 'uncanny' or 'marvellous'). Some prefer, therefore, the definitions of Zipes
from his discussion of fantasy in fairy tales. However not all agree with Zipes' critical theorist approach.
21
e.g. {Zipes 02} and {Zipes 92, p. 19} c.f. {Miscall 92}: "Fantastic literature helps us to see our ways, our life, and our word
differently and, we hope, better."
22
{Miscall 92, p. 47} appears to argue that the telling of miracle stories whether real or parabolic becomes fantasy and it is
the telling that is more important than the history. Actual miracles, he claims, seem to have limited effect in the bible, what is
significant is the telling of the miracles designed to generate faith and trust. However, if part of the intention of the story is to
encourage belief that God has done miracles and can do them again, then we do not seem to be in the realm of fantasy, of
a different parallel world.

to classify the texts as myths. Yet, in the story world these elements are presented as
natural, not supernatural. It is another world like, and yet unlike, our own.
23

If defining fantasy, or myth, or indeed any genre, depends on authorial intention then we
could never classify the genre of the primeval narrative. The writer may have believed that
the antediluvian world was different yet evolved historically into our own, or he may have
understood the stories to be in some sense mythical. The fantastic, may even have been
irrelevant to him, simply part of the tradition.
24
But as to whether he saw an other-worldly
quality to his work, whether he deliberately made the primeval stories larger than life,
whether he wove a world different to his own to more sharply examine that world, can
never be ascertained for sure.

However, given that there are elements in the narrative that suggest fantasy, that give an
other-worldly quality to the stories, an attempt to interpret the narrative in this genre seems
a possibility worth exploring. Further, the genre of 'fantasy' may even be profitable for
reading today. In fantasy certain questions become nonsensical. One does not ask how
animals are able to talk, nor does one label a story erroneous just because a beast speaks.
The questions that can legitimately be asked are those in keeping with the new rules of this
other-world. The reader needs to follow through the logic of the fantasy and enter into its
world-view to appreciate both its plot and its message.

This is not to deny that there is a place for the critique of the fantasy afterwards, the chance
to ask questions such as whether the fantasy was too fanciful, its portrayal too incoherent,
and its message unethical.
25
What is not legitimate is to critique the fantasy for not
following the naturalistic rules of our world. Thus the genre of fantasy may help us to get
beyond the questions that have peculiarly paralysed the last two centuries did the flood
happen and how could it have happened. The ethical questions that challenge us today still

23
It is often noted that fantasy worlds are always parasitic on the world we know, and need to be in order to be believable
and to speak to our own world. See e.g. {Aichele 92, p. 3} following Rosemary Jackson another leading fantasy theorist.
24
Given the biblical writer's apparent willingness to rework and add to the fantasy found in the ANE tales, it is perhaps
unlikely that the fantastic was irrelevant to him. He was able to introduce new elements not present in the original stories
such as olive branches that are still green after a year under water. He can also leave out supernatural elements like the
divinisation of the hero. He felt free to change the size and shape of the 'boat', the duration of the flood, the content of the
ark and the ages of the antediluvian ancestors while not reducing them to this worldly proportions.
25
This is a particularly common modern question c.f. {Armstrong 96, p. 40} and {Roode 03, p. 2}; however the morality of
the flood narrative has always been problematic as Gnostic denunciations of this creator God as envious of humans show.
{Luttikhuizen 06, p. 111}.

remain but, if we have been freed to listen to the flood narrative within its own other-
worldliness, then we may be better able to judge the story for what it is and is not.
26

One last question remains, what difference might it make to a reading if the reader assumes
the conventions of fantasy for parts or all of the narrative. Because myth, a subset of
fantasy, has long been used in reading the narrative, many of the kerygmas arising from the
mythical/fantastical have already been uncovered. However, in the process, the fantastical
'shell' was often discarded. Fantasy theory could rehabilitate the form and content of the
narrative, pay more attention to how the story is told, what is fantastic and why, than has
previously occurred and hopefully throw new light on those kerygmas.

One reason a religious narrator may choose fantasy is that it allows difficult subjects to be
explored at a safe distance. It can deal in the hypothetical; create 'what if' stories. It can
also be entertaining and engaging thus opening the reader to moral or religious lessons
without them feeling heavy or preachy. More gently than satire, it can demonstrate the
absurdity of certain propositions.

For example, with regard to the flood narrative, the absurd elements might highlight the
absurdity of the notion that God could ever desire to blot out the world.
27
One could
reconstruct a scenario where the writer senses in the inherited flood story a chance to
explore the tension between God's wrath and mercy, or perhaps an opportunity to address a
prevalent fear of God's wrath. By using fantasy the narrator can safely ask 'what if the Lord
was to see the wickedness of the world and be so grieved he determined to annihilate it?'
28

In this case the narrator's answer is that God would also immediately wish to save it. The
righteous elements of his good creation, would find his favour and God would desire to
save all (:). In conflict, perhaps the wrath and mercy would seek to outdo each other. If
God indeed wished to annihilate the earth he would need a flood so big that it drowned the
land, so big it drowned the whole world, so big that it covered even the tallest mountains,
so big that it drowned them 15 cubits deep, and it would need to last at least 40 days, at
least 150 days, at least a year. And as the flood grows in size so the mercy must out do it, a
tbh at least three times bigger than the temple, would be needed; it would have to bear

26
{Moberly 05, p. 47} recognises that many "realistic" questions simply cannot be asked of the flood story although the story
also has many "realistic" portrayals. He acknowledges that the type of questions one can and cannot ask of the story is
important for the issue of genre but does not explore genre any further.
27
Few writers have explored the idea that the absurd and fantastical, should be taken seriously as part of the message. One
exception is {Brichto 98} who will be discussed further below see 1.5.5 Studies of Humour in the Flood Narrative especially
p20ff. This hypothetical reading is a modified adaptation of his suggestions.
28
Gen 6:5-6. 'What if' is of course rather different to 'there was a time when the Lord saw', or even 'once upon a time
the Lord saw'

every conceivable living thing, every domestic animal, every wild animal, every creeping
thing, even every bird. And the story's verdict: in the end mercy would win. God could not
destroy 'all' the world, a remnant would remain and God would declare 'never again'. From
this exploration in a fantastical world, the reader can be assured that God never has and
never will annihilate the whole earth. The attempt would be too absurd and God's mercy
would always prevent it.

Such a reconstruction is, of course, highly speculative and can be critiqued for its modern
concern to emphasise God's mercy. But the implicit assumption behind many modern
readings that the writer believed the flood happened, that this is a 'there was a time when'
story, is equally speculative. The difference between this and more traditional readings is
not in the outcome that mercy triumphs but in the approach to the initial proposition. The
usual 'there was a time' reading, states that God's wrath once flooded the earth but the
flood will not be repeated. This proposition carries the fear that God might change his
mind again or choose to annihilate the world by some other means (maybe fire). The 'what
if reading' argues that God could never contemplate annihilation; the proposition is
absurd, as this exercise in fantasy demonstrates.

While such a reading remains hypothetical, even fanciful, it at least raises the question of
whether the fantastical and the absurd might have a meaningful place in the narrative. It
also challenges whether normal assumptions are equally as speculative and at times
condescending, attributing thoughts to the writers that we would not countenance
ourselves.

1.5.4. The Bible and Humour
Besides fantasy, the possibility of hyperbole in the narrative raises questions of the place of
humour in the story. More attention has been given to the role of irony and humour, even
parody and satire, in biblical narratives than has been given to fantasy but such studies still
remain equally controversial. Once one allows that fiction can be a vessel for the imparting
of profound theological truth, then fantasy becomes a possible biblical genre option.
Allowing humour into the interpretation is a rather different matter. This is not simply
because such studies radically challenge the view that theological issues must be serious,
but because the very notion that a text is humorous, destabilises that text and renders it, in
some degree, unreliable. Does the writer mean what he says, or is he, tongue-in-cheek,
meaning the very opposite of what he says? Can any verse be trusted? How can we identify

humour when authorial intention and authorial delivery is lost to us? Humour is enhanced
by oral delivery where tone and expression underscore or transform what is said. Moreover
humour is often culturally specific and impossible to translate, especially when the humour
is subtle, understated and nuanced. If we do not always comprehend humour in our own
cultural setting, how can we expect to appreciate it in a text from an ancient setting?

Yet it would be wrong to dismiss the role of humour, simply because it is difficult to detect
or because it destabilises our traditional readings. Humour is a central medium of human
communication; it is also an excellent pedagogical tool and an important part of rhetoric.
29

It would be surprising if the biblical writers did not use humour as one tool among many in
their crafting of theological narratives.

1.5.5. Studies of Humour in the Flood Narrative
To date, little constructive work has been done on humour in the flood story.
30
The nearest
most scholars have got is the recognition of irony. In 1965 Good, in his seminal work,
identified ironic elements in the narrative. He found the multiplication of evil as the human
response to the command to multiply ironic, and the idea that regression back to a state of
chaos suddenly becomes good for the world while progression (the first rainfall) is bad.
Further on, he considers Noah's curse of Canaan highly ironic for it is Noah who has fallen
into Canaanite practices of drunkenness and nakedness. While some of Good's exegesis
may be questionable, it has become commonplace for scholars to identify this or that
element as ironic.
31

Ironic statements can appear, however, in almost any genre, wherever the expectation
differs from the event; wherever perception does not match the narrative reality. It can be
happily used even, or especially, where the author is writing serious history, for human
history is often ironic. It is quite a step further to believe that the story is told in a
humorous way.

Petersen makes tentative steps in the direction of humour, albeit a sardonic humour, when
he claims that 'the flood was in the Yahwist's eyes, an ineffectual ploy to rid mankind
of his propensity for evil The Yahwist understood Yahweh's plan as unrealistic or

29
The value of well placed humour is often evident in the best of orators, be they preachers or politicians.
30
Of course some have laughed at the story rather than seeking to laugh with the story.
31
For instance {Wenham 87} finds irony in 6:5(p144) the difference between what the Lord sees and what the sons of
elohim see in 6:2, and in Noah being a 'man of the soil' 9:20 (p198). {Brueggemann 82, p. 77} labels God's grieving in 6:6
ironic. {Coats 83, p. 78} finds 9:6 ironic creating a vicious circle of blood shedders. One could continue through most
commentaries.

incongruous and thus was unwilling to treat the flood episode as an important part of the
Israelite Epic.' As a result the Yahwist handled the story with 'ironic detachment', leaving it
a 'lifeless narrative'.
32
While much of Petersen's assessment of the Yahwist's account may
be disputed,
33
he was one of the first scholars to suggest that the writer did not take the
narrative at face value.

Brichto, however, is prepared to go much further in his assessment of the author's
humorous attitude to the narrative. He begins with the Gilgamesh Epic:
"From beginning to end the tale of Utnapishtim is a concatenation of absurdities
Our author is a master rhetorician, but here the tones of his rhetoric are those of
sarcasm and irony, the subtlety of bathos and the ribaldry of lampoon."
34

But though the characters and actions are ridiculed, the purpose is apparently serious:
"A weighty conclusion must be drawn from our poet's satiric stance. One does not jeer
at those one fears. And our poet's fearlessness bespeaks his disbelief in the gods whom
he lampoons [The poet cannot] make his peace with a theology that posits a race of
capricious supermen-by-chance [gods], who mock the canons of reason and jeer at the
demands of the human heart...What we are suggesting is that in Babylon, a genius
weaned himself from the outworn pagan creed in which he had been suckled. He
provided the critique."
35

For Brichto the story of Utnapishtim is thus satire, but satire with the serious purpose of
critiquing the gods in which his compatriots slavishly obeyed, to their detriment.

Brichto believes the biblical writer inherited this satirical Gilgamesh narrative and would
have wholeheartedly endorsed its critique of Mesopotamian religion. The biblical writer's
challenge was to weave a satiric narrative into a Yahwistic framework, to conform it to
Israelite theology and the concept of a benevolent God.
36
This required the writer,
especially on the subject of the divine, to remove all satire.
37
But the absurdities in the
story could not be so easily eliminated, for they were the warp and weft of the plot:
[T]he plot depends on the silliest presumption in all of antiquity's fantasy literature,
mythological or fairy tale; namely, the presumption that the entire biotic animal range
might be preserved from a cosmic disaster by means of a human-built shelter As
against this presumption, Jack's beanstalk, or the goose that laid golden eggs would
seem like sports of nature, rare yet conceivable.

How does the biblical author meet the problem of silliness? In a number of ways.
First, he ignores it overtly; second he affirms and reinforces it covertly. The literalists

32
{Petersen 76, p. 444-446}
33
See e.g. Paper on 8:21*** for a critique of Petersen.
34
{Brichto 98, p. 117}
35
{Brichto 98, p. 126}
36
{Brichto 98, p. 161-166}
37
{Brichto 98, p. 126} 'the biblical author eliminated the jokes and mitigated the absurdities [in Gilgamesh], for to him the
attributes of divinity are not a laughing matter.'

will swallow anything, no matter how patent the ridicule; the sophisticates will
chuckle at the humour even as they seek out the kerygmas. Where the pagan author
heightens the ridiculous the biblical author excludes it where it is inappropriate,
mitigates it when it is too obtrusive and gives it subtle twists where one least expects
them The biblical author may show God to be humorous, but never treat him
humorously; [mean]while the human is always a legitimate target for humour, gentle,
as in the case of Noah releasing the raven over a carcass-filled flood, or savage, as in
the case of humanity in its mytholatrous propensities.'
38

For Brichto, then, the story is deliberately absurd and, throughout his commentary, he
highlights the incongruities at which the 'sophisticated' reader is expected to chuckle.
39
He
finds such incongruities highlighted by linguistic, syntactic and stylistic ploys (word plays,
unusual expressions, paratactic sentences, redundancy). But he concedes that the ploys are
often subtle and insufficient to prevent less perceptive readers from reading the story as
straightforward narration. Thus he concludes that the biblical narrator is, unintentionally,
an unreliable narrator, for without ruining the story he is unable to indicate clearly to even
the dullest reader that he is writing 'fanciful figuration, parable or allegory'.
40

But as with Gilgamesh, the humour and tongue-in-check absurdity is for a serious purpose.
The world is a threatening place to which the narrative offers promise and assurance.
"[T]he biblical author acknowledges that the awesome powers that were activated for
creation can be deployed for dissolution. And the widespread tradition of a primordial
time when history was interrupted, almost ended, by such a cataclysm is shaped by the
author in accordance with the theology of Genesis 1. If such a dissolution is ever to
take place, it will be by no mindless eruption of soulless energy, nor by acts of a race
of arrested superhumans [i.e. gods] playing with matches. It can only happen by the
Will which is that Power. And that Will, called God, whose proper name is YHWH,
has resolved never to will such dissolution. Not because he needs man, and not
because man is deserving, but because he so graciously wills to give his favourite
creature ever and ever another chance."

Brichto's radically different reading of the Flood Narrative has been largely ignored or
unnoticed. While he has a high regard for the biblical writers he can at times seem more
destructive than constructive and his argument is marred by his vehement attack on the
source critical method. He is also too reliant on a comparison with his own idiosyncratic
reading of one version of the Gilgamesh narrative, which we now know to have taken

38
{Brichto 98, p. 162-163}
39
So, for example, Brichto claims that Genesis 6:1-4, the incident of the sons of god is not written as an actual event but as
an example of the type of figments of the evil imagination of which 6:5 complains. Only a wholly evil generation could devise
the pagan myths typified by 6:1-4 that so distort the image of God (p136-7). The idea that Noah was meant to take, i.e.
round up, every type of animal and that the animals came 'as commanded', he labels a 'contrived absurdity' and a
'masterpiece of befuddling redundancy' (p146). He finds God sniffing the sacrifice (8:21) to be derogatory and 'one more
expression of the narrator's awareness of the silliness of the story he is reshaping; it is silly in respect to plot and in respect
to its human protagonists." (p155). His commentary is littered with words like bathos, incongruity, humour.
40
{Brichto 98, p. 138} He adds "Writing as they did for audiences whose members differed greatly in their capacities for
understanding, Scripture's authors must have reconciled themselves to the idea of being misunderstood"

many forms. Like several early literary critics he exhibits what today seems an
unwarranted certainty as to authorial intention. Yet, despite the overstatement of his case,
his conclusion that it could be legitimate to read the text, or parts of the text, humorously
rather than seriously is worth exploration.

Like fantasy, humour can be a means of drawing the sting from difficult subjects. If the
idea of all the animals lining up two by two (by seven) can raise a smile; if one can laugh
at the idea of Noah scurrying around trying to feed all the animals every day, while his
sons follow behind to muck out the cages; if one can begin to chant along with the narrator
'every domestic animal of every kind, every wild animal of every kind' then existential
fear is calmed, at least a little, as one moves towards the assurance of never again.

1.6. Excursus: A Literary Comparison of the ANE tales - many ways to tell a story
As Brichto rightly recognises, genre conclusions, be they history, myth, fantasy and/or
humour, must be evidenced by both content and form. But because genre is based on
shared conventions and assumptions, the genre clues will not always be easy to spot,
especially as the story is separated in time and space from the author. As this study
progresses, language and grammar, story content and methods of communication will need
to be examined for genre clues. For instance, we will need to return to the question whether
the narrator is pushing the boundaries into hyperbole, whether the story is larger than life.
Only at the end will be able to assess all the evidence, and even then, we may still only be
able to suggest possibilities rather than certainties.

Nevertheless one advantage that the flood narrative has over many other biblical stories is
the ability to compare and contrast it with other ANE versions of the story. Although
Brichto draws too many dogmatic conclusions from his comparison with Gilgamesh,
nevertheless the instinct to compare narratives for genre clues is surely right. In the past
these stories were contrasted primarily for their theological perspectives
1
and scholarly
attention focused on source critical topics how much was the biblical writer influenced
by the Gilgamesh narrative.
2
As more and more documents have come to light it has
become ever clearer that the flood narrative was a universally popular tale, capable of
being set in different contexts and told in differing ways for different purposes.
Accordingly, more recent study has focussed on the didactic purposes of the differing
narratives.
3
Yet, so far, pure literary comparisons have received little direct consideration.
The plot twists, the character portrayals, the details of the flood, the particular
concentrations have largely been treated as background to theological or ideological
messages rather than distinctive ways of telling the narrative that can contribute to its
message.
4
While we can never be certain whether a variation in the narrative detail was the
creation of that author or simply inherited, nevertheless, such variations provide
fascinating insights into what a particular strand of tradition felt were important details.

1
There was a lot of focus on the difference caused by polytheism vs monotheism often with overt praise for the superiority
of the Hebrew religion c.f. {Gunkel 1910, p. 72}, {Gilgamesh 49, p. 224}, {Fisher 70, p. 401}.
2
We still cannot tell whether the biblical writer(s) held written texts or whether they only knew oral variants although the
latter finds more favour among scholars. However, the very detailed similarities with aspects of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis
and possibly even the Eridu Genesis suggest that the writer(s) were very familiar with one or more versions of these stories.
That comparative study is still an important element in dating and source criticism can be seen e.g. in the revisionist dating
of the Pentateuch by {Gmirkin 06, p. 111}. Gmirken claims on the basis, inter alia, of a comparison with Berossus that the
Pentateuch dates to 273BCE (although he admits that there is insufficient evidence to definitively establish dependence).
3
e.g. {Simoons-Vermeer 74}. An example of a work in transition between these two goals is {Tigay 82}. Tigay has a very
detailed comparison of Atrahasis and Gilgamesh even down to the alteration of words, but his purpose is to trace the
evolution of the Gilgamesh narrative.
4
e.g. {Simoons-Vermeer 74, p. 25-28} has a meticulous comparison of the literary differences but concludes they come
primarily from the different perspective of the narrator Gilgamesh is told in first person while Atrahasis is from the divine
perspective. As far as she is concerned the content is the same once this is taken into account.

The Eridu Genesis is perhaps the oldest of our tales,
5
but it is too fragmentary to draw
many conclusions and therefore shall not be considered here, although, intriguingly, it is
sometimes closer to the biblical narrative than the other stories.
6

1.6.1. Atrahasis
Comparisons must begin, therefore, with Atrahasis, although this, too, has some
unfortunate gaps.
7
In relation to the extant Gilgamesh and biblical narratives, Atrahasis has
several distinctives. Unlike the other stories the text appears weighted towards the second
half of the plot, but in particular, the author devotes up to 30% of the tale to the divine
gathering that concludes the narrative.
8
This resulting decisions of this divine gathering
have been read as the resolution of this tale's particular "problem" namely the 'noise' of
humanity that caused Enlil's anger.
9
The answer, it seems is limitations on population
growth. If this reading is valid, then the Atrahasis flood story is, inter alia, an explanation
for death and dearth surrounding child birth. Such tragedies are proclaimed necessary for
the preservation of humanity.
10

In character detail, Atrahasis appears to be the most pro-active of the three heroes. At the
start he is already an established leader of his people, devout and wise, who has helped
them appease the gods and alleviate the preceding afflictions of disease, famine and
drought. It seems that he sees the divine council in a dream and then demands of Enki an

5
The largest tablet is c1600BCE from Nippur. It is written in Sumerian but is probably Akkadian. {Jacobsen 81}
6
The Eridu Genesis appears to be closest to the biblical pattern complete with creation account, genealogies of the
establishment of key cities and possibly an ante-diluvian king list prior to the narrative just as in Gen 1-5. Ziusudra, like
Noah, but unlike extant versions of Atrahasis and Gilgamesh, is explicitly told of the divine decision to destroy humanity
through a flood (97-99). Ziusudra is named as the saviour of small animals and the seed of humanity (181), a role that is not
explicit in Atrahasis or Gilgamesh. {Jacobsen 87, p. 145}.
7
Our best preserved copy of Atrahasis comes from the library of Ashurbanipal, c600BCE, but portions of the story dating to
c1650BCE have been identified. Unsurprisingly the story evolved over that period while still being recognisable. The
Ashurbanipal edition as translated by {Foster 96} is used here. Unfortunately the tablet is missing or fragmentary on the
coming of the flood storm (column iii), the ending of the deluge and emergence of Atrahasis (columns iv and v) and parts of
the final divine council (columns vi and vii). This later is a particular loss as it is in the final divine council that Atrahasis
seems to be at its most distinctive.
8
Because the turning point in the narrative is missing, somewhere between iv:26- v:29 it is hard to know where this
happens. {Moran 87, p. 245} reads the storm as lasting for 120 lines (approx iii:1 v:29), which would place 54% of the tale
before the turning point. However, in the light of the other versions it seems more likely that the storm ended nearer iv:25
than v:29 and that some space was given to post flood subjects such as the grounding of the boat, abatement of water, exit
of Atrahasis, possibly a birds episode etc. In which case over 50% would have been devoted to what happens after the
flood begins to abate. In contrast Gilgamesh only devotes about 35% of its lines to the post flood account. Atrahasis begins
the divine gathering at v:39 and it continues beyond vii:9 (between 81 and 126 lines of the total 404 lines) i.e. 20% - 30% of
the space. In comparison Gilgamesh devotes no more than 15% of its lines to the divine gathering (XI:166-197).
9
{Oden 81, p. ***} claims that in Atrahasis, as in Gen 9, the actual regulations are of minor significance and irrelevant to the
theme. The rules simply exemplify the deity's authority to make regulations. In response one might surely ask why the story
needed to assert the deity's authority. It is contended here, that it is more likely that the regulations in both cases are central
to the didactic purposes of the narrative and are likely to be designed to prevent the problems that caused the flood c.f.
{Frymer-Kensky 77}. Therefore these verses should surely be given much more weight than Oden accords them. There may
be room in the story for both the Kilmer/Moran/Albertz over-population/ too successful creation theme and Oden's censure
of human attempts to obliterate the divine/human distinction.
10
Still-births, deaths in child-birth, barren wombs, celibate priestesses. {Albertz 99}, {Kilmer 72}.

explanation.
11
He takes the initiative to call together the elders and devises an explanation
to satisfy them. We can, perhaps, see the way he manages to achieve his goal without
alerting others as a sign of his wisdom or cleverness.
12
It is Atrahasis who selects and
gathers the animals, puts on board his family, and possibly even all 'his people' as well.
13

He seals his own door. He also shows the most emotion of all the heroes. In what looks
like fear or grief, he is unable to sit still, his heart was breaking and he was vomiting bile
(III:ii:43-46). Intriguingly, Atrahasis practically disappears from the second half of the
extant text although he almost certainly makes the sacrifice that attracts the gods.
14
Instead,
the longer second half of the story is distinctive for concentrating on the gods and their
long lament over the death of humanity, their remorse at their complicity in the flood and
their verbal attacks on Enlil. It is perhaps this hostility that leads Enlil to call upon Nintu
and Enki for a more creative, less destructive solution to the initial problem.

One potential way to read these distinctives is to see them as highlighting the tragic
elements in the plot. The noise of humanity is indeed a real problem to the gods and yet,
despite the warning blows of famine and disease, humanity seems incapable of stopping
this noise, a final show-down becomes inevitable. Even if the problematic noise has an
element of rebellion within it, there is little suggestion that total annihilation is an
appropriate or deserved punishment.
15
Rather, it is the tragic consequences of an
increasingly frustrated and angry Enlil who is not only upset with humanity but also with
Enki who continually disrupts his plans. Against such anger, Atrahasis, who, thus far, has
always managed to intercede for his people, is now powerless. He can only make a boat
and rescue what he can. The flood's coming seems bathed in pathos. Atrahasis' fear or
grief, the frightened victims unable to recognise each other, the long wild lament of Nintu
and Mami and their regret as they 'come to their senses'. The flood can be seen as a great
tragedy to be mourned. Indeed a genre of tragedy would be in accord with our reading of

11
The end of Tablet II and start of Tablet III is missing. We have parts of the council which includes Enki's refusal to be
involved with a flood and it is possible that Enki initiates contact with Atrahasis. The extant text, however, begins with
Atrahasis demanding an explanation from Enki and he interacts more with the deity than either Utnapishtim or Noah.
12
Unlike Utnapishtim who has to be instructed on what to say to the elders, Atrahasis seems to devise his own response to
the elders. He could be seen as being economical with the truth while not apparently lying. c.f. {Maier 97, p. 22}, ({Alster 02,
p. 39} comments on how much the work elevates trickery for a good purpose). Those he gathers at the feast seem unaware
of what is to happen, and are busy celebrating, but Atrahasis seems unable to enjoy those festivities.
13
The feast he provides (III:ii:40) seems to be a type of diversionary tactic to cover the start of the flood. It is unclear
whether it is on board or on land. Given Atrahasis concern in tablet II to preserve 'his people', it is possible that the feast is
the excuse to get everyone on board and thereby Atrahasis saves not only his family but all 'his people'.
14
Atrahasis may also have been blessed with divinity as Ziusudra and Utnapishtim, but if so this account is still lost.
15
Scholars debate whether 'noise' simply means the hustle and bustle of life, i.e. the noise of ever increasing human activity
in a confined space {Moran 71}, {Kilmer 72}; which might then be an indication of an overly successful creation {Albertz 99}
or, alternatively, whether it is a euphemism for rebellion {Pettinato 68} or hubris {Oden 81}. Even if there is rebellion, the
flood is never directly depicted as punishment, nor is there as much stress on the wickedness of the world as in the biblical
narratives. Moreover, Nintu calls Enlil's decision 'irrational' at least twice III:iii:53, III:v:42 and in the light of Gilgamesh it is
possible that Enki's missing speech also questions Enlil's justice and wisdom in calling for a flood.

the purpose of the tale, for only a tragedy greater than the tragedy of still births can provide
a theodicy or justification for them.

1.6.2. Gilgamesh
16

By contrast many of the tragic elements are down played in Gilgamesh.
17
There is none of
the prehistory in which the reader senses the slow, inevitable unfolding of tragedy. And
while the gods lament, it is much curtailed.
18
The pathos is less obvious.

The Gilgamesh narrative is told by Utnapishtim in first person tense. This may account for
some of the distinctive qualities, such as the attention to what Utnapishtim does, the lack of
an opening divine council and the absence of motive for the flood. Utnapishtim does not
have the omniscience to know these things. However, Utnapishtim does seem to know just
what is happening outside the boat and in the heavens of Anu during the flood, so the
author is able to overcome his narrator's earth-bound limitations when necessary. Therefore
the first person stance alone cannot explain all the distinctives.

Besides the lack of motive for the flood, it is noticeable that Gilgamesh focuses on the first
half of the plot, with a much greater concentration on the making of the boat and it's
provisioning than found elsewhere.
19
Attention is paid to what Ea instructs Utnapishtim
and what Utnapishtim subsequently does. Yet Utnapishtim does not come across as a pro-
active leader like Atrahasis. He is certainly a wealthy man, who is exceedingly generous to
his workmen, but it is Ea who takes the initiative to approach Utnapishtim and who gives
him detailed instructions on how to make the boat. Utnapishtim is worried about the city
elders but it is Ea who devises what he should say. Although Utnapishtim talks about
setting in place the parts of the boat, it seems to be more as overseer for a vast army of

16
The most recent scholarly translation is that of A. George {Gilgamesh 03}. Various versions of the story have been found
and it is now suggested that the story developed from individual separate tales into a united Epic in three stages. Tablet XI
with the flood is often assumed to have been added at stage 2, suitably adapted from the Atrahasis Epic {Tigay 82}. It is this
eleven tablet version that will be referred to herein, being the most 'standardised' of versions.
17
Interestingly {Jacobsen 90, p. 243-247} believes that the 10 tablet version of Gilgamesh was written as tragedy, but that
the 11 tablet version removed much of the tragedy and inexpertly inserted the flood narrative. There are many betrayals of
the Atrahasis origin, despite the recasting of the tale Utnapishtim is sometimes called Atrahasis, Ea is sometimes called
Enki etc. The purpose was to turn the Epic from tragedy to a more romantic "growing-up" story. From a childish belief in
one's invincibility to an adult recognition of one's mortality. In contrast {Abusch 01, p. 616} finds human mortality to be part
of the original tale, whereas stage two, he believes, constitutes a study of good kingship and community immortality.
18
{Damrosch 87, p. 113}
19
65% of the text deals with the story up to the point where the flood ends, in contrast to approx 45% of Atrahasis and 52%
of the biblical narrative. 16% of the Gilgamesh Epic is devoted to Utnapishtim making the boat (XI:48-96) which is
approximately 5% of the Atrahasis narrative (III:ii:10-43 although the text is fragmentary). This section is non-existent in the
biblical narrative.

workmen and it is Puzur-Enlil who seals the boat for him. He does not show the range of
Atrahasis' emotion and no emotion at all until after the flood is over.
20

There is also, in Gilgamesh, an element of the surreal in the boat building.
21
Although
Utnapishtim seems to follow standard ancient practice for the making of the boat, its equal
breadth, length and height, whether as ziggurat or cube, is an odd shape for a seaworthy
vessel.
22
It is also, apparently, grossly oversized at 10 cubic rods (120 cubits cubed). One
could indeed conceive of it sinking two-thirds into the water when launched.
23
And indeed,
as Brichto notes, one cannot help wondering what use a punting pole will be and how long
it would need to be.
24
It is no wonder such a boat needs 3 myriad of bitumen, 3 myriad of
asphalt and 5 myriad of oil. But the hyperbolic extravagance does not end there.
Utnapishtim lavishly slaughters oxen and sheep every day for his workmen who have beer,
ale and wine like rivers to drink as if it was the New Year feast.
25
His loading of the boat
feels slightly less altruistic than Noah or Atrahasis. It is his own wealth he loads, his gold
and silver, the seed of all that he had, and all his skilled craftsman. The cynical reader
might wonder if they are meant to make create for him a new palace at the other end.

In the shorter second half of the plot Utnapishtim apparently plays a greater role than
Atrahasis after the flood. The story has the ambiguous episode of the sending out of a
dove, swallow and raven
26
that could be read as a demonstration of Utnapishtim's wisdom
or his foolishness.
27
There is also a repeatedly emphatic section about the boat being held
fast on or at Nimu. The gods are accorded less space than in Atrahasis
28
and although they
are equally afraid, driven back and made feverishly ill by the flood it does not leave them
parched and famished. It is the incense rather than the offer of food that attracts them to the
sacrifice. They grieve and show remorse for the loss of their 'children' (humanity) but

20
{Damrosch 87, p. 113} claims that "Utnapishtim's version shifts the emotional focus, abbreviating the god's laments and
stressing his own reactions." It would be better to say actions than reactions. Utnapishtim has only two reactions a note
that the weather was frightening to behold XI:93 which is a good deal less emotive than Atrahasis' reaction in III:ii:44-46,
and Utnapishtim's weeping in XI:138-139 which is sadly missing from Atrahasis and can't be compared.
21
Unfortunately this section is missing from Atrahasis so we cannot be sure that this is a Gilgamesh distinctive.
22
Atrahasis in some versions seems to have a crescent moon shaped boat which is perhaps more vessel like. {Dalley 00, p.
38n43}
23
XI:58-64. XI:80 mentions the words 'two-thirds' which {Brichto 98, p. 121} takes to be the amount of the boat underwater,
although no river could be that deep. However in George's translation the 'two-thirds' is related to the use of rollers to launch
the boat. Sadly sizes are missing from the Atrahasis account so that we cannot compare the accounts; however, generally
Utnapishtim seems to be building on a bigger scale than is suggested by the extant Atrahasis text.
24
XI:65 {Brichto 98, p. 121}
25
XI:66-75
26
It is possible that there is a narrative of the sending out of birds and the holding fast of the boat in a missing section of
Atrahasis which means we cannot make too much of this addition unless or until we can make proper comparisons. Given
the size of gap in Atrahasis there would, though, the episode would still seem to play a bigger part in Gilgamesh.
27
XI:148-156. {Marcus 02b, p. 80} reads both Noah and Gilgamesh as wise, Heidel {Gilgamesh 49, p. 253} sees Gilgamesh
as less wise than Noah, {Brichto 98, p. 122} thinks both are stupid, because he infers that the sending of the raven, tells
Utnapishtim, like Noah, nothing at all the raven could find plenty to eat among the debris of the flood, bobbing up and
down and didn't need a perch like the dove and swallow.
28
{Damrosch 87, p. 113}. As noted above this is around 15% of the story while Atrahasis may be up to 30% fn8 p24.

instead of the mother goddess reprimanding all the gods, only Enlil is indicted.
29

Moreover, Ea's subsequent attack on Enlil is apparently far more forthright than in
Atrahasis. In Atrahasis Ea appeals to all the gods, stressing that he saved Atrahasis for their
sake, presumably so they would be fed. In Gilgamesh Ea address only Enlil with
accusations of gross injustice and poetically demonstrates the numerous ways Enlil could
have diminished the population less catastrophically.
30

Many of these distinctives find justification within the very different aim and purpose of
the narrative. In Gilgamesh, the flood narrative has been completely stripped of its creation
setting and its purpose no longer seems to be either aetiology or theodicy.
31
Therefore the
tragic element is no longer so significant, and, indeed, perhaps it is even underplayed so as
not to rival Gilgamesh's own tragic loss. Instead one of the central concerns is the quest for
immortality.
32
Beside himself with grief at the death of his beloved Enkidu, Gilgamesh has
set off in search of Utnapishtim, the mortal become immortal, to ask questions of 'life and
death' (IX:iii:3). He wanders the deserts, crosses the gates of the mountains, travels the
road of the sun, kills wild beasts and passes through darkness and across the seas of death
to finally reach him at the mouths of the river.

And when Gilgamesh does meet the hero for whom he has searched so long, the meeting is
almost an anti-climax. Gilgamesh appears disappointed and perplexed, for he apparently
does not find the great and glorious hero he expected. Immortality has not transformed
Utnapishtim. He is, in fact, just like other human beings.
33
One plausible reading of the
Gilgamesh deluge is to see it as the inverse of the heroic Epic.
34

Utnapishtim has indeed won immortality but he carried out no daring feats, he conquered
no great obstacles, he was not of the calibre of an epic hero such as Gilgamesh. He is not
even the great wise leader, using his initiative like Atrahasis. He has to be told how to
build the boat and what to say, and though he takes the credit, others seem to do the work.
One can almost hear the boat going plop into the water under its monstrous size and

29
{Damrosch 87, p. 114} is surely wrong to suggest that Ishtar (Blet-il) is the chief instigator of the Gilgamesh flood. Blet-
il shows remorse for her part in the flood XI:120-122 but blames Enlil in XI:169-171 as does Ea in 183-195. Blet-il's
lament is very close to Mami's in Atrahasis III:iii:36-37, 42-43.
30
XI:181-195
31
contra {Damrosch 87, p. 92} who thinks that the narrative at stage 2 moved towards a creation-flood genre.
32
{Simoons-Vermeer 74, p. 21}
33
Lines 5-6 have several very different translations but in all cases Utnapishtim is a disappointment. In George's translation
Gilgamesh expected to have to fight Utnapishtim perhaps as the culmination of his Epic quest but his hand is stayed
{Gilgamesh 03, p. 703}. In Heidel's translation Gilgamesh expected to find a mighty warrior but instead finds Utnapishtim
idly lying about. {Gilgamesh 49, p. 80}
34
For the idea that Gilgamesh is the prototype of the epic genre see {Lord 90}. Heroic epic is understood here as involving
glorious feats of a hero as per {Abusch 01, p. 615} which by form is usually 'long narrative poem' {Damrosch 87, p. 39}.

weight. Self-preservation rather than wise preservation of those he governs seems at work
in his loading of the boat. It is often said that Utnapishtim earns immortality for his piety
and wisdom,
35
yet there appears much less stress on his piety and wisdom than in Atrahasis
or Eridu.
36
Rather, Utnapishtim is made immortal, not through any merit of his own, but, in
a sense, to save Enlil's honour. Enlil has decreed that no-man should survive the
destruction (XI:176) therefore no man will survive. In the past Utnapishtim was human but
now he shall be like the gods and thus Enlil's initial decree will be properly fulfilled.

If this is one plausible reading of Gilgamesh, it would accord with the apparent didactic
purpose of the telling of the flood narrative. There is nothing Gilgamesh can do to procure
immortality. To gain fame (one theme of the first half of the combined Gilgamesh Epic)
one needs to carry out heroic deeds and on that account there is none better than
Gilgamesh. But fame will never prevent death, though it may often defy it. Utnapishtim
has not won immortality through heroic deeds, nor even great piety, he just happened to be
in the right place at the right time with the right god on his side. Even the immortality he
has gained is a kind of half life, cut off from the world by the sea of death. He is like the
gods but not one of them. At the finale of the tale Utnapishtim asks 'Who will call an
assembly of the gods to give you, your immortality?' Perhaps the question is rhetorical.
Human beings cannot call an assembly; they can only hope to find themselves in front of
one. However the likelihood of standing before the gods is as likely as being instructed to
make a gargantuan ziggurat of a boat, as absurd as the coming of a flood so frightening that
even the gods would cower before it. No human can call an assembly and the problem that
precipitated Utnapishtim's council has been corrected.
37
Searching for immortality is
impossible. Thus Gilgamesh has more of the comic and less of the tragic as it evokes the
non-heroic stature of Utnapishtim. Finding Utnapishtim also curtails the heroic nature of
Gilgamesh. From henceforth his heroic qualities begin to fail he cannot keep awake, he
loses the plant of life, and in the end death will overcome him.

35
{Gilgamesh 49, p. 228} better piety and wisdom refs needed******
36
It is not that Utnapishtim is impious, indeed he acknowledges Ea as his master XI:32 and makes a sacrifice XI:157 but
that is normal piety rather than 'great' piety. There are no express character statements that make much of his piety, he
does not claim it for himself and none of the gods make the statement of him. In contrast we are repeatedly told that
Atrahasis' ear is open to his god and he speaks regularly with him, I:vii:38-40, II:iv:18-21, II:v:30, and likewise Noah's
righteousness and piety is stressed. As regards wisdom, the name Atrahasis is often said to be a play on the word for
wisdom, while Utnapishtim a play on the words for finding life {Dalley 00, p. 2}. Atrahasis is also described as 'thoughtful'
II:iv:18 Gilgamesh is described as wise in I:i:1-8 but not Utnapishtim, who only has one secret to disclose.
37
Both {Simoons-Vermeer 74, p. 21} and {Damrosch 87, p. 115} suggest that Utnapishtim can become immortal because
he lives in the time of myth while Gilgamesh lives in human history. In history, i.e. in Gilgamesh's time gods no longer
interact directly with humans. Yet, if, as they suggest, the flood bought the time of myth to an end how did Gilgamesh have
a divine mother and how could Ishtar approach him for marriage? The truth must be more complex. In the overall scheme of
the Epic, Gilgamesh is also in a mythic world. The moral is then, that if even the semi-divine heroic Gilgamesh must face
death, how much more the rest of humanity.

It will be obvious that this reading agrees with certain elements of Brichto's novel reading
of the Gilgamesh Epic but reads the genre clues rather differently. Firstly many of the
elements Brichto labels satirical are also to be found in Atrahasis.
38
Gilgamesh certainly
contains strong critique of Enlil, but critique of the gods and especially Enlil can be found
in several ANE works.
39
In this case the critique serves to enhance Enki/Ea's justice and
cleverness rather than to mock belief in the deities. Secondly, much that Brichto finds
mockingly comic takes on a rather different less comic reading as our ability to decipher
the texts improves.
40
Thirdly, although there is indeed no overt reason for the flood given
in Gilgamesh that does not have to imply that it was the capricious or arbitrary act of petty-
minded gods.
41
The focus of this story is elsewhere. There are hints in Ea's final speech
that over-population is the problem, but the tale is not an explanation for stillbirths, a
warning against hubris or a reflection on the justice and mercy of (the) god(s). The reasons
for the flood are perhaps omitted from Gilgamesh, not because they were non-existent, but
because they would distract from the key message of this retelling.
42

1.6.3. The Biblical Narrative.
When we turn to the biblical narrative it is noticeable that most of the Atrahasis elements
that could be labelled tragic are missing along with any elements of theodicy.
43
There is
not the inevitability of an escalating divine-human conflict. There is nothing from the
perspective of those perishing. There is no lament for the dead either from Noah or from
the deity. The worlds of Atrahasis and Gilgamesh are populated with a whole range of
minor characters with small bit parts. There are the elders, to whom the hero gives a less
than complete explanation of what he is about to do. There are a myriad of craftsman and
helpers who bring the materials and construct the boat. There is a great feast for some, at
least, of these people. All of these details are absent from Genesis.
44
In the biblical
narrative all we have is the collective singular c ~ x (the dm) almost on a par with
categories of animals and birds, certainly without individuation or characterisation and

38
{Moran 71, p. 60} does in fact ask whether the writer of Atrahasis goes beyond criticism to contempt in his portrayal of the
gods swarming like flies. This is possible but equally it may be the heightened dramatic effect of the tragedy of the flood for
both gods and humanity who are interdependent. Flies are a leitmotiv for death at this part of the narrative. {Kilmer 87, p.
176}. {Simoons-Vermeer 74, p. 27} suggests that animal metaphors for the gods might have been acceptable in the ANE.
39
For details of works negative to Enlil see {Holloway 91, p. 342fn50}. Holloway discusses the suggestion that negative
stories concerning Enki's superiority over Enlil were the result of a north/ south rivalry and differing temple ideologies.
40
We have already noted the uncertainty of the "two-thirds" in XI:80, the suggestion that the boat is not cube shaped but a
symbolic ziggurat. Time and again Brichto's absurdities result from Brichto's reading between the lines and are ameliorated
when a modern translation is examined.
41
For instance {Brichto 98, p. 119} suggests Utnapishtim's failure to give cause for the flood characterises it as capricious.
42
One can speculate that the Gilgamesh narrator even assumes the readers know the Atrahasis account and its reason for
the flood and is therefore aware that this is a new twist on an old tale.
43
As is often pointed out, Gen 9:1 'be fruitful and multiply' is the very antithesis of the Atrahasis limits on fertility. The
blessing on Noah is not immortality through avoidance of death, but only through one's progeny. The nearest to aetiological
element in the biblical flood narrative is the symbolism of the rainbow.
44
Interpreters have often put these people back into the story, traditionally as those who ridicule and taunt Noah.

certainly no mention of any suffering, just matter of fact statement of decease.
45
The flood
in Atrahasis is the result of a flaw in humanity (and perhaps the gods) that may or may not
be culpable but, certainly, according to Enki, does not deserve the flood. From the
perspective of Genesis 6:5-13, the flood is quite necessary and is in keeping with the lex
talionis that which destroys, is to be destroyed.
46
Where Enlil is angry, YHWH is pained
and remorseful.
47
Yet even so, as we have already noted, the focus is not on the flood as
punishment for wrong doing. There is no judgement speech, nothing pronouncing
punishment to the perpetrators as in Genesis 3 and 4 and in the prophets. Rather, the
creation that God made has gone rotten and needs to be purified the dm is wicked to
the core (6:5) and the earth has been corrupted (6:12). The focus, then, is not on humanity
but on whether God could indeed destroy all his creation; whether destruction or salvation
is paramount in God.

Nor is there anything of the heroic/ anti-heroic epic genre of Gilgamesh and the theme of
immortality is completely absent.
48
Like Utnapishtim, Noah is obedient but not heroic,
however, unlike Utnapishtim, he is not centre stage. The tale is not from Noah's
perspective and the whole large section dealing with Utnapishtim's preparations for the
flood is missing. Noah does almost nothing on stage before the flood happens. Indeed if
Gilgamesh is less active than Atrahasis, Noah is less pro-active than both of them. He says
not a word in the whole story. He does not acknowledge the divinity's address to him, he
does not address his compatriots, he shows no emotion whatsoever either during or after
the flood, he does not leave the ark until directed. He takes the initiative in only three
places, to send out the birds, to remove the 'covering' and to make a sacrifice. If it were not
for the stress in 5:29 on Noah, one would be tempted to say that Noah, while essential for
the plot, is less central to the themes of the biblical narrative than either Atrahasis or
Utnapishtim. He is certainly given less narrative characterisation. Moreover, some of the
material that is assigned to Atrahasis and Utnapishtim is, in the flood story, reassigned to
God. In Gilgamesh the details of the making of the boat are shared between Enki's
instructions (XI:27-31) and Utnapishtim's actions (XI:50-70), with the greater weight on

45
c ~ x is used in 6:5-8 (J), 7:21(P) . The term ~ (generation) is used in 6:9(P) and 7:1(J) but again there is hardly a sense
of personality. Elsewhere the words used are even more devoid of the human element and always include creatures along
with humans : (flesh 6:12-13,17 P), c:; (existing thing 7:4,23), 'all with the breath of life' (7:22 J).
46
The lex talionis principle appears again in 9:6.
47
It has hard to know if the gods in Atrahasis are remorseful because they are hungry and thirsty due to the lack of
sacrifices and/or because, more altruistically, humans, whom the created, exist no longer. It is interesting that the hunger
theme is not present in Gilgamesh and the lament, though briefer, is because 'my people' are no more. YHWH's remorse is
only mentioned in the context of regret for making a creation that has gone so violently wrong. The human tragedy of the
flood is downplayed and there is no lament mentioned for the flood deaths. {Damrosch 87, p. 131}
48
Whatever else 6:3 achieves, it firmly indicates that humanity is not only mortal but 'short-lived'. The cycle ends matter-of-
factly with the death of Noah just as for all his ancestors except Enoch (Gen 9:29).

Utnapishtim. In Genesis this is all contained in the long divine speech which is some 15%
of the story.
49
In Atrahasis the divine speech is less than 6%. If anyone is centre stage in
the biblical narrative, at least in chapters 6 and 9, it is God.

There is no doubt that some of the additions and differences to be found in the biblical
narrative are the result of the writer's distinctive theology. The ANE writers are able to set
one god against another. Enki/Ea is able to subvert Enlil and indeed it is often his nature to
do so. This option is not available to the biblical writer, for there is no pantheon. YHWH
the god who might will to destroy must also be the god who saves. Thus the biblical writer
has to grapple with a profound theological tension that is not present in the other versions.

Other changes may be due, not to the change from polytheism to monotheism, but the
particular nature of Israel's God. Covenant and torah (chapter 9) are obviously distinctive
biblical elements, and if the size of the ark is affected by the wilderness tabernacle then the
differing size and shape has a theological stimulus. The total absence of storm, a wind that
calms rather than whips up the flood may also result from a desire to keep the flood
subservient to God and eliminate any hint of a chaotic force to rival God in creation.
50
Yet
although the flood is subservient and does not frighten YHWH as it frightens the gods,
nevertheless God is kept at one remove from the flood itself. It is the waters which swamp
the earth, while in Atrahasis, Adad roars and Anzu rents the sky with his talons (III:i:49,
ii:6) and in Gilgamesh at least 5 gods are implicated in the storm.
51

On a different level, certain changes may be the result of particular primeval themes and
interests. The far greater repetitive detail concerning the animals and the stress on dm
almost certainly relate to themes from Genesis 1-3. Perhaps even the enigmatic
appearance of concrete dates may have some obscure theological purpose.
52

49
Gen 6:13-21, 7:1-4 (31 verses of 81). In Atrahasis the divine speech is III:i:20-35 (23 lines of 404). In Gilgamesh Ea's first
speech, which is equivalent to the biblical speech, is 11 lines (XI:21-31) 5%. Even if the second speech, which has no
biblical equivalent, is included it is no more than 10% (i.e. a further 10 lines XI:38-47).
50
The similarly orderly calm of Genesis 1 is often considered a deliberate alternative to the chaotic creation of Enuma Elish
or indeed the rebellion that leads to the death of Geshtu-e to create humanity in Atrahasis I:iv****
51
Adad bellows, ullat and ani go in front, Errakal rips out the mooring poles, Ninurta makes the weirs overflow,
Anunnaki bear torches aloft (lightening?) XI:98-105.
52
Dates, calendars and dating were clearly of huge theological significance in some second temple writings such as the
Book of Jubilees, 4Q252. It has been suggested that they were also, therefore, significant to the (P) biblical writer {Bacon
1891}, {Najm 05}, {Larsson 73}. However this cannot explain why the flood story is unique, even in putative P, for its precise
dating.

The remaining differences, such as the many minor variations in the bird episode, an
episode that takes proportionally more space than in Gilgamesh,
53
and the much, much
longer flood period are more ambiguous. It is hard to know if they are motivated by
theological, thematic or ascetic concerns.

If the biblical text has less of the tragic and heroic epic in its telling, what genre
characteristics might replace it? Certainly, as we have noted, many of the changes are for
ideological purposes and the story rightly deserves the title, ideological writing, as do its
ANE counterparts.

Interestingly, few of the changes add to the 'historical' genre or realistic quality of the
story. Atrahasis and Eridu are also set in a primeval setting and various kings lists give
genealogies descending from these heroes to the "current" day thus having 'historical'
characteristics, although it may be that the biblical form connects these lists more tightly. It
is possible that the innovative dates, quite missing from the ANE, are a historicizing
attempt, but the dates are relative to Noah, with no interconnection to the rest of the
timeline and are thus completely enclosed within the narrative. Thus it is possible their
purpose may be more symbolic than historical.

The fantastic still remains and, in many respects, this aspect is magnified by the more overt
universalism of the narrative. The tbh is admittedly smaller and possibly more boat
shaped, although the details are too obscure to be sure.
54
But within that smaller space,
which may well not have seemed small to the reader, it must contain not the personal
wealth of the flood hero, but all of God's creatures. Wild animals were certainly on board
both Utnapishtim and Atrahasis' boats but there is nothing like the sustained and repeated
claim that all birds and beasts and all living things were on Noah's tbh in pairs, or even
seven pairs.
55
Nor is there any sense in the ANE of the animals, of their own volition,
streaming to the boat to be saved, nor of the hero having to gather enough food to feed
them all.

53
The biblical pattern is a raven followed by the sending the dove 3x, with the retrieval of the olive branch. Gilgamesh has a
dove, followed by a swallow and a raven, the first two of whom return, the last does not but eats, caws and circles (or bobs
up and down) and does not come back. Berossus just has 'birds' plural but he does have the 'no place to rest their feet'
phraseology, although it is not an olive branch but feet tinged with mud that is the sign to the hero.
54
If, as {Holloway 91} suggests, the size and shape is governed by tabernacle symbolism then any claim that it is more 'boat
shape' is the result of accident and not design.
55
The applicable section of Atrahasis is fragmentary, he does not seem to be instructed to take all living things on board
(III:i:23-35) although ii:35-38 suggests that he did indeed take them of his own initiative, unless they are offerings for the
feast. Utnapishtim is instructed to take 'seed of all living things' XI:27 and in XI:84 he takes the seed he has of living things.
It is hard to know if this qualification is a modification or fulfilment of Enki's instructions; he certainly does not follow the
instruction to abandon all possessions! In XI:86 he loads wild beasts alongside the skilled craftsmen. There is clearly a
concern to save animals in the Gilgamesh epic but it is not as concerted and universal as in the flood narrative.

Moreover the Ancient Near Eastern flood storm is no more than 6-7 days in length, long
enough for all people to turn to clay and the gods to be scared, hungry and remorseful.
56
A
floating menagerie for a week stretches the imagination enough, That this time span should
be multiplied by fifty two makes the story even more fantastic. The great length of the
flood also makes absurd the additional detail of the fresh plucked olive leaf.

In all the narratives it is clear that human beings universally perish, and the only human
survivors are in the ark. However, to this motif the Genesis narrative adds the dramatic
drowning of the dm, bit by bit until all is underwater. This is done not by any wild
storm, which one could conceivably imagine lasting 6 days, but the slow steady rise of the
waters, coming down from the windows of heaven and up from the springs of the deep for
at least forty days. And thus the waters calmly float away the tbh which does not need to
be launched into any river. In thus aspect too, the story is more 'mythical', more fantastic
than any of the ANE tales.

Any other genre conclusions to be had from the alterations?

56
Eridu: 7 days and 7 nights (133) Atrahasis: 7 days and 7 nights (III:iv:24) Gilgamesh: 6 days and 7 nights (XI:128).

1.7. Genesis 6:16
1.7.1. A s (har) you shall make
The strange tbh instructions continue in verse 16. The tbh is to have a s (har)
which tends currently to be translated 'roof'.
1
The word is another hapax, although the dual
of the word, or its homonym, means 'midday'. In verbal form, there is only one, equally
obscure, Hiphil instance of the root but there is a related noun s 'fresh oil'.
2
That the
early versions already struggled as is evidenced by the variety of translations given: the
Septuagint translates it obscurely as 'gatherings' () and the Vulgate as 'window'
(fenestram) a translation common in older English versions.
3
Targum Onqelos has .
'light', Aquila 'about noon' reflecting the Hebrew dual noun and Symmachus
'see through, transparent'.
4
Some of the rabbis simply gave up.
5

1.7.1.1. s as window
Returning readers may wonder if this s (har) is the same as the '(lattice) window'
that Noah opens to release the dove. 8:6 indicates that the (window) was something
Noah had made earlier, yet there was no explicit divine instruction for a window, unless
these words should be considered synonyms.
6
8:6 may have been one influence on the
Vulgate translation which uses fenestram in both verses. But if so why use an obscure, or
perhaps technical term, in 6:16 and the more normal (window) in 8:6?
7

Gesenius, following some rabbinic thought, believed the word s (har) was linked to a
verbal root s 'to be bright, shine, dazzle', from which he claimed the dual 'midday' was
derived as a plural of majesty: 'most splendid light'.
8
Thus, he argues, s (har) is a place
of light or window, in accord with the Vulgate. This suggestion can still be found in

1
NRSV, NIV, NJB, NEB, REB.
2
{BDB, p. 844i} For midday/ noon see Dt 28:29, Gen 43:16 etc. (23 uses). For oil see e.g. Dt 7:13 (23 uses). The sole
verbal form is in Job 24:11 where it is most commonly translated 'press oil' taken as a denominative of s ('fresh oil' so
NRSV), but some suggest it should mean 'spend the afternoon' based on c s('midday' so {HALOT, p. 1008})
3
Window is thus found in KJV, NKJV, NASB but is also evident in the 1982 JPS Tanakh's 'an opening for daylight' and the
NLT 'an opening all the way round'.
4
See {Wevers 93, p. 85}
5
According to {Midrash Rabbah, p. 244} R. Hunia, Phinehas, Hanan and Hoshaia could not explain har.
6
The answer may lie in 6:17 coming from P and 8:6 from J, but a final form reader will still be looking for an antecedent.
7
{Armstrong 60, p. 331} also explores this question and finds no satisfactory answer. {Delitzsch 88, p. 258} argues that a
is a closable window while the s is an open space, but that can only be speculation. Moreover if the har is different
from the window of 8:6 then one of the supports for seeing it as a window is removed.
8
{Gesenius 35, p. 703}. On 6:16 he offers: '"Thou shalt make light for the ark" i.e. windows.' and then references 8:6.
Apparently at one time Gesenius offered 'summit' as the meaning of the root {Skinner 12, p. 161}, but this seems to have
disappeared from the latest versions, perhaps due to the influence of the rabbinic Hebrew root meaning 'be clear/ shine'.

HALOT.
9
If so the narrator's choice of s (har) over (window) might emphasise
that there was light in the tbh.
10
Indeed some rabbinic sources understood the s
(har) as a brilliant polished gem that gave off light.
11
Hocherman is a modern writer who
picks up this idea. On the basis that s in Mishnaic Hebrew means 'be clear/ shine' he
interprets the noun s 'fresh oil' as meaning 'oil for light'. Rather than a window, the s
(har) he concludes might then be a form of lamp.
12
However, s is almost exclusively
used in the triplet 'grain, wine and oil' as the threefold produce of the land, and it is never
associated with lamps in biblical literature.
13

Moreover, it may be noted that the biblical flood narrative shows no other concern for
light,
14
in contrast to, say Gilgamesh, which stresses the darkness of the storm (XI:112)
and the sunlight streaming in once the flood ends (XI:137).
15
In addition, a large window
would cause logical problems later in the story where it seems axiomatic that Noah cannot
see out of the tbh and thus has to send the dove to ascertain the water level.
16

Moberly argues that the har is unlikely to be a window on the basis that the instructions
are still to do with the overall structure of the tbh and not its details.
17
However, it is not
clear that v16 is dealing with outer structure. The suggestion, outlined above, envisaged
v14 dealing with the outer shell, v15 with the dimensions and v16 with additional
elements. There is no reason why the har like the 'door' and the 'decks' to follow, should
not be a specific feature, rather than part of the overall structure, especially if the obscure
mention of the cubit relates to the har and not the tbh.

Moberly also believes the preposition 'for, to' militates against a window. He believes a
window would have been accompanied by : 'in'/ ~ s : 'in its side' (c.f. the door later in the

9
{HALOT, p. 1008} offers a first meaning 'roof' and a second option of 'skylight, hatch', with the suggestion that the Hebrew
root s means 'shiny'.
10
{Armstrong 60, p. 331}.
11
{Midrash Rabbah, p. 244}. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan sends Noah to Pishon for a precious stone to give light to the ark.
12
{Hocherman 90} This view also has some rabbinic precedent (Chizkuni) {Zlotowitz 80, p. 232}.
13
So Dt 7:13, Hos 2:10, Joel 1:10 etc. Oil for lamps is usually : Ex 25:6, 27:20, 35:14.
14
{Armstrong 60, p. 331}
15
Sunlight is also noted in the Eridu version but the equivalent section is lost from Atrahasis.
16
{Moberly 05, p. 47fn14}. The story is not, of course, always consistent, therefore, a logical disjunction could have occurred
between 6:16 and 8:6-12. However the suggestion, attributed to Wessely in {Jacob 34, p. 190}, that the har was a window
that took up a whole side from top to bottom would not only contradict the intent of 8:6-11 but would probably be
inconceivable in the ancient world which did not have the technology for large water-tight windows.
17
{Moberly 05, p. 47fn14}. {Jacob 34, p. 191}, to the contrary, argues that the har cannot be part of the ark's structure
because the use of : 'for the tbh' indicates that the ark must already exist, i.e. it's outer shell must be complete.
However, the most that the preposition indicates is that the har is sufficiently separate not to be the main essence.

verse).
18
However, the use of ~ s : ('in its side') for the door ( n r) stresses the position of
the entrance, perhaps because seafaring craft in the ancient world did not normally have
side entrances.
19
If the position of the har, was not at this stage relevant then it would not
be surprising for it to be omitted. Alternatively, it is feasible that the following phrase
: x x : : : : . : ('finish it to a cubit on top') indicates location.
20
What seems certain
is that the author wishes to stress that the tbh is to be made with a har. Indeed the
word tbh occurs five times in these three verses, in relation to almost every element of
its construction. This is surely more frequent than is necessary for clarity of comprehension
and suggests a desire to highlight this enigmatic structure and relate, inter alia, the har to
it.

A further rejection of the window translation is offered by Jacob on account of the
preposition . He argues that: "When ' s: with a following determinate noun has a
concrete object it signifies this: make the respective item separately and then connect it to
the main item."
21
Besides the possibility that a window hatch could be made separately and
then affixed, Jacob's contention does not seem true, even in some of the examples he gives.
It is not clear that the rim of a basin (Ex 25:25) or the parapet of a roof (Dt 22:8) are
necessarily made separately.
22

The most cogent, but not necessarily conclusive, argument against the har being a light
source or window remains, then, the narrative's lack of interest in light, and its failure to
use more common vocabulary.

1.7.1.2. s as roof
The justification for the alternative translation 'roof' is usually found in the Akkadian ru
'back'.
23
It can be noted that at just this position in the narrative, Atrahasis and Gilgamesh

18
s: is most frequently followed by the person who benefits {BDB, p. 794}, but may be used for an object e.g. Dt 22:8
When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof. For as preposition of advantage see e.g. {Choi 03,
p. 112} 4.1.10e1; {Waltke 90, p. 205} 11.2.10, {Joon} 133d.
19
{Gunkel 1910, p. 144}
20
see further below 1.7.2.4p44
21
{Jacob 34, p. 191} "Wenn ' s: mit folgendem determiniertem Nomen ein konkretes Objekt hat, so bedeutet dies: den
betreffenden Gegenstand gesondert herstellen und dann an dem Hauptstck anbringen."
22
Jacob also argues that the writer usually indicates the affixing of the item through a verb such as n. 'put' or x:: 'set' or
simply the preposition : 'upon'. If the item is to be of one piece the preposition : is used. But several of his examples
never specify any attachment Ex 26:14 (roof covering), 30:3 (gold moulding). Further, neither of his suggested prepositions
would be appropriate for a window: : would suggest the window was hung on the ark not built into it, and : is used only
when the narrator wishes to emphasise that the construction is all of one piece.
23
{HALOT, p. 1008}, {BDB, p. 844i}, {Gunkel 1910, p. 144}.

mention roofing the boat.
24
In 1960 Armstrong
25
did one of the more thorough studies of
the verse and his arguments have clearly carried weight.
26
He argues that 6:16 may have
avoided the typical word for roof (. .) because it would indicate a flat roof whereas an early
Gilgamesh narrative initially had a vaulted roof more suitable for rain to run off.
27
That the
biblical roof was sloping he considers to be confirmed by the rest of the verse.

Unfortunately several of Armstrong's arguments are based on early translations of
Gilgamesh which have since been revised and no longer give such strong support to his
hypothesis.
28
Nor is it obvious that the Arabic root implies 'roof'. The Arabic ahr, he
suggests, began as the word for the back of a person which was extended to the back of a
beast, i.e. that part away from the ground and thus at a later date became the term for deck
of a boat, that part away from the sea. But he gives no evidence for the further extension of
the term from deck to a sloping roof. It is intriguing to wonder why Armstrong did not
remain with a translation of 'deck' rather than 'roof'.
29
Ancient boats are known to have had
decks and indeed, as Brichto points out, they did not usually have doors but were entered
via the deck.
30
No alternative word for the deck of a boat appears in the Hebrew Bible so it
is possible that the word has been preserved here. The suggestion is of course very
speculative and much more research would be needed on these supposed parallels in
Akkadian or Arabic that Armstrong alleges to have found.

Jacob argues that the roof is too integral to any construction to be singled out for specific
mention.
31
Taking his cue from the next phrase concerning the 'cubit above' and his belief

24
Atrahasis III:i:29-31. "Roof it over like the Aps let it be roofed from above and below". Foster even goes as far as
reconstructing III:i:28 as '[cover] it with [] tarpaulins.' Gilgamesh XI:31 has 'cover her with a roof like the Aps.' Intriguingly
the roof is one aspect that Utnapishtim does not mention when speaking of what he actually constructed.
25
{Armstrong 60}
26
{Westermann 76, p. 421} calls Armstrong's argument 'a detailed proof', whereas {Armstrong 60, p. 333}, himself, is more
cautious acknowledging the matter is impossible to prove but that this appears 'a very probable solution'. In his 1
st
English
edition {Delitzsch 88, p. 258} could summarily dismiss the translation roof and even the 1926 12
th
edition of {Driver 04, p.
88} could label it doubtful, yet by the end of the century, thanks to Armstrong it had become the primary translation.
27
{Armstrong 60, p. 332}, adopted by {Hamilton 95, p. 282}.
28
Armstrong assumes that the biblical narrative is based on Gilgamesh and pays no heed to Atrahasis, perhaps because it
was not widely available until the Lambert and Millard study of 1969. Much of his argument is based on the belief that in
early Gilgamesh Utnapishtim made his boat out of his reed hut and so it must have been a very small boat with the reeds
arched over to make a roof. {Hoffner 76} has, however, argued that the phrase in Atrahasis should read 'Flee house, build
boat', not 'destroy house, build boat'. Although Gilgamesh certainly developed over time, it is now usually argued that the
flood story was adopted fully formed into Gilgamesh from Atrahasis or similar predecessor. Thus the making of a boat out of
reeds might well be a later not an earlier element. Most of Armstrong's evidence for an 'early' version that conflicted with a
later version has been similarly revised. On current evidence it is therefore unlikely that there was ever an early version with
a small reed boat designed as Armstrong outlines.
29
One can speculate that Armstrong was driven by a desire to prove one of the two current translations 'roof' and 'window'
and did not conceive of proposing an alternative.
30
{Brichto 98, p. 163} see also {Westermann 76, p. 421}. In this regard all the stories create an unusual boat with side door.
Although none of the other heroes are instructed to make a door, nevertheless they all seal a door just before the flood
begins. Jonah 1 captures something of the normal boat plan suggesting a deck with the cargo on it, from which it can be
thrown overboard, but also an interior space or some inner recess to which Jonah can retreat.
31
{Jacob 34, p. 192ff}. If roof was mentioned, he claims, then the walls and other details should also have been named. He
also believes the Arabic link too tenuous but he wrote prior to Armstrong's detailed study.

that the har must be a separate item to be affixed to the top of the tbh, he looks to the
tabernacle construction for inspiration. He notes that the tabernacle had three roof
coverings made of wool or hide which were draped over the tabernacle and fell one cubit
over each side.
32
This interpretation he believes is confirmed by 8:13 where Noah removes
the 'covering' ( : : :) when the flood ceases and the animals exit. For Jacobs, 6:16 deals,
then, with the means of exit (the covering) and the means of entrance (the door). However
it is not all clear that the covering ( : : :) in 8:13 is a means of exit and one might ask, as
with the ('window' 8:6), why the writer did not use : : : ('covering') here.
33

In conclusion there seems little to choose between 'window', 'roof', 'opening', 'covering', or
'deck' on semantic grounds. All have tenuous but possible connections to a Hebrew or
ancient verbal root. The Hebrew linguistic connection is strongest for the idea of a daylight
opening except for the story's apparent lack of interest in light. ANE literary connections
would tend to lend weight to the mention of some type of roof at this point in the story but
as the roof is always linked, there, to the Aps, the biblical writers could equally have
eschewed the instruction to avoid pagan connotations.

On logical grounds there is similarly little to distinguish the options. If v14 concerned the
construction of the outer shell and v15 the dimensions then we might expect v16 to be
concerned with finishing or interior details. In this position Gilgamesh speaks of a roof
(XI:31) and six decks, 9 compartments, punting pole and tackle (XI:60-66). Atrahasis'
concerns are similar roof, tackle, pitch for strength (III:29-33). The returning reader
might, perhaps, expect to find details that will be important later in the story something
which YHWH can shut (7:16), the window Noah opens (8:6), the covering Noah removes
(8:13b), but, as we saw, common vocabulary with these later verses is missing.
34
Modern
readers, and probably readers at least as far back as the Septuagint, therefore remain in the
dark concerning the s (har).

32
Ex 26:7-14
33
{Jacob 34, p. 190} uses just such an argument to dismiss the meaning window, because 8:6 does not use har. Again
8:13b is often assigned to J rather than P as an explanation for the difference. However, not only does 8:13 not use the
usual word for roof . . (Dt 22:8), but it uses the word : : : which is, elsewhere, only for the covering of the wilderness
tabernacle and always in P texts. (Ex 26:14;35:11;36:19;39:34;40:19; Num 3:25;4:8-25). If it wasn't for the repetition of the
ground drying, 8:13b might well have been assigned to P. If the passage is indeed P then the failure to use the same word
in 6:16 is even less explicable.
34
As we have noted, all these later elements door, window and covering are apparently in J verses, whereas 6:14-16 is
assigned to P allowing the traditional documentary hypothesis to offer some rationale for the differences. Views such as
{Van Seters 92, p. 163} that vv13-16 are in fact J would reintroduce the problem.

1.7.2. Finishing it one cubit above.
The next instruction is also mysterious, so much so, that many scholars have washed their
hands of it, labelling it simply 'incomprehensible', or have removed the phrase completely
from the verse.
35
Literally the verse translates: "A har you shall make for the tbh and
up to/at a cubit you will finish it above" The grammar begs several questions. What is
'it', the feminine noun to which the pronominal suffix on 'finish it' refers? And above what
is it to be finished? Why is the directional preposition x (to/ into/ towards/ in the vicinity
of) used uniquely with the noun of measurement : x ('cubit') and what does it imply?

1.7.2.1. Finish the har one cubit above
Many assume, fairly naturally, that it is the har that is to be finished 'to a cubit above'. If
the har is understood as the roof then it is suggested that the roof is to be a pitched roof
one cubit high. The tbh might then be envisaged as a square box 300x50x30 cubits with
a sloping roof 1 cubit higher than the ceiling, albeit a very gentle sloping roof.
36

Alternatively Jacob argues that the roof covering hangs down over the top of the walls by
one cubit.
37

If, however, the har is a window or opening then perhaps it is to be one cubit high, or
positioned 1 cubit below the roof.
38
Some scholars have then understood : to mean
'make it throughout, entirely' implying that the har is to run all the way round the
tbh.
39
However this would seem to derive the verb from : rather than :.
40
The verb
: almost invariably implies completing, ending or consuming.
41
The text, then, does not
state whether it is to be a single or continuous opening, but ,if it was to run all the way
round, one might expect to see the adverb ::: ('all around').
42

35
{Westermann 76, p. 421} 'the sentence is incomprehensible'. {Gunkel 1910, p. 144} following Winckler places it with the
other measurements in v15 and claims that it follows Assyrian practice of finishing dimensions with the phrase 'measured by
the cubit', but given that cubit is already mentioned three times in v15, this would be redundant and such a final phrase is
not found in any other biblical dimensions e.g. Ex 25-38, 1 Kgs 6 etc.
36
{Hamilton 95, p. 283}. Assuming the ridge ran the length of the boat and reached the width of it, the resulting isosceles
triangle would be 50 cubits at the base and 1 cubit high in the centre i.e. a gradient of 1:25.
37
{Jacob 34, p. 192}
38
{Driver 04, p. 88fn16} has both options. For a cubit below the roof see: {Zlotowitz 80, p. 233} based on several rabbinic
views. For a window a cubit high, see e.g. {Delitzsch 88, p. 259}.
39
{Delitzsch 88, p. 259}, {Dillmann 97, p. ***}. This has clearly influenced the NLT 'an opening all the way round'. {Driver 04,
p. 88fn16}, probably borrowing from these scholars, says: "To be pictured, apparently, as a kind of casement running round
the sides of the ark (except where interrupted by the beams supporting the roof), a little below the roof." Delitzsch adds:
'[n]or can a single opening of a cubit square be here intended for the animals could not be housed continually in the dark
while only Noah's chamber had light.' Delitsch overlooks the fact that the lower and second floors would still be completely
dark in this theory.
40
: means 'complete, perfect' according to {BDB, p. 480}, with the derivatives : 'all, whole'; : 'entire, completely'.
41
e.g. complete a job Gen 2:2, complete an action Gen 17:22, finish contents Gen 21:15, consume Gen 41:30.
42
{Jacob 34, p. 190} c.f. Ex 25:11, 24-25 etc.

1.7.2.2. Finish the tbh one cubit above
As an alternative to the har it is possible that the suffix means that it is the tbh that is
to be finished to one cubit above. To avoid the confusion of referent and to emphasise that
the measurement applies to the tbh some scholars consider that the phrase has become
displaced and belongs at the end of the verse or perhaps with the measurements in verse
15.
43
However, the text is sufficiently ambiguous for the current wording to refer to the
tbh without need for rearrangement.
44
The more difficult question is what it would mean
to finish the tbh one cubit above.

It is often suggested that the statement relates to the shape of the tbh. Rabbi Judah
thought that it meant that the same cubit size was to be used for the top of the tbh as for
the bottom. By this he meant, perhaps, that it was to be considered a rectangular box.
45

Certainly plenty of readers have understood 6:15 in this way.
46
Other Rabbis understood
the phrase as referring to a roof, as a separate item from the har window. Thus they also
arrived at a ridge roof one cubit high, or alternatively a roof that sloped to within a cubit of
meeting, i.e. with a one cubit wide flat top.
47

Others have suggested it is not the roof that slopes but the very tbh itself. The tbh is to
be envisaged as forming, not a box but a triangular prism, or rather a prism with its
pinnacle sliced off 1 cubit from the top.
48
Wevers believes that the Septuagint writers had
such a picture in mind and he thus gives sense to the otherwise inexplicable translation of
s har by ('gatherings'). He says "the translator intended Noe to make the
ark gradually bringing it more and more together and completing it up to a cubit upwards,
i.e. at the top."
49
Ibn Ezra apparently envisages not a prism but a pyramid whereby the roof
sloped up on all 4 sides until it was one cubit in length and a sixth of a cubit in width.
50

43
Wellhausen, Budde according to {Delitzsch 88, p. 258} wish to move the phrase to the end of the verse. We noted above
(fn35p40) that {Gunkel 1910, p. 144} places it with the other measurements in v15.
44
{Delitzsch 88, p. 259}
45
{Midrash Rabbah, p. 245fn3}
46
e.g. {Mathews 96, p. 364}, {Cassuto 49, p. 60} also cites 7:18 and 8:4 as further proof the tbh is a rectangular box.
47
{Midrash Rabbah, p. 245} 'R. Nehemiah said: It was like a vaulted carriage, and he built it sloping inwards so that it
tapered to a cubit.' He is generally understood to be speaking of the roof so {Rashi}, {Cassuto 49, p. 65}.
48
{Morgan 26, p. 767}, {Moberly 05, p. 47fn12}. It is possible that R. Nehemiah in Genesis Rabbah views the sides rather
than the roof as sloping see fn47 above p41
49
{Wevers 93, p. 85}. He sees this as a "most peculiar looking object with sides sloping upward at an angle of cir 51and cir
39 cubits in length." This suggestion for the LXX is certainly as good as others that have been proposed. {Cassuto 49, p. 63}
thinks the Septuagint writers understood s in terms of the verbal use in Job 24:11 as 'rows (of vines)' but that makes little
sense. Moreover the Septuagint Job (which the translators of Genesis may not have had) differs markedly from the MT at
24:11. {Jacob 34, p. 190} simply labels LXX incomprehensible.
50
{Ibn Ezra, p. 101}. Interpreters disagree as to whether Ibn Ezra meant the roof or the whole tbh was pyramid shaped.

These opposing interpretations contrast two (or three) shapes for the ark a rectangular
box, with or without a sloping roof, or a triangular prism/pyramid. Neither of these shapes
immediately suggests a seagoing craft, and, as we have commented, the biblical language
does seem to avoid ship-building terminology unless its hapax are technical terms that
have all been lost. Yet most artistic depictions and models of the ark, throughout the
centuries, have been boat shaped, often with rounded hulls. Indeed Delitzsch could
confidently argue, on rather tenuous derivations, that the word tbh indicated a hollow
concave receptacle.
51
Readers have, thus, been divided over whether the tbh is a
seaworthy shape (at least more so than the ANE equivalents) or whether it is not ship-like
and therefore depends for its survival on the providence of God.
52
The text remains silently
ambiguous.

1.7.2.3. Finish it unto a cubit
Given the plethora of possible suggestions is there anything further that can be said with a
degree of probability about the har or about the cubit?

Cassuto argues that parallelism requires that the cubit refers to the tbh not the har. The
second half of the verse consists of two distinct constructions for the tbh (a door and
three storeys). Therefore, he argues, the first half of the verse must equally contain two
separate projects, not one composite instruction about the har.
53
However, prose
parallelism is rarely as exact as poetic parallelism and there is no reason why the verse
should not be a triplet (har, door, 3 storeys) rather than a quadruplet (har, tbh, door,
3 storeys). Verse 14 is a triplet (gopher wood, nests/reeds, pitch/covering) and, in its own
way, so is verse 15 with its three different measurements. Moreover the lower, second and
third storeys of the final phrase at least make an explicit further addition to the tbh, while
the phrase 'finish [the tbh] to a cubit', adds no explicit new item. In addition, if the
instruction concerns the form of the tbh rather than the position of the har it would fit
better in the section on dimensions (6:15).

51
{Delitzsch 88, p. 256} argues that : (tbh) is a secondary formation from :x ('water skins') and means 'to be convex
without and hollow within'. However on p258 he talks of the floor being 'a well compacted raft' in apparently rectangular
terms it is not clear how these two statements fit together.
52
Typical of those who see seaworthiness include: {Zlotowitz 80, p. 231}), {Ibn Ezra, p. 101},{Morgan 26}, {Mathews 96, p.
363}, {Waltke 01, p. 136}. In {Midrash Rabbah, p. 243} XXXI:10 )Bar Huta said "the Torah teaches you practical knowledge,
that if a man builds a ship which is to stand upright in harbour, he must make its breadth a sixth [of its length] and its height
a tenth." In contrast {Cassuto 49, p. 60} and {Sarna 89, p. 52} argues the shape indicates its survival depends on the will of
God. {Calvin 01} on 6:15 more generally argues that the story is entirely dependent upon the miraculous.
53
{Cassuto 49, p. 64} For Cassuto, the har is a window, while 'the finish it to a cubit' refers to the form of the roof.

In similar sentences concerning the construction of an additional item for a larger object
( :), it is more common for a pronoun in a second phrase to refer to the additional item
than the object, and it is usually clear from context if this is not the case.
54
Therefore,
unless there is reason why the phrase 'finish it to a cubit above' cannot relate to the har, it
should probably be understood to do so.

But there is still the problem of what Noah is to do to finish the har. The grammar
remains awkward. : is a fairly common word, which, with a direct object, usually means
to finish a job, or to consume or destroy something.
55
A statement instructing Noah to
finish the har or the tbh would, of itself, be unexceptional.
56

What is unusual is to find the verb with the preposition x and a measurement. The verb
: appears only twice with x, in the phrase x : : ('determine evil unto
someone').
57
In its meaning to 'finish something' it occurs almost always with the
preposition : as a measure of time or result.
58
Nor does x ever feature with a cubit ( : x)
which, if it is preceded by a preposition, takes : for measurements, or : for approximate
measurements.
59
One of the main reasons x is not used with measurements is that it tends
to indicate a sense of movement: "l marks a direction ('toward'), a goal or termination
('into'), or a limit or degree ('as far as, upto')".
60

BDB favours the standard meaning of x for 6:16 ('motion unto a place') but notes 'unto
the length of a cubit' is 'peculiar'.
61
It offers no help in what that might mean in context.

54
e.g. Ex 27:4-5 'You shall make for it [the altar] a grating you shall set it under the ledge [of the altar]' Ex 26:27 'You
shall make for the screen five pillars of acacia, and overlay them with gold', Ex 20:24 'You shall make for me an altar of
earth and sacrifice on it.' Only rarely does the second phrase refer to the indirect object and then the object is named or the
meaning is unambiguous e.g. Ex 38:28 'He made hooks for the pillars and overlaid their capitals and made bands for them.
{Skinner 12, p. 161} claims that : goes most naturally with tbh but give no support for his statement.
55
For 'finish a job' see e.g. Gen 2:2 'God finished his work', Ex 5:14 'Why did you not finish the prescribed quantity of
bricks?' Ex 39:32, 40:33 etc. For 'consume/ destroy': Gen 41:30 'famine will consume the earth', Ex 32:10 'that I may destroy
them'. With an infinitive it means to finish the action. Without an object it often means to end or perish, fail or faint {BDB, p.
478}. There is, as we have said (fn39p40), no warrant, without amendment, for the suggestion that the verb means 'make it
completely/ throughout' or 'all the way around' as in {Delitzsch 88, p. 259} or NLT.
56
The verb : appears more often in indicative statements e.g. Gen 2:2 'God finished the work', but can occur in
instructions especially with a time element Ex 5:14 'Finish your work [today]' or in subordinate clauses Ezek 4:6 'When you
have finished these'. See generally {BDB, p. 477} and {TDOT 74} VII:162
57
1 Sam 25:17, Est 7:7.
58
See Neh 3:34 'in a day', or Jb 7:6 'finish in hopelessness' c.f. Pss 31:11, 37:20, 78:33, 102:4, Jer 20:18, Ezek 5:12. 1 Kgs
6:38 uses to indicate how it is completed 'the house was finished according to all its parts'. In its meaning 'consume' the
verb also takes : Ex 33:3 'on the way' or Ps 59:14 'in wrath' c.f. Ps 90:7, 119:87, : Num 16:21 'like a moment', Num 17:10
and : : Ex 32:10 'from upon the earth', Num 17:25. In its meaning 'to finish an action' it takes and : with infinitive.
59
: e.g. Ex 26:2 'eight and twenty in cubit(s)', Ex 26:8, 27:9,18, 36:9,15 etc. The preposition is not needed (c.f. Ex 30:2) and
seems to be used for stylistic purposes. The use of : seems to indicate an approximate figure Num 11:31, Josh 3:4.
60
{Waltke 90, p. 193} 11.2.2a; {Joon, p. 456} 133b, {BDB, p. 39}.
61
{BDB, p. 39}.

Delitzsch, working from Gesenius, translates the preposition as 'according to the
proportion, i.e. at a rate of a cubit'.
62
Delitzsch's gloss is dependent on the har running all
the way round the tbh at a rate of one cubit, but, as we have noted, there is no warrant
for such a conclusion. Once this gloss is removed it is not clear that 'in accord with' makes
the meaning any clearer. Moreover the use of the preposition as a normative dative occurs
only occasionally in such phrases as 'in accord with the command of YHWH', and the use
may be phrase specific.
63

Of the various meanings of x listed in the standard grammars the one which makes most
sense in this context is the idea of 'movement towards a limit', 'you shall finish it as far as/
up to/ unto one cubit.
64
Only in this way could one speak of a cubit as the destination or
goal of the finishing of the har.
65

If this is the intention, it could relate the har to itself i.e. "make the har so that it's
goal is one cubit". This would apparently mean the har is one cubit in size in one or
more of its dimensions. However, this meaning could be achieved more easily with the
standard form : : s : x n :; (A har you shall make the tbh, one cubit high
or broad or long) and it is difficult to know why an unusual phrasing would have been
employed.
66
The alternative is that the har relates to some other item, i.e. the har is to
stop one cubit before the goal of something else, presumably some part of the tbh.
Admittedly, it is still a cryptic way of saying it should reach to within a cubit of something,
but there is less standardisation of form for such an expression.
67
(any other options?)

1.7.2.4. Finish it as far as one cubit above
But if the cubit measurement is relative to something, to what part of the tbh is it
relative? The only guidance given is that it is to be unto one cubit : : : ('above').

62
{Delitzsch 88, p. 259}
63
Delitzsch cites Josh 17:4 'according to the command of Moses' which reveals the gloss in his translation 'according to the
proportion'. There are 2 other examples of this phrase all in Joshua (15:13, 21:3 {Waltke 90, p. 193} 11.2.2a.12). BDB also
includes in this category the phrase : . x in 1 Sam 23:23, 26:4 but it is not clear that 'according to what is certain' is the
best translation for x in the latter phrases, 'with what is certain' might be better. More generally the meaning 'according to'
belongs to (c.f. 6:20) or occasionally : or : (Gen 1:26).
64
See {Waltke 90} 11.2.2a#5, Joon 133b (exclusion of goal). x is thus similar to ~ : 'as far as/ until', although the later
perhaps places greater stress on the distance travelled, rather than the movement towards.
65
The language of achieving a goal is used by linguists of both : {TDOT 74} VII:159 and x {Choi 03, p. 97}.
66
As used in 6:15, Ex 25:10,17,23 etc.
67
Biblical Hebrew tends to prefer to specify both boundaries rather than give relative measurements. So Nums 35:5 says
: c n~ :: : : x : ~ ;n x n x : c : x 'you shall measure from the outside to the city, east side 2000 cubits' rather than
'you shall measure from the city as far as/unto 2000 cubits.' So also Ezek 40:19 using :, while Ezek 40:23,27 use
x : and Ezek 43:14, 2 Chr 25:23 ~ : :.

Jacob says of : : : that 'it is a matter, without exception, of two diverse things, of which
one is over and on top of the other. Above = in elevation is ::: and higher than is :::
'.
68
Unfortunately biblical Hebrew is not quite as neat as this. It is certainly true that the
majority of uses employ two nouns, one of which is on top of the other as in Exodus 25:21:
: : : x : n : n x n . : ('You shall put the mercy seat [lit. the covering r:] on the
top of the ark').
69
But there are instances where : : : is used of only one item and where
it seems to mean 'above' or 'higher up'.
70
Similarly : : :, alone, can mean 'on top'.
71

Nevertheless, it is true that in most instances this composite word : : : means 'on or over
the top' and therefore, we should probably think of the har being 'on top of' rather than
'above'. This has the added advantage that it might provide a parallel statement to the door
which follows. The har is to be on the top, while the door is in the side.
72

If the har is a light opening, window or hatch of some sort, equivalent to the
'window' of 8:6 then it is clearly to be made in the top of the tbh which, whether it has a
sloping or flat roof, would still prevent Noah from seeing out and so be consistent with the
sending of the birds. The difficulty is to fit the cubit into this context. The idea that the
cubit was the size of the har was found to be a less likely option although it would make
more sense in this construction. A hatch of one cubit in size would be just big enough to
release the birds and for Noah to reach out his hand to take the dove back (8:9). If the hatch
is to reach as far as one cubit, perhaps it is to be one cubit from the top (or bottom edge) of
the sloping roof, or, if the roof is flat, one cubit from the side. It is thus possible to
envisage a har (light-opening) finished to a cubit on top, although it is not perhaps the
clearest of expressions. Similar difficulties would arise, as to what 'unto a cubit means' if
the har is to be the top deck of the tbh.

68
{Jacob 34, p. 191} "Ein weiterer Beweis ist das Wort :::, bei dem es sich ohne Ausnahme um zwei
verschiedenartige Dinge handelt, von denen das eine sich ber und auf dem ndern befindet, z. B. 720 Ex 2521 2614 usw. Oben
= in der Hhe heit :::, und hher als ' :::."
69
Of 24 instances of the composite word 20 (83%) might be said to involve one thing on top of another.
70
In Josh 3:13,16 the waters are described as being cut off : : : and would seem to mean 'upstream' rather than 'on top'
of' the river bed. Jer 31:37 speaks of the heavens above : : : in contrast to foundations : : ('below') although the more
usual form for this would be : : : Ex 20:4, Dt 4:39, 5:8 etc.
71
In Gen 22:9 Isaac is laid : : : (on top of) the wood. In 1 Kgs 7:3 the temple is covered on top, c.f. possibly Ezek 1:26.
72
Gunkel's removal of the cubit to v15 makes the parallelism clearer and stronger ({Gunkel 1910, p. 144}), however prose
parallelism, as we have often noted, is not as tightly structured as poetic parallelism.

If the har is, instead, a roof, the most obvious meaning is that the roof is to be completed
as far as a cubit above the walls but that would have been more easily expressed as 'make a
roof one cubit high'. It would also be somewhat redundant to explain that a roof was to be
'on top' of the tbh.
73
The idea that the roof should slope upwards until both slopes are a
cubit apart is an ingenious reading that seems true to the grammar but one must ask
whether it would also have been true to the narrator. Would this have been the natural way
to describe such a design? Most evidence suggests that ANE roofs were flat not ridged and
therefore a ridged roof would perhaps need clearer explanation than is given here. More
pressingly, there is also the question of why the roof sides are to be cut short one cubit
apart. As Jacob notes, if the purpose of the ridge was for the rain to run off, why leave a
cubit-wide flat roof at the top?
74
Jacob's suggestion that the har is a covering hanging
down on each side, such as the covering on the tabernacle, does not work well either. If the
har was to hang down a cubit on either side then the normal expression would employ a
distributive n x : x : n x : x ('one cubit on either side').
75
Jacob's translation effectively
breaks the connection between the cubit and the top, so that it is the har not the cubit that
is on top and the har is then finished to fall down one cubit.

Intriguingly there are few recent attempts to emend the text despite its agreed
incomprehensibility. Emendations were common in the late nineteenth century when
scholars, rather too enthusiastically, attempted to rewrite the text.
76
Nevertheless
corruption of the text, misunderstandings and/or mispointing should not be ruled out, as we
found in v14, and simple amendments are worth considering.

In Isaiah 6:4 there is also an unusual use of the noun :x 'cubit' that has puzzled
commentators. Isaiah 6:4 says: : c : n: x :: . : x ; literally: "The cubits/forearms
of the thresholds trembled from the voice of those calling" The word q :, to which :x
'cubit' is linked, can mean a basin, but it can also mean the threshold or entry point for a
building, especially, perhaps, the door sill.
77
In Isaiah's vision it seems that some part of the
threshold shakes at the sound of the seraphim, a fairly common feature of theophanies.
What part of the threshold is unclear and scholars have proposed translations like:

73
{Gilgamesh 49, p. 234}
74
{Jacob 34, p. 192}
75
Ezek 40:12, c.f. Ex 26:13.
76
See {Skinner 12, p. 161} for some of the more extensive late nineteenth century amendments.
77
basin: Ex 12:22 holding the blood of the passover lamb, c.f. 2 Sam 17:28 Jer 52:19, 1 Kgs 7:50; in Zc 12:2 it maybe more
cup like in a metaphorical 'cup of reeling'. Threshold: 1 Kgs 14:17, 2 Kgs 12:10, Ezek 41:16 door sill: Jud 19:27; Ezek 10:6;
43:8 etc.

'doorposts in their foundations', 'foundations of the threshold', 'uprights attached to the
threshold', and 'the pivots of the threshold', apparently meaning the pivots for swinging
doors.
78
The LXX interestingly has ('and the
lintel/upper door was raised by the voice'). Blenkinsopp notes that 'amm... [is] not
attested elsewhere as an architectural term'.
79
But what if it is so attested in Genesis 6:16?
One of the nineteenth century emendations to 6:16 apparently read: . . :xx: and was
understood as 'on a pivot you shall make it revolve'.
80
It found little favour and
disappeared. Given the strange suggestion that the har should revolve and the unattested
verb, its failure to win support is hardly surprising.
81

There is, though, no need for any emendation of the text, simply the recognition that in
Genesis 6:16 the word : x is not a cubit measurement but an architectural term of which
the plural is to be found in Isaiah 6:4.
82
It is not clear what exactly that architectural
element is, but it is something that can be found, inter alia, on the threshold (Isaiah 6:4). It
is also something which could finish the har. Genesis 6:16 would then read something
like: "you shall finish [the har] at/with an amm on the top", which would be a more
natural use of the preposition x - and the adverb : : :.
83
The most obvious suggestion
might be some specialised form of lintel which, one could even speculate, was once a
cubit's width in early, narrow doorways.
84
The har might still be either a window/hatch
with a top lintel or a sloping roof with a lintel ridge. It might even be a door and thus a
synonym for nr in the next clause: 'an opening you shall make the tbh and finish it with
a lintel on top, and (this) entrance to the tbh you shall put in its side.' But given the
usually compact nature of the instructions and the preference for triplets this last
interpretation is less likely.

78
Doorposts: Eichrodt, KJV, NIV, JPS; Foundations: Engell, {Watts 05, p. 102n4a}, RSV, NASB, ESV; doorsill: Duhm in
{Wildberger 80, p. 248fn4a}, Uprights {Blenkinsopp 00, p. 223e}; Pivots: NRSV, {Wildberger 80, p. 248fn4a}.
79
{Blenkinsopp 00, p. 223note:e}.
80
{Skinner 12, p. 161} records this emendation and attributes it to Gunkel's Genesis: bersetzt und erklrt 2
nd
ed. The
English translation of Gunkel's 3
rd
revised edition gives no hint of this suggestion, so, if indeed proposed by Gunkel, it
seems to have been subsequently dropped.
81
The emendation is a simple substitution of . for : and a repointing from Qal to Pual. However the substituted . . is of
rather dubious derivation. Apparently from . II {BDB, p. 164} meaning 'roll away' there is no attested Piel, let alone Pual
form. There is only one adjective . used solely in 1 Kgs 6:34 which apparently means folding or revolving, and an
identical noun 'cylinder' Est 1:6, SoS 5:14.
82
If Gen 6:16 is a second example of this architectural feature one wonders if any of the other 248 uses of the noun are also
mistakenly translated cubit. As the noun is almost always used with a word of measurement height, width, length etc.
there are few other obvious candidates but a more detailed study would be needed. Jer 51:13 (metaphorically), 2 Kgs
14:13/ Neh 3:13 might be possibilities worth exploring.
83
x as comitative, 'with' for objects (but not people) can be found in 1 Sam 14:34 and locative 'at,by' Dt 16:6, Jud 12:6 see
{Waltke 90, p. 194}11.2.2, both are rare but attested uses of the preposition.
84
Such a lintel might also be found, perhaps, at the base of an opening creating the doorsill.

This speculative but possible alteration, like the repointing of c . ; ('nests') to ; . c ('reeds')
makes the verse more realistic and logical. However, it is not clear that the verses are
intended to be a purely prosaic, practical set of instructions. There are poetic qualities,
inter-textual allusions and a general opaqueness to the speech that may not be the result of
misinterpretations but may be part of the artistic design. Once again the final-form reader
is left baffled and uncertain.

1.7.3. Put an entrance in the side of the tbh.
In contrast to the previous instructions, the next instruction is a model of clarity. A n is a
common word for doorway or entrance, from the root n ('open') and is used in a wide
range of biblical material. Cassuto confidently states that it is a 'side entrance, small and
unimposing, in order that it should be easily closed and firmly secured.'
85
On what basis he
can assert this, is not clear, as n can be a large or small entrance and no size is given in
the story.
86
Indeed the stress seems to be more on making an opening than on a closable
door (n ~).
87
Thus the instruction relates to making it possible for all creatures to enter
(7:7-9,13-15) rather than to the statement that God shut them in (7:16).
88

This opening is to be put in the side ~ s of the tbh which, as we have already suggested,
is unusual in ancient boats entered from the top. However, it is worth reiterating again, that
there has been nothing so far (unless any of these ambiguous words were once technical
nautical terms) that alerts the first-time reader to the fact that the tbh will need to float.
The instructions would still fit a large house or temple. The first-time reader might wonder
if Noah is to build the first temple to YHWH and thus bring comfort to the world.

Hebrew has several words for the side of a building often taken from differing parts of the
human body (:s 'rib', qn: 'shoulder' etc.). When it comes to manufactured articles these
words often seem synonymous yet particular items tend to prefer one or other noun without
apparent reason. Thus ~ s used of the tbh is also used for the menorah and incense altar,

85
{Cassuto 49, p. 65}
86
n occurs 164 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is used for the whole east side opening of the tent of meeting Ex 26:36, 29:4-
42, for doorways in the temple 1 Kgs 6:8-33 but also for smaller household entrances Gen 19:6, Ezek 33:30.
87
c.f Gen 19:6, 1 Kgs 6:31 for the distinction between door n ~ and entrance n .
88
{Jacob 34, p. 193} While his conclusion that the har must therefore relate to the means of exit would be a nice
symmetry, it is difficult to see why they would exit from 'on top' when they have entered at 'the side'.

while :s is used for the Ark of the Covenant, the main altar and the temple. All are used
however for the tabernacle itself.
89

Several scholars have argued that the door was in the long side of the tbh. Jacob claims
that ~ s always indicates the long side and never the shorter front and back, while :s is
used for all sides. Sforno, on the other hand, asserts the reverse that :s is the long side and
~ s is the breadth side.
90
While it is true that ~ s is very often used for two opposing sides, as
Jacob argues, it is also used for the square sides of the incense altar and therefore cannot,
of itself, mean 'long side'. It does often seem to mean side as opposed to front or back, but
it is impossible to know what side is the front of the tbh.
91
All that the narrator tells the
reader, unambiguously, is that the tbh has a side entrance. Were the rest of the tbh
instructions once this clear and their meaning has been lost and corrupted by time, or was
this always the one clear element among a set of cryptic commands, or was it, too, made
practical at some very early point?

The only slightly odd element in the phrase is the use of the verb c: 'put, place, set' rather
than : 'make'. This verb might suggest that the opening is to be made separately and then
set into the side just as the precious stones are set upon the ephod (Exodus 40:19). Yet an
entranceway is essentially an open space, a hole rather than an item that can be put
somewhere. The verb may be used simply to avoid repetition of : ('make') which already
occurs 5 times in these three verses and twice in this set of instructions, nevertheless one
wonders why it is the opening and not the har that is set in the tbh. The use of this
verb might favour, then, the earlier, but rejected, suggestion that the har is part of the
entranceway and therefore something tangible to set in the side.

1.7.4. Lowest, second and third you will make.
The final instruction returns to allusive shorthand: : c . c c : 'lowests, seconds
and thirds you shall make'. The phrase is missing a noun and there is no referent to hand
except, perhaps, the entranceway of the previous phrase. That can be ruled out however,

89
~ s is used for the sides of lampstand from which the branches come, Ex 25:32, incense altar Ex 30:4. :s is used for the
Ark of the Covenant Ex 25:14, main altar Ex 27:7, side chambers of the temple 1 Kgs 6:5, Ezek 41:5-11. The sides of the
tabernacle are referred to by ~ s Ex 26:13, :s Ex 26:20, qn: Ex 27:14, xr Ex 26:18.
90
{Jacob 34, p. 193}, Sforno in {Zlotowitz 80, p. 233}. {Delitzsch 88, p. 259} assumes the long side without comment.
91
The incense altar is square in Ex 30:2. Interestingly in Ex 30:4 both ~ s and :s are used, apparently synonymously of this
altar. ~ s can certainly indicate side rather than front or back 1 Sam 20:20, but what is the front or back of the tbh.

because the opening is singular. Not only does this phrase require three items to be made,
each adjective is itself plural, perhaps suggesting a multiplicity of these items.

The Septuagint retains the plural and opts for neuter adjectives ,
'subterraneans, second storied and third storied'.
92
The use of indicates
that the translator concluded the missing noun referred to floors or storeys and so he
employed the same Greek term as would be used for the floors of the temple in 1 Kings
and Ezekiel. The Targums go further and fill the referent gap with the noun :~:
'compartments' which they have also used to translate c . ; 'nests' in 6:14.
93
However, in
practical terms, the Targums may not differ from the Septuagint. An instruction to "make
lower, second and third compartments" probably envisages three floors of compartments.
94

1 Kings 6:6 provides the nearest biblical parallel to 6:16 when it says of the side chamber
annex to the temple: :s : x : : : n c : : : x : . : : : : x : : .
: (the lowest extension (meaning unclear) 5 cubits wide, and the middle 6 cubits wide,
and the third 7 cubits wide). This is invariably understood to mean that the annex had three
storeys each one cubit wider than the one below. The suggestion seems to be confirmed by
6:8 which apparently suggests there was a stairwell that went up to the middle and again to
the third side. Both texts, however, have difficulties.
95
Ezekiel 41:7 takes up the language
again and speaks of ascending from the lowest to the uppermost side by way of the
middle.
96
In both passages a floor or storey seems to be represented by the word : s
('side/rib') although the word could also mean side chambers. Accordingly the adjectives
are all feminine singular except for the strange move to the masculine plural for the final
adjective of 1 Kings 6:8 ( c c 'the thirds').
97
After the first appearance of the noun, the
adjectives are often used alone much as in Genesis 6:16.

92
is found in the Septuagint only here and in PSol 8:9 where it means 'under the earth', a surprising term for a
boat. Its Ionic form is found in Herodotus etc. with similar meaning. is a neologism almost certainly modelled on
which is found in 1 Kgs 6:8, Ezek 41:7 and Herodotus meaning 'third storey' probably a combination of and
'third roof/ceiling'. Symmachus has as found in Acts 20:9. Again means 'roof'.
93
: :~ appears in Targumim Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti. It also appears in 6:14 for c . ; in Onqelos and
marginally in Neofiti. Some scholars therefore wish to add c . ; to 6:16 which {Delitzsch 88, p. 259} thinks is unnecessary on
the basis of LXX. As we noted above, others wanted to move c . ; anyway to this position where it is more in keeping with
the flow of the instruction. {Gunkel 1910, p. 144} see fn39p7
94
Josephus however understands it to mean 4 storeys to the ark, i.e. the 'lowest' does not indicate the base of the tbh but
a floor inserted above the base. Yet he does not understand the temple storeys in this way. {Josephius Apion} Ant.I.3.2.
95
1 Kgs 6:6 appears to use : s : (:s? extension? annex?) for storey, a word used in 6:5,10 for the whole extension not
simply one floor. The LXX and other versions all appear to treat the word as if it were : s 'side' as in 6:8. It is also often
suggested the first use of 'middle' in 6:8 should be changed to 'lowest' because the entrance was surely into the lowest
storey. The text then states that the middle storey is reached by an internal stair. However 6:10 may suggest that there was
only one storey 5 cubits high. On the problems generally see {Cogan 74, p. 239}, {Fritz 96, p. 70-71}, {DeVries 03, p. 94}.
96
See also Ezek 42:3,6. Again the text is obscure and difficult to follow {Zimmerli 69}.
97
{Cogan 74, p. 240} considers the text is corrupt and should be amended to lyt 'unless the third story rooms are meant'.

The fact that the adjectives are plural and Genesis 6 speaks of 'seconds' (c . ) rather than
'middle' ( : ) caused some Jewish writers to conclude that there were more than three
decks.
98
Others believed that the plural referred to the making of many compartments on
each deck.
99
Debates about how many compartments and what was housed on each floor
became a natural gap filling activity for readers.
100
On a more prosaic interpretation the
plural may simply indicate that there are several floors, just as in English 'you shall make a
first, second and third floor' is equivalent to 'you shall make first, second and third floors.'

Leaving aside the literal interpretation, several writers see a symbolic purpose in the three
parts to the tbh. Gunkel notes that in Israelite thought the world also had three storeys or
components (heavens, earth and either netherworld or seas).
101
Others have gone further in
seeing the ark modelled as a mini-cosmos. Cotter notes the four sides for the four
directions, the three storeys for the three storied world and the fact that there are
representatives of all living things on the tbh.
102

1.7.5. You shall make it!
The instructions finish with : (you shall make it) i.e. : with a third feminine singular
suffix. Some rabbis, working with an unpointed text, read this as : 'it shall make itself'
so that the tbh, like the animals who seem to gather of their own accord, gives Noah a
helping hand.
103
Thus they heighten the miraculous and fantastic in the narrative but also
echo the creation account where that which is created (earth, trees, living creatures) join
God in the creative process bringing forth from within.

This is the fifth use of the verb in these three short verses. Readers who read the flood
through the lens of 5:29 may well note the resonance. If Noah is to bring rest or comfort
from work (::), he is to have no rest himself. Work has become a verb (:), repeated in
quick succession - Noah must make a tbh, make nests(?), make a roof(?), make lowest,

98
{Saadiah Gaon, p. 212} Because the 10 cubit height would be too high and involve too much waste space Goan argues
that 'two or three' is often only the beginning of the count and is not exhaustive. He cites Am 4:8 and Is 17:6. {Ibn Ezra, p.
102} notes this view but does not commit himself.
99
{Cassuto 49, p. 65}. {Jacob 34, p. 193} goes into more detail and argues that the plural requires at least two partitions a
vertical partition into 3 storeys and a horizontal partition into 3 compartments which, fortuitously, come to the size of 10
cubits high, 100 cubits long and 50 cubits wide which is the size of the forecourt of the tabernacle. He believes these would
still be too big and so would have been further subdivided, but that the text wished to bring out this elementary ratio of
100:50:10. However it seems a very obscure way to indicate this ratio, and, moreover, lowest indicates a vertical but not a
horizontal dimension.
100
The number of compartments in midrashic commentaries varied from 330 to 900 {Midrash Rabbah, p. 244}. Noah and
his family are variously assigned to the top, middle or bottom floor, although most rabbis favoured the bottom floor for
garbage.
101
{Gunkel 1910, p. 144}
102
{Cotter 03, p. 55}
103
{Midrash Rabbah, p. 245}. Quite why the rabbis or the Masoretes made this final verb different in pointing to the four
other occurrences is unclear.

second and third parts and make it all 300 cubits.
104
The word also resonates further back
to creation itself. As if to make up for God's regret at how his own creation turned out (6:6,
6:7), God commands Noah to be creative. A reader may not be surprised that by work, will
work be overcome. Such logic has a pleasing symmetry and mirrors one of the possible
readings of 5:29 i.e. that out of the dm will come relief from the toil of the dm.
However the mention of work may alternatively remind the reader that Lamech lamented
the toil that arose from the dm, and there is clearly no rest from toil yet. On this subject
of toil from the dm the story has so far been silent. Has that element of Lamech's
prediction been lost and superseded by the need to bring comfort from the new curse that
God is about to bring? Was Lamech mistaken as to the nature of the comfort Noah was to
bring? Or is the subject of the curse on the dm still lurking in the background biding its
time? The reader cannot be sure. Like the positive or negative purpose of the tbh, the
positive or negative nature of this work is uncertain.

104
6:14
x2
, 6:15, 6:16
x2
.

1.8. Understanding the Tbh.
The first-time reader may well be quite dazed by this stage as to what this tbh really is.
As the reader will eventually discover, Noah, himself seems to have no problem with the
instructions (6:22), or at least no problems that the reader is privy to, but, by that stage, the
reader also has a better idea of the tbh's purpose. The only certain thing the reader can
take away, at this point, is that a tbh is large and will need a lot of construction work
(even if it is to help make itself). It is clearly a significant edifice but of what nature or
purpose is quite unclear. For the first time reader, hope is still delayed and Noah's
instructions, not to mention the purpose of those instructions, could be almost
unintelligible.
1
We cannot be sure whether this was also the case for the original first-time
readers or whether the verses contained well-known technical vocabulary that has since
become lost and corrupted. However, it is certainly possible that the text was always
opaque.

The returning reader, of course, knows exactly what the tbh is for, knows it must be a
sea-worthy vehicle and knows that it is indeed a sign of hope, the means of salvation.
However, if such a reader can avoid expecting the passage to be a purely prosaic set of
practical instructions they are in a position to notice the peculiar nuances of the text its
eschewal of common words for apparently technical hapax legomenon, its poetic qualities
(rhyme, triplets) and above all its symbolic, intertextual resonances.

1.8.1. Tbh and Creation
The first intertextual connection that a reader might make is between the ark and creation.
Speaking of 6:14-16, Baumgart claims: "the building plan for the ark is so ordered in the
context that it replicates elements of creation."
2
For him, calling the ark a tbh, which he
understands to mean 'box', conjures up a picture of bounded space that resonates with the
earth space in Genesis 1:9-10 bounded by the waters above and the separated waters
below. The mention of pitch indicates that this box, like the separated dry land is a space
immune to the menacing waters. The chaos waters (1:2) before creation are a kind of "Ur-
flood" mirrored in 6:11-13 by a kind of chaos violence prior to the making of the ark. Once
the space is created in Genesis 1 it is filled with living creatures (1:24-28), as also the ark
when it is made (6:18-20) and the final act of God in both accounts is the giving of food

1
{Philo Q&A on Genesis, p. II:8} catches this when he says that God has previously spoken in riddles which are at last
made clear at 6:17. {Wenham91, p. 97} also acknowledges the gaps that a returning reader fills without realising it.
2
{Baumgart 03, p. 33}' Der Bauplan fr die Arche ist so in den Kontext eingeordnet, dass Elemente des
Schpfungsberichtes nachklingen.'

(1:29, 6:21). But while God gives the detailed plan in 6:14-16 it is Noah who must do the
work and imitate the Creator God.

As we have seen/shall see
3
, the flood narrative is indeed very tightly tied to the creation
account, full of the vocabulary and images from Genesis 1-3. There is plenty to support a
reader, like Baumgart, envisaging the ark as an alternative earth for all living creatures, a
mini replica of creation. However, when studied carefully, there is very little in 6:14-16
that connects with Genesis 1-3. Other than the use the verb : 'make' and : 'finish'
6:14-16 has none of the vocabulary of creation. Despite Baumgart's claim that the
instructions replicate creation, his strongest creation links come from outside 6:14-16 e.g.
from the filling of the ark with living creatures and food (6:19-21).

His initial statement suggested that he might take us through the instructions and match
them to creation, but in fact all he can suggest is that a box conjures up a picture of
bounded space and pitch shows that the ark is immune to water. As we have seen, both the
words tbh and r: 'pitch/covering' are hapax, whose meanings are open to dispute. Even
if tbh means box, it does not obviously conjure up the dome shape of the firmament in
Genesis 1:7 to this reader. We have already argued that a first-time reader may well not
associate the tbh with water until 6:17-18.

Moreover the presence of the chaos idea in Genesis 1, so central, to Baumgart's imagery
has been seriously attacked by Tsumura and, at the very least, must be employed with a
good deal more caution than Baumgart demonstrates.
4
There is nothing menacing about the
waters in Genesis 1 which simply exist and obediently part when commanded.
Surprisingly, then, the instructions for the tbh in 6:14-16 do not reveal the creation
theme to this reader. In the wider context the tbh will certainly seem to become an earth
like structure, but that is discovered later in the narrative when the purpose of the tbh is
revealed.

3
See Excursus/Paper on creation and the flood ***
4
{Tsumura 05}. While chaos motifs may lay behind creation references elsewhere in the biblical material in Genesis 1 they
seem to have been completely removed. There is no dualistic battle between light and dark, heavens and earth, waters and
land in Genesis 1. They simply exist and are separated into their appropriate spheres.

1.8.2. The Tabernacle,Temple and Tbh
An alternative, but not unrelated, connection many returning readers have been drawn
towards is the tabernacle/ temple link we have noted several times. Typical is this
comment of Amos:
"The detailed description for the making of this ark is reminiscent of the even more
elaborate instructions in Exod. 25-27 for the making of the Tabernacle. This is not
accidental. The welfare of the entire human race will depend on both being properly
built."
5

This general similarity of instruction and supposedly salvific purpose of both the ark and
the tabernacle is often noted.
6

The relationship between creation, cosmos and temple, both in Genesis 1-3 and the
relevant portions of Exodus and 1 Kings, as well as in ANE temple architecture is a much
debated subject.
7
Although the links may, at times, have been overstated nevertheless it
seems likely that the temple was related, in some degree, to the cosmos and its creation in
many ancient cultures.
8
It is not surprising, then, that the fulsome creation connections in
the flood story should draw us, through Genesis 1-3, into temple imagery. However in the
case of 6:14-16 the connections are not indirect via Genesis 1-3 but direct to Exodus and
Kings.

As Amos notes, Exodus 25-28 is the only other biblical narrative where detailed divine
instructions to erect a large edifice are given. In style, both passages consist of a string of
: (make) commands in similar format.
9
Common characteristics include an outline of the
outer structure complete with rounded cubit measurements, followed by the inner details.
In Exodus the actual making of the temple in accord with these instructions then follows
(Exodus 36-39). This execution section is, as we shall see, strangely missing from the
flood story although it is to be found in all the ANE tales. Nevertheless, the repeated
confirmation that all was done as instructed, so characteristic of Exodus, is also very much
part of the flood story.
10
1 Kings 6-7, by contrast, lacks the divine instructions but contains

5
{Amos 04, p. 49-50}. Similar comments can be found in e.g. {Kissling 04, p. 286}, {Westermann 76, p. 421}.
6
A common suggestion, as is hinted in Amos is that both the ark and the temple are means of (universal) salvation. This is
an oversimplification. In the Exodus material, salvation occurs in the Exodus and the tabernacle is more concerned with
maintaining and purifying the saved life. In the flood story it is the waters that purify and the tbh saves.
7
See e.g. {Blenkinsopp 76, p. 286}, {Holloway 91}, {Palmer 04, p. 15}. The connection is an ancient one {Philo De. Spec.
Leg}66 begins 'We ought to look upon the universal world as the highest and truest temple of God" {Josephius Apion}
Ant.III.7.7, Wars V.5.5 aligns aspects of the temple with elements of the universe.
8
For some of the more elaborate views see e.g. {Klein 96, p. 266}, {Kearney 97}, {Fletcher-Louis 06}.
9
The verb : 'you shall make' is used 5x in Gen 6:14-16 and similarly God's instructions to Moses in Ex 25:9-28:43 employ
the verb 81x (you/they shall make), while its fulfilment in Ex 36-39 has the verb 95x (they made).
10
The longest form (6:22) . :_ : : : c x nx : s x : : 'And Noah did of all that God commanded him, thus he did'
is found also in Ex 39:32,42; 40:16. A shortened version is in Gen 7:5 and Ex 38:22. The shortest form n x c x : s x : .
'of what God commanded Noah' is present in Gen 7:9,16 and Ex 39:1,5,7,21,26,29,31; Ex 40:19,21,23,25,27,29,32.
{Blenkinsopp 76, p. 275} sees this phrase as a key structural element in P.

a similarly structured description of the construction of the temple.
11
The other great
biblical building projects Nehemiah's walls and Ezra's temple use different vocabulary
and grammatical forms.

As we have discovered, in addition to a similar construction pattern, we have further cultic
and temple resonances in the vocabulary found in 6:14-16. While it is possible that r:
('cover/ pitch') would alert a well-educated reader to an Akkadian loan word, it might
equally evoke the rich cultic overtones of r : 'ransom' with its half shekel temple
atonement price,
12
n : the "mercy seat" over the Ark of the Covenant,
13
and the verb :
'to atone' associated with so many priestly rituals.
14
The tbh becomes the place of mercy
and ransom when the waters cover over and atone for the violence of the world.

Similarly other words may evoke tabernacle connections. For Mathews c . ; 'stalks' reminds
him of the repeated use of that word for the branches of the menorah.
15
~ s is also used for
the side of the menorah from which these branches come, along with the side of the
tabernacle and the incense altar.
16
n r 'entrance' is used frequently of the door of the tent of
meeting and temple and in 1 Kings 6:8 is specifically mentioned as being on the right
(south) side.
17
Baumgart connects the sohar, which he envisages as light openings all the
way round to a window gallery around the temple.
18
However as windows for both tbh
and temple are uncertain, this element must be viewed with caution. Lastly we have
explored the possibility that :x 'cubit' might even be a type of lintel such as Isaiah 6
mentions existing in the temple.
19

In addition, the giving of dimensions for the tbh not only evokes the many construction
dimensions given for the tabernacle and temple but also employs the same or similar
symbolic numbers 300, 50, 30.
20

11
This building description pattern is to be found also in the equivalent passages in 2 Chr 3-4. A modified version is to be
found in the measuring of the temple in Ezek 40-42. {Hurowitz 85} explores how the Tabernacle and Temple building
instructions with their fulfilment mirror other ANE reports, suggesting a reasonably established genre.
12
Ex 30:11-13.
13
Ex 25:17-22.
14
The verb is found in the priestly instructions of Ex 29-30 and throughout Lev and Nums.
15
Ex 25:31-36; 37:17-22. {Mathews 96, p. 364}.
16
See references fn89p49.
17
As n r is a very frequent noun for all types of doors, it does not carry any temple connections in its own right. However if
the temple or tabernacle is already invoked then it could reinforce that image. It must also be noted that 1 Kings 6:8
employs the synonym :s rather than ~s.
18
{Baumgart 03, p. 35}.
19
see p47
20
The 'House of the Forest of Lebanon' 100x50x30 (1 Kg 7:2); The Temple 60x20x30 (1 Kg 6:2) or 60x20x120 (2 Chr 3:3).
The tabernacle tent 30x10x10 in a courtyard 100x50 (Ex 38:11-13 {Josephius Apion} Ant iii 6 2-3). See fn5p9.

The link between flood boat and temple has also been claimed for the Gilgamesh narrative
where the square dimensions are considered to be ziggurat shaped and the parallel form of
temple building instruction is noted.
21

That readers do indeed make this intertextual link is demonstrated in the way Jacobs
looked immediately to Exodus for his explanation of the har.
22
Although his suggestion
is ultimately unconvincing, his connection of the tbh with the roofing material of the
tabernacle does come into its own in Genesis 8:13 where Noah removes the : : :
(covering) from the tbh. : : : is used in biblical writings only in Exodus and Numbers
for the covering of the tent of meeting and selected cultic implements.
23

Similarly, there is no doubt that the apparently three-storied annexe of the temple has been
the template for understanding the final instruction to make 'lowest, seconds and thirds',
since earliest times. The tabernacle naturally had only one storey but Josephus, perhaps
reflecting popular belief in his time, nevertheless understood it also to have been divided
into three sections, like the temple afterwards.
24
The three divisions of tbh, tabernacle
and temple have then been correlated again since earliest times to the concept of a three
storied universe. As the temple was envisaged as a microcosm of the universe so the
tbh,
25
quite understandably, was seen as a mini-cosmos which contains all living things.
The tbh certainly becomes a divinely provided dwelling space which replaces the
dm. It is a place separated from the dm, lifted up towards the heavens not quite
belonging to either realm. If, as Genesis 1 and the flood story suggest, living creatures have
existence only where eretz and dry land exist, the tbh becomes an alternative eretz where
humanity can survive when dm loses its battle with the waters. It is the place of safety
while the eretz is cleansed and renewed. As one removes all items from a room that is
about to be washed clean, so pairs of all living things, representative of all that exists are
removed to an alternative space, for the duration of the cleansing process. Finally as on the
Day of Atonement, all living things emerge from the tbh/tabernacle reconciled with God
(8:21-9:19).

21
{Holloway 91}, {Holloway 98}. {Baumgart 03, p. 35} argues that 6:14-16 demonstrates a great deal of Akkadian influence
although many of his suggestions have been disputed above.
22
{Jacob 34, p. 192ff} see p38
23
Ex 26:14; 35:11; 36:19; 39:34; 40:19. Num 3:25; 4:8,10-12,25
24
{Josephius Apion} Ant.III.7.7. Ex 26, itself, suggests two sections plus the courtyard outside.
25
as expounded by e.g. {Levenson 88, p. 78-99}.

Of course temple/tabernacle links do not begin and end with 6:14-16 and once readers
become alert to such a reading they will find other connections in the narrative: the day the
earth is dry and Noah removes the 'covering' (8:13) is also the day the tabernacle is
dedicated (Ex 40:2): New Year's day with all its cultic and symbolic new beginnings.
26
The
tbh holds fast upon a mountain, a high place, with cultic overtones. The first response of
Noah is a priestly one, to sacrifice thereupon. In various rabbinic, as in ANE and Greek
stories, the mountain of the temple mound was considered the first mound to appear both
from the waters of the creation and from the flood. Noah's altar is stated to be Adam's altar
reclaimed from the flood and in turn becomes the altar of the temple. Moreover, the temple
or its altar now acts as a stopper to prevent the flood waters again overwhelming the
world.
27
The temple links in the chapter thus provide a later generation with fertile ground
for creative theological reflection.

1.8.3. Conclusion
In conclusion, what appears to be a straightforward practical set of instructions is, in fact, a
complex, potentially symbolic, possibly corrupted and certainly very strange text. The
tendency of returning readers, knowing full well what the tbh is for, is to iron out the
inconsistencies and make the instructions practical and realistic. However there is
sufficient in the text to resist such pragmatism and to render it an allusive and elusive set of
instructions.

26
{Blenkinsopp 76, p. 284}.
27
{Patai 67, p. 55-58}, {Emerton 65, p. ***}, {Blenkinsopp 76, p. 285}, {Holloway 91, p. 330}. There are various versions of a
rabbinic story that, in the digging of the foundations of the temple, David accidentally released the thm and/or flood
waters, which were stoppered only by a stone bearing the divine name. {Patai 67, p. 55-58}, {Holloway 91, p. 335}.

Appendix 2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, by G. Johannes Botterweck, Ringgren Helmer and H-J. Fabry, eds. Michigan: Eerdmans,
1974.
3rd ed. Translated by M.E.J. Richardson. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Ludwig Khler, Walter
Baumgartner and Johann Stamm. 1953; reprint, Leiden: Brill, 1994.
2nd ed. Vol. 1, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, by Benjamin R. Foster. Bethesda: CDL Press, 1996.
Vol. 1, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, by Andrew George. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003.
Abusch, Tzvi. "The Development and Meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh: An Interpretative Essay." Journal of the American Oriental
Society 121, no. 4 (2001): 614-22.
Aichele, George Jr. and Tina Pippin. "Introduction: Why the Fantastic?" Semeia 60 (1992): 1-6.
Albertz, Rainer. "Das Motiv Fr Die Sintflut Im Atramhasis-Epos." In Mythos Im Alten Testament Und Seiner Umwelt: Festchecrift Fr
Hans-Peter Mller, eds. Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, Diethard Rmheld, 278:3-16, Behefte Zur Zeitschrift Fr Die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999.
Alster, Bendt. "Ilu Awilum : We-E I-La, "Gods : Men" Versus "Man : God": Punning and the Reversal of Patterns in the Atrahasis Epic."
In Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, ed. Tzvi Abusch, 35-40. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002.
Althann, Robert. "Does 'Et ('Aet) Sometimes Signify >From< in the Hebrew Bible?" Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
103, no. 1 (1991): 121-24.
Amos, Clare. The Book of Genesis. Peterborough: Epworth Press, 2004.
Armstrong, James Franklin. "A Critical Note on Genesis VI 16a a." Vetus Testamentum 10, no. 3 (1960): 328-33.
Armstrong, Karen. In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
Arnold, Bill T. and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Augustine. Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans. Edited by G.R. Evans. Translated by Henry Bettensen. London: Penguin
Books, 2003.
Bacon, Benjamin Wisner. "Chronology of the Account of the Flood in P.--A Contribution to the History of the Jewish Calendar." Hebraica
8, no. 1/2 (1891-1892): 79-88.
Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament. revised and enlarged ed. Kentucky: Westminster Press, 1984; reprint, London: Darton
Longman and Todd, 1996.
Baumgart, Norbert Clemens. "Die Grosse Flut Und Die Arche." Bibel und Kirche 58 (2003): 30-36.
Bernstein, Moshe J. "4Q252: Method and Context, Genre and Sources: A Response to George J. Brooke." Jewish Quarterly Review 85,
no. 1/2 (1994): 61-79.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. Edited by William Foxwell
Albright and David Noel Freedman. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.
________. "The Structure of P." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38, no. 3 (1976): 275-92.
Boer. "The Fantasy of Genesis 1-3." Biblical Interpretation 14, no. 4 (2006): 309-31.
Brichto, Herbert Chanon. The Names of God: Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Brooke, George J. "The Genre of 4Q252." Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 160-79.
Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1972.
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Edited by James Luther Mays and
Patrick D. Miller. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.
Calvin, John. Genesis. The Crossway Classic Commentaries.. Edited by Alister McGrath and J. I. Packer. Nottingham: Crossway
Books, 2001.
Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part II From Noah to Abraham Gensis VI 9 - XI 32. Translated by Israel Abrahams.
1949; reprint, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1964.
Coats, George W. Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983.
Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. Edited by William Foxwell Albright and
David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1974; reprint, Yale: Yale University Press, 2001.
Colenso, John William. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined. London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1862.
Cotter, David W. Genesis. BERIT OLAM Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. Edited by David W. Cotter. Minnesota: Liturgical Press,
2003.
Dahood, Mitchell S.J. "Eblaite and Biblical Hebrew." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44, no. 1 (1982): 1-24.
________. "Isaiah 53,8-12 and Massoretic Misconstructions." Biblica 63 (1982): 566.
Dalley, Stephanie, trans. Myths From Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989;
reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Damrosch, David. The Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature. San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1987.
Delitzsch, Franz. A New Commentary on Genesis. 5th ed. Clarks Foreign Theological Library, New Series. Translated by Sophia
Taylor. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1888.
DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings. 2nd ed. Word Biblical Commentaries. Edited by David A Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker and John D.W. Watts.
1985; reprint, Nashville: Word Books, 2003.
Dillmann, August. 6th ed. Vol. 1, Genesis Critically and Exegetically Expounded . Translated by W. B. Stevenson, 1892; reprint,
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1897.
Driver, G. R. "Problems and Solutions." Vetus Testamentum 4, no. 3 (1954): 225-45.
Driver, Samuel Rolles. The Book of Genesis. 15th ed. 1904; reprint, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1948.
Emerton, John. "Spring and Torrent in Psalm LXXIV 15." In Volume Du Congrs, Genve 1965, ed. International Organisation for the
Study of Old Testament Congress, 122-33. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Fisher, E. "Gilgamesh and Genesis: The Flood Story in Context." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970): 392-403.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin. "Genesis 1 and the Story of Creation Told by the Design of Solomon's Temple", n.d.
Freedman, H. and M Simon, trans. Genesis Rabbah: Midrash Rabbah: Genesis I. London: The Soncino Press, 1939.
Fritz, Volkmar. 1 & 2 Kings. Continental Commentary Series. Translated by Anselm Hagedorn. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1996;
reprint, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Frhlich, Ida. "Themes, Structure and Genre of Pesher Genesis: A Response to George J. Brooke." Jewish Quarterly Review 85, no.
1/2 (1994): 81-90.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. "The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1-9." Biblical Archaeologist 40, no. 4
(1977): 147-54.
Gerhart, Mary. "Genric Competence in Biblical Hermeneutics." Semeia 43 (1988): 29-44.
Gesenius, Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm. Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. Translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. 1835; reprint,
London: Samuel Bagster, 1846.
________. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. 2nd English ed. Edited by E. Kautsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel,
1909; reprint, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.
Gmirkin, Russell E. Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch. London: T & T
Clark, 2006.
Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. 3rd ed. Translated by Mark E Biddle. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910; reprint, Georgia: Mercer
University Press, 1997.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Heidel, Alexander. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946; reprint,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949.
Hendel, Ronald S. "The Search for Noah's Flood." Bible Review XIX, no. 3 (2003): 8.
________. "The Shape of Utnapishtim's Ark." Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995): 128-29.
Hocherman, Yaakov. "Notes to Several Passages in Genesis." Beit Mikra 36 (1990): 20-28.
Hoffner, Harry A. "Enki's Command to Atrahasis." In Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honour of Samuel Noah
Kramer, ed. Barry L. Eichler, 241-45. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1976.
Holloway, Steven W. "The Shape of Utnapishtim's Ark: A Rejoinder." Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 110, no. 4
(1998): 617-26.
________. "What Ship Goes There: The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis Considered in Light of Ancient Near
Eastern Temple Ideology." Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 (1991): 328-55.
Hurowitz, Avigdor. "The Priestly Account of Building the Temple." Journal of the American Oriental Society 105, no. 1 (1985): 21-30.
Ibn Ezra. Ibn Ezra'a Commentary on the Pentateuch: Genesis. Edited by H Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. New York: Menorah
Publishing, 1988.
Jacob, Benno. Das Erste Buch Der Tora, Genesis. reprint ed. Berlin: Shocken Verlag, 1934; reprint, New York: KTAV Publishing House,
1974.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. "The Eridu Genesis." Journal of Biblical Literature 100, no. 4 (1981): 513-29.
________. "The Gilgamesh Epic: Tragic and Romantic Vision." In Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in
Honor of William L. Moran, eds. Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard and Piotr Steinkeller, 231-49. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.
________. The Harps That Once...: Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.
Josephus, Flavius. Complete Works. Edited by William Sanford LaSor. Translated by William Whiston. 1737; reprint, Grand Rapids:
Kregel Publications, 1978.
Joon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. rev. ed ed. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istitutio Biblico, 2006.
Kearney, Peter J. "Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25-40." Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89, no. 3
(1997): 375-87.
Kerrigan, Alexander. St Cyril of Alexandria: Interpreter of the Old Testament. Analecta Biblica, no. 2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1952.
Kilmer, Anne Draffkorn. "The Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and Its Solution As Reflected in the Mythology." Orientalia 41,
no. 2 (1972): 160-77.
________. "The Symbolism of the Flies in the Mesopotamian Flood Myth and Some Further Implications." In Language, Literature and
History: Philoogical and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. Francesca Rochberg-Halton, 175-80. Conneticut:
American Oriental Society, 1987.
Kissling, Paul J. College Press NIV Commentary: Genesis. Missouri: College Press, 2004.
Klein, R. W. "The Tabernacle in the Book of Exodus." Interpretation 50 (1996): 264-76.
Lambert, W.G. and Milliard A.R. Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.
Larsson, Gerhard. The Secret System: A Study in the Chronology of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Linetsky. Rabbi Saadiah Gaon's Commentary on the Book of Creation. New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc, 2002.
Lord, Albert B. "Gilgamesh and Other Epics." In Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L.
Moran, eds. Tzvi Abusch, John Huhnergard and Steinkeller Piotr, 371-80. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.
Louth, Andrew and Marco Conti, eds. Genesis 1-11: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Luttikhuizen Gerald P. Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Maier, John, ed. Gilgamesh: A Reader. Illinois: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1997.
Marcus, David. "The Mission of the Raven." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 29 (2002): 71-80.
Mathews, Kenneth. Genesis 1:1-11:26. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996.
Miscall, Peter D. "Biblical Narrative and Categories of the Fantastic." Semeia 60 (1992): 39-52.
Moberly, R. W. L. At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32-34. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983.
________. "On Interpreting the Mind of God: The Theological Significance of the Flood Narrative (Genesis 6-9)." In The Word Leaps the
Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays, eds. J Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe and A. Katherine Grieb,
44-66. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Moran, William L. "Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood." Biblica 52 (1971): 51-61.
________. "Some Considerations of Form and Interpretation in Atra-Hasis." In Language, Literature, and History : Philological and
Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. Francesca Rochberg-Halton, 245-56. Conneticut: American Oriental Society,
1987.
Morgan, E. "Noah's Ark Was a Masterpiece: A Mystery of Correct Engineering Design Before the Flood." The Meccano Magazine XI,
no. 12 (1926): 767.
Najm, S and Philippe Guillaume. "Jubilee Calendar Rescued From the Flood Narrative." Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5 (2004).
Oden, R.A. "Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1-11." Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93 (1981): 197-216.
Palmer, James. "Exodus and the Biblical Theology of the Tabernacle." In Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology, eds. T.
Desmond Alexander and Simon Cathercole, 11-22. Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 2004.
Patai, Raphael. Man and Temple in Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual. 2nd enlarged ed. 1947; reprint, New York: KTAV Publishing House,
1967.
Pederson, Ralph K. "Was Noah's Ark a Sewn Boat?" Biblical Archaeology Review 31, no. 3 (2005): 20-23,55-56.
Petersen, D.L. "The Yahwist on the Flood." Vetus Testamentum 26, no. 4 (1976): 438-46.
Pettinato, G. "Die Bestrafung Des Menschengeschlechts Durch Die Sintflut." Orientalia New Series 37 (1968): 165-200.
Philo. Questions and Answers on Genesis. Loeb Classical Library - LCL. Harvard University Press.
________. The Special Laws. Loeb Classical Library - LCL. Harvard University Press.

Rashi. Genesis. Translated by James H Lowe. London: Hebrew Compendium Publishing Co., 1928.
Roode, P. "Readers Reply; What's True?" Bible Review X!X, no. 4 (2003): 2.
Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary. Edited by Nahum M. Sarna and Chaim Potok. Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society, 1989.
Simoons-Vermeer, Ruth E. "The Mesopotamian Floodstories: A Comparison and Interpretation." Numen 21, no. 1 (1974): 17-34.
Skinner, J. Genesis. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912.
. Targum Onqelos to Genesis. Edited by Stephen Kaufman. Translated by M. Cohen. Bar Ilan University Press, 1992; reprint, Cincinnati:
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.
. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch. Edited by Stephen Kaufman. Translated by Clarke E. KTAV, 1984; reprint, Cincinnati:
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.
Thompson, T.L. "Historiography in the Pentateuch." Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 13 (1999): 253-83.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982.
Tsumura, David Toshio. Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament. Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Ullendorff, E. "The Construction of Noah's Ark." Vetus Testamentum 4 (1954): 95-96.
Van der Merwe, Christo, Jackie Naude and Jan Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1999.
Van Seters, John. Prologue to History: The Yahwist As Historian in Genesis. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992.
Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001.
Waltke, Bruce K. and Micheal P O'Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Watts, John D.W. Isaiah 1-33. rev. ed. ed. Word Biblical Commentaries. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and John D.W. Watts. Texas:
Word Books, 1985; reprint, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentaries. Edited by David A Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker and John D.W. Watts.
Texas: Word Books, 1987.
________. "Method in Pentateuchal Source Criticism." Vetus Testamentum 41, no. 1 (1991): 84-109.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. 2nd ed. Translated by John J. Scullion S.J. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1974; reprint, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Test of Genesis. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series. Edited by Leornard J
Greenspoon. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.
Whitcomb, John C and Henry M Morris. The Genesis Record and Its Scientific Implications. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1961.
Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary. 2nd ed. Translated by John J. Scullion S.J. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1980; reprint, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Williams, Ronald J and John C. Beckman. Williams' Hebrew Syntax. 3rd ed. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1967; reprint, Toronto:
Toronto University Press, 2007.
Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 2 [Ezechiel 2]. Hermeneia. Edited by Paul D. Hanson and Leonard J. Greenspoon. Translated by James D.
Martin. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969; reprint, Philedelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Zipes, Jack. Breaking the Magic Spell: Radical Theories of Folk and Fairy Tales. rev ed. ed. London: Heineman, 1979; reprint,
Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 2002.
________. "The Messianic Power of Fantasy in the Bible." Semeia 60 (1992): 7-22.
Zlotowitz, Meir and Nosson Scherman, eds. Bereishis Genesis: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologised From Talmudic.
Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources. 2nd ed. Artscroll Tanach Series. 1977; reprint, New York: Mesorah Publications Ltd, 1980.

Arca Lui Noe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arca Lui Noe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 01 You shall make.

You might also like