Comparitive Flood Stories

3026 Words7 Pages

Comparitive Flood Stories

Most comparisons between Genesis and ancient Creation or Flood stories can be classified as comparative religious studies. They generally involve one text isolated from its original historical context (e.g., the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish or the Flood tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic) and one related biblical narrative. On the basis of currently available evidence, their earliest-known written form can be dated only to the first half of the first millenium B.C.

William Shea of Andrews University has pointed out that by using isolated, solitary Creation or Flood stories, that we neglect a large amount of other literary critcism which can be very helpful to our understanding. The Genesis flood account is often taken and interpreted outside of the context in which it was written. A proper understanding of other Ancient Near East flood narratives provides a foundation for proper interpretation of the Genesis Flood narrative.

There are three main flood narratives, The Sumerian creation-flood story, the Babylonian creation-flood story, and the Hebrew Genesis flood story. Here is an overview of the content of each of these narratives.

THE SUMERIAN CREATION-FLOOD STORY: THE ERIDU GENESIS

The texts to this compilation were, until recently, separated into three different accounts. They have since been put into one.

This portion of the text is during the antediluvian period of the narrative. It recites the birth goddess Nimtur’s remedy for the nomadic and uncultured condition of mankind. She gave instructions for the building of the antediluvian cities not only as centers of culture and civilization, but especially for the worship of the gods, including herself.

"M...

... middle of paper ...

...Creation/Flood accounts. It is important also to realize that the majority of this paper has dealt with the similarities and not many of the contrasts of the narrative accounts. Also, while there may be differences, there is no reason to think each is speaking of a different flood, but rather of the same flood, interpreted through each group’s “own theology and worldview” As we enter into our study of the Biblical Genesis account of the flood, this understanding of other literature at the time, helps us make sense of the authorial intent. I think it is clear after looking at the similarities that the author had a theological purpose rather than a scientific one. Many times we interpret this portion of Genesis haphazardly. If we spend a little time to get familiar with critical scholarship , our own hermaneutical method would prove more honest and compelling.

Open Document