The biblical flood account found in Genesis 6-9 has often been compared to other ancient flood accounts, with some claiming the biblical account was derived from earlier myths and legends. However, while there are some similarities, there are also crucial differences that show the biblical account stands apart. Here is an in-depth look at the evidence:
Ancient Near Eastern Flood Accounts
The most commonly discussed extra-biblical flood accounts come from the Ancient Near East, particularly Mesopotamia. These include:
- The Sumerian Eridu Genesis (ca. 1600 BC) – which mentions the god Enki warning the hero Ziusudra about a coming flood so he can build a boat.
- The later Akkadian Atra-Hasis Epic (ca. 16th century BC) – which involves the god Enki instructing Atrahasis to build a boat to escape a flood brought by the god Enlil.
- The Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh (ca. 2nd millennium BC) – where the hero Utnapishtim is warned by the god Ea of a flood and instructed to build a large boat.
There are indeed some broad similarities here to the Genesis account, such as a god warning the hero, instructions to build a boat, the flooding of the land, and the salvation of the hero and some others. Based on these similarities, some claim the biblical account was simply borrowed and adapted from these earlier myths. However, there are also crucial differences:
- Genesis presents a monotheistic worldview with one sovereign God, unlike the polytheistic worldview of competing gods in Mesopotamian myths.
- The morality behind the flood is different. In Genesis it is a moral judgment on human wickedness, unlike the arbitrary whims of gods like Enlil.
- The Mesopotamian accounts present magic and myth, while Genesis has a relatively subdued narrative.
- The floods in Genesis and Mesopotamia have different causes, targets, and outcomes.
- The size and shape of the ark in Genesis is much more realistic than the cube or circular shapes in some myths.
- The Genesis account provides detailed technical instructions about building the ark, unlike the more mythical Mesopotamian accounts.
- The salvation in Genesis is due to God’s mercy and grace rather than trickery of the gods.
So while there are some basic similarities, the Genesis account has a very distinct theology and outlook. This makes literary borrowing unlikely.
Flood Accounts in Other Ancient Cultures
Flood accounts are also found in other ancient cultures beyond Mesopotamia, such as:
- The ancient Greek flood myth involving Zeus and Deucalion
- The Hindu Puranic legend of Manu
- The Toltec account of Coxcoxtli and Xochiquetzal
- The Chinese legend of Gun-Yu controlling a great flood
These accounts share a very general similarity of a devastating flood. But they lack many of the key details found in Genesis, such as divine warning, building of an ark, rescue of representatives of each animal kind, landing on a mountain after the flood, and covenant-making. Any minor similarities are likely due to these cultures encountering and appropriating vague memories of an actual ancient flood into their own mythic systems. But they show little hint of direct literary borrowing from the Genesis account.
Evidence Against Literary Borrowing
Here are several reasons why the biblical flood account is unlikely to have been directly borrowed from earlier literary sources:
- The Genesis account is deeply integrated into the entire flow and theology of the book. It is not an isolated myth inserted from elsewhere.
- Genesis points to much earlier oral traditions, not late borrowing. Adam and his descendants would have transmitted stories of creation and the flood.
- Archeological evidence confirms Genesis reflects very ancient Near Eastern worldviews, not later ones.
- Some features of Genesis, like detailed ark dimensions, point to accurate eyewitness testimony, not mythic embellishment.
- The intended audience of Genesis would have rejected direct adaptation of clearly polytheistic myths.
- The sophisticated authorship, theology, and literary style of Genesis differs greatly from the mythical style of ANE literature.
In the end, the evidence best supports the Genesis account being an accurate historical record from the ancient Near East, not a late literary borrowing from existing myths and legends. Similarities are best explained by all cultures descending from common ancestors who passed on memories of a real global flood.
The gods vs Yahweh
One of the biggest differences between the ANE flood accounts and Noah’s flood is the nature of the deity behind it. In most of the myths, the gods appear fickle, petty, and fearful. They send the flood spontaneously and arbitrarily. Some gods like Enki (Ea) rebel to protect their favorite humans.
The Genesis flood shows the character of Yahweh as deeply moral, just, and sovereign. He sends the flood as a measured judgment for human sin. He is grieved by human evil. Noah finds grace in His eyes. Yahweh establishes an everlasting, unconditional covenant with Noah, promising never to flood the whole earth again.
This theological gulf between the gods of ANE myths and the biblical Yahweh makes direct literary dependence highly unlikely. The Israeli audience for Genesis would have rejected any hint of adapting traditions that glorified false gods.
Different Causes, Targets, and Outcomes
While there are similarities between the broad story arcs, the biblical flood has very distinct causes, targets, and outcomes compared to Mesopotamian versions:
- The flood in Atrahasis arises from the annoyance of the gods at humanity’s noise.
- In Gilgamesh the cause is left unexplained.
- But Genesis ties the flood to the moral evil and violence filling the earth.
- In Atrahasis the destruction targets one city, not the whole earth.
- In Gilgamesh the target is unclear.
- But in Genesis the intended target is clearly global.
- In Atrahasis the outcome is gods taking steps to limit human overpopulation in the future.
- In Gilgamesh there is no clear outcome related to mankind.
- But in Genesis the global covenant with Noah is a central outcome, as is God’s covenant promise to sustain the regular cycles of nature despite human sin.
So while broad narrative elements are similar, the specific causes, targets, and outcomes in Genesis point to an independent traditional source, not direct literary dependence.
Ark Shape and Size Differences
The details related to the ark itself differ significantly between the biblical and Mesopotamian accounts:
- In Atrahasis it is a cube-shaped vessel.
- In Gilgamesh it is circular.
- But in Genesis it has the proportions and shape of a large seagoing vessel.
- In Atrahasis there are no dimensions given.
- The Gilgamesh boat is 5 levels high but with no other size details mentioned.
- But Genesis gives detailed dimensions (300x50x30 cubits) suitable for a stable voyaging ship.
The size, proportions, and shape of the ark in Genesis matches what modern shipbuilding suggests would work best, not the mythic stereotypes in other accounts. This strongly points to accurate eyewitness testimony, not imaginative storytelling.
Genesis Provides Technical Building Instructions
Unlike the ANE flood myths, Genesis provides extended detailed instructions on how Noah should build the ark (Gen 6:14-16). This includes:
- Construction materials: cypress wood and pitch
- Overall dimensions in cubits
- Architectural design: 3 decks, rooms, door in the side.
This technical information reflects ancient shipbuilding expertise and accuracy in description, not later mythic embellishment. It powerfully confirms the Genesis account as rooted in factual reporting rather than literary borrowing.
Salvation by Grace, Not Trickery
In Atrahasis and Gilgamesh, one god goes behind the others’ backs to thwart their intentions and protect the hero secretly. But Genesis shows God directly and openly granting Noah grace and guiding him to salvation from the coming judgment. This reflects a radically different theology of divine grace vs divine rebellion and trickery. Literary borrowing from the pagan myths into monotheistic Genesis makes little sense.
Integrated, Not Isolated
The flood account in Genesis is carefully interwoven with what comes before and after. The themes of judgment for sin, mercy, the spread of sin, and the covenant promise tie into the whole Genesis theology. The account is not an isolated myth inserted artificially, but an integrated part of the entire scope.
Earlier Oral Tradition, Not Late Borrowing
Genesis points to the existence of much earlier oral histories passed down from Adam through the patriarchs, not late literary invention. Adam’s son Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old (Gen 5:3), and could easily have heard stories firsthand from Adam about creation, the Garden, and the tragic effects of sin entering the world. This oral memory would have been transmitted through the generations all the way down to Noah and beyond.
Archeological Evidence of Antiquity
While Genesis reflects Near Eastern geographical settings, its worldview, perspectives on work, violence, gender, and more consistently reflect the realities of the ancient Bronze Age world (3rd to 2nd millennium BC), not the later world of the first millennium BC when most ANE myths emerged. This strongly suggests Genesis records authentic ancient Near Eastern memories, not late literary adaptations. The evidence fits an early cultural memory like Genesis, not late mythic borrowing.
Eyewitness Details
As noted above, details like the flood being caused by “the fountains of the great deep” bursting forth and “the windows of the heavens” opening up, the realistic ark dimensions, the technical building instructions, and the covenant rainbow all have the ring of accurate eyewitness details, not imaginative myth-making. This favors Genesis being rooted in early historical reporting rather than late literary fabrication.
Original Audience Rejection
Had Genesis adapted clearly polytheistic ANE myths, its original Hebrew audience would have rejected it for exalting false gods. Instead, they accepted it as authentic ancient tradition passed down from their ancestors. This suggests original cultural memory, not literary borrowing.
Different Literary Style
The Genesis account has a clear, straightforward narrative style. By contrast, the Mesopotamian flood accounts are more mythic and hyperbolic, with magical elements and repetitive, exaggerated language. They read as works of imaginative fiction, unlike Genesis. This makes direct literary borrowing again unlikely.
Universal Ancient Memories
The simplest explanation for the isolated flood motifs found in ancient global cultures is that they represent vague memories carried by different people groups descending from flood survivors. This fits the internal chronology of Genesis which dates the flood close to the dispersion at Babel. There was no need to directly borrow limited flood memory fragments when Noah’s family carried the full original tradition.
In conclusion, the evidence strongly confirms the reliability of the Genesis flood account as an accurate historical record preserved from ancient times. Similarities with other ancient flood stories are best explained as the expected remnants of memory after peoples were scattered from Babel, not as evidence Genesis borrowed from myth.