The Flood Accounts in the Epic of Atra-khasis and the Book of Genesis: A Comparative Study

There have been a number of scholars who have undertaken comparative studies of the Akkadian myth, the Epic of Atra-khasis, and the opening chapters of the book of Genesis.[1] It is certainly the case that the similarities between these two creation stories are striking. Yet while there are many similarities, there are also some important differences. As one begins to evaluate the similarities and differences between these two accounts, it seems that the interpretation of the nature of the relationship between humanity and Yahweh in Genesis is enhanced against the background of the relationship between humanity and the gods of ancient Akkad in the Epic of Atra-khasis. Here I will compare the flood stories in the Epic of Atra-khasis and in the book of Genesis in order to explain how the former provides a helpful background for understanding the latter. First, several features of the Epic of Atra-khasis will be observed and explained. Then the similarities and differences between the account of the flood in the Epic of Atra-khasis and the flood narrative in Genesis will be evaluated and compared. Lastly, the way this comparison enhances our interpretation of the Genesis account will be given.

The Epic of Atra-khasis is an Akkadian myth which describes the creation of humankind. It was likely written during the early second millennium b.c.[2] This epic is a creation account which, like the opening chapters of Genesis, includes a great flood in which humanity is nearly destroyed. The epic tells of a time before humanity in which the lower gods suffered hard labor. In the story, these gods become angry and threaten to go to war against the higher gods if the yoke of hard labor is not lifted. Ultimately, Enlil, the chief of the divine pantheon, heeds to the complaints of the lower gods. The god Enki formulates a plan to create humanity in order that mankind might carry out the hard labor on behalf of the gods for whom the labor had become so burdensome. The birth goddess, Belet-ili, then, creates humanity in accordance with Enki’s design.

The creation account in the Epic of Atra-khasis is one in which human beings are created immortal. Consequently, the human population grows significantly over time. Eventually, the god Enlil becomes angry when he cannot sleep because humanity has become too noisy. He then makes several resolves to destroy humanity, first through disease and then through a famine. However, these resolves are ultimately thwarted by the protagonist in the story.

The protagonist of the story is Atra-khasis. In order to thwart Enlil’s designs to destroy humanity, the god Enki, who designed humanity, instructs Atra-khasis to carry out actions which would result in humanity’s salvation on both of these occasions. But when Enki’s impediments of Enlil’s attempts to destroy humanity through disease and famine succeed, Enlil makes a final attempt to annihilate humankind with a flood. However, Enki again seeks to intervene and instructs Atra-khasis to build a boat so that humanity will not be completely destroyed.

Following the flood in the epic, the gods find a final solution to the dilemma so that both Enlil’s interest in controlling overpopulation and Enki’s interest to preserve humanity are kept. The gods determine to bring about human mortality. In addition, the gods determine to create women who are barren and other women who give birth to still born infants. The epic, then, comes to provide a paradigm for understanding human mortality.

As would probably be evident to anyone familiar with the early chapters of the book of Genesis, the above description of the Epic of Atra-khasis bears many similarities to the account of the flood in the book of Genesis. Most would probably agree that these similarities are simply too striking for a common tradition to be denied. Both narratives portray a hero who is the recipient of divine favor. In both accounts, the hero who is instructed to build a boat for both humanity and animals so that they might be saved from a divinely wrought flood (A III:i; Gen 6:8-21). Both accounts are preceded by a description of the multiplication of humankind on the earth (A I:vii; Gen 6:1). In each of the stories, there is a problem with humanity (A I:vii; Gen 6:5-7, 11-12). And there are distinctions between types of animals that are to be brought onto the ark (A III:ii; Gen 7:2-3, 7-8). Ultimately, the notion that these kinds of parallels reflect a common background is widely accepted by scholars.[3]

One important parallel between the Epic of Atra-khasis and the account of the flood in Genesis is that they each come within the immediate literary context of a broader narrative which describes the creation of humanity. The Epic of Atra-khasis tells of the gods’ determination to create humanity in order that humanity might serve the gods. This service was designed to lighten the load of the gods who were enduring such hardship. And while the Genesis account also speaks of service to Yahweh, the nature of that service seems to be quite different. In Genesis 2:15, Yahweh is said to have put man in the garden in order to db[ (serve) and to rmv (guard) the garden. Although some have understood this as a simple reference to the cultivation of the garden,[4] it has also been observed that when these two Hebrew words are used in conjunction with one another that a priestly role is often in view.[5] Irregardless of which position one takes, the service required of humanity is not represented as something that is done to provide a more inhabitable environment for Yahweh. Rather, Yahweh is portrayed in the Genesis account as establishing the functions of the cosmos in order to provide an inhabitable environment for humankind.[6] This contrast is consistent with the broader ANE context. Walton explains,

In Israel people also believed that they had been created to serve God. The difference was that they saw humanity as having been given a priestly role in sacred space rather than as a slave labor to meet the needs of deity. God planted the garden to provide food for people rather than people providing food for the gods. This shared cognitive environment is evident in that all across the ancient world there was interest in exploring the divine component of humankind and the ontological relationship between the human and divine. In Mesopotamia the cosmos functions for the gods and in relation to them. People are an afterthought, seen as just another part of the cosmos that helps the gods function. In Israel, the cosmos functions for people and in relationship to them. God does not need the cosmos, but it is his temple. It functions for people.[7]

The role of humans, then, in contrast to the ANE notion that humans were work to provide for the gods, was to serve Yahweh in the maintenance and safeguarding of the environment he had established for their very provision.

Another similarity between the Epic of Atra-khasis and the Genesis narrative involves the divine anger in the bringing of a flood. In both stories, the flood comes because of a problem with humanity. In the epic, the god Enlil becomes angry when he cannot sleep because humanity becomes too noisy when the human population increases. As a result, Enlil determines to bring disaster on humankind in the great flood. Similarly, in the book of Genesis Yahweh becomes grieved because of humankind and determines to bring a great flood upon the earth (Gen 6:5-7). However, while the basis for Enlil’s anger relates to his discomfort at the noise level of humanity, the basis for Yahweh’s anger is related to the wickedness of humanity (Gen 6:5).

It is interesting that Yahweh’s reason for destroying the inhabitants of the earth in Gen 6:5 is the same reason given for his promise to never again destroy the earth in Gen 8:21. In Genesis 6, Yahweh is grieved because of the wickedness of humankind on the earth and consequently determines to destroy the earth with a flood. In Genesis 8, Yahweh determines never again to destroy the earth with a flood because “the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth” (v. 21). Regarding this observation, it has been argued that the corruption of the earth in Gen 6:11-12 refers to the pollution of the earth that has come about as the result of the murders perpetuated by humanity.[8] This is suggested in Gen 4:10-12 in which God addresses Cain in response to the murder of Abel saying, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth.” Thus, the blood of Abel seems to be described as contaminating the earth. Murder, then, is not merely a sin against the one who is killed, but it is rather a sin against creation which results in the contamination of the earth.[9]

This is further supported by the laws instituted after the flood which include the institution of capital punishment for murder and a prohibition against the consumption of blood.[10] In this prohibition against eating the blood of an animal, the life of the animal and its blood are intricately connected. The fact that the life is in the blood is given as the grounds for this prohibition (also see Lev 17:11, 14; Deut 12:23). The result of this connection between life and blood is that the earth itself is contaminated by the blood of a human being whose life is taken in the act of murder. In a sense, murder itself stains the ground and causes the earth to become polluted since it involved the spilling of the lifeblood which remained upon the earth.

If this is an accurate assessment of God’s intention, then the basis for the flood seems to be directly related to the divine mandate to db[ and to rmv in Gen 2:15. If Yahweh’s purpose in creating humankind was to serve him in the maintenance and safeguarding of the environment he had established for their provision, then the polluted nature of the ground that has resulted from the spilling of innocent blood constitutes a failure to safeguard the creation in accordance with the divine commission.

It is noteworthy that both the basis for Yahweh’s anger in Genesis and the basis for Enlil’s anger in the epic are related to their respective purposes in creating humanity. In the Epic of Atra-khasis, the gods created mankind in order to lighten the workload of the gods so that they might enjoy a more pleasant existence. Ironically, this results in a less pleasurable existence for Enlil who is hopelessly annoyed with the incessant racket made by the ever-growing human population. In this sense man has failed to fulfill the purpose for which he was created. Similarly, Yahweh is grieved because of the wickedness of humanity that has resulted in the literal contamination of the earth by murder. This contamination of the ground constitutes the human failure to fulfill the purpose for which Yahweh created man, namely to fulfill the divine mandate to db[ and to rmv. Hence, it seems that both the Epic of Atra-khasis and the account of the flood in Genesis share something in common in the divine motivation for the flood.

However, while there is this similarity, the distinct purposes of humanity in their respective stories seems to provide for more difference than similarity. Again, in the Epic of Atra-khasis, the purpose of humanity is to enhance the existence of the gods. Thus, when the existence of humanity becomes burdensome to the God Enlil, he determines to destroy humanity. On the other hand, the story in Genesis (if the above understanding is accurate) is one which depicts the flood as being brought about in order to cleanse the earth from the pollution that resulted from the violence of humankind.[11] “The flood is not primarily an agency of punishment, but a means of getting rid of a thoroughly polluted world and starting again with a clean, well-washed one.”[12] Thus, while the divine purpose of the flood in the epic seeks to abolish what was originally intended (namely the existence of the human race as a means of comfort to the gods), the purpose of the flood in Genesis seeks to bring a restoration of what was originally intended (namely an earth cleansed from the pollution caused by humanity’s homicidal conduct.

All of this comes to a head in the closing sections of these two narratives. Following the cleansing of the earth by the flood, the book of Genesis depicts Yahweh as covenanting with Noah promising that he will never again bring about such a flood upon the earth. He then institutes laws in order to protect the ground from recontamination. Finally, the divine mandate from Genesis 1 in which man is instructed to be fruitful and multiply is reiterated. This reiteration serves as an indication that Yahweh’s intention for mankind remains unchanged. The Epic of Atra-khasis, on the other hand, closes with a solution to control the overpopulation which resulted in the noise which led to Enlil’s discomfort. In contrast, then, to the account in Genesis in which Yahweh is portrayed as bringing about restoration, the epic provides its audience with a paradigm for understanding human mortality.

In light of the Epic of Atra-khasis, the account of the flood in Genesis should be understood as making a statement about the relationship between humanity and divinity in contrast to the paradigm offered in the epic. The message of Genesis is not one in which humankind is created to serve the gods. Rather, creation itself is established so that Yahweh might provide for mankind. When humanity malfunctions in the Epic of Atra-khasis, the gods take measures to rectify the problem. Ultimately, the epic offers an explanation of human mortality by way of an appeal to this idea that man was to serve the gods in order to make the divine existence more comfortable. The account of the flood in Genesis, on the other hand, is grounded in the idea that Yahweh ordered the cosmos for mankind. Thus, when there is a problem with humanity, Yahweh graciously determines to pursue a course of action that brings restoration and redemption to his creation so that human beings might come to fulfill the purpose for which they were created.
_________________


Endnotes

[1] Several examples include: Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1-9,” Biblical Archaeologist, 40 (1977) 147-55; Bernard F. Batto, “The Institution of Marriage in Genesis 2 and Atrahasis,” CBQ 62:4 (2000) 621-31; Robert Oden, Jr., “Transformations in Near Eastern Myths Genesis 1-11 and the Old Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis,” Religion 11 (1981), 21-37; Ruth E. Simoons-Vermeer, “Mesopotamian Floodstories: A Comparison and Interpretation,” Numen 21:1 (1974) 17-34.
[2] Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, Readings from the Ancient Near East, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002) 21.

[3] Kenton L. Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 314.

[4] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 171.
[5] John H. Walton, Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 172-74; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, ed. Bruce Metzger (Dallas: Word Books, 1987) 67; G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, ed. D. A. Carson, (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 2004) 66-69. Beale argues that the priestly role of Adam in the garden refers to Adam’s responsibility to serve Yahweh in the garden and to guard the garden from wickedness. The events, then, which lead up to the fall constitute a failure on Adam’s part to guard the garden from evil creatures such as the serpent.
[6] John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) 179-84.

[7] Ibid, 215.

[8] Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for our Understanding of Genesis 1-9,” Biblical Archaeologist, 40 (1977) 152-53.

[9] Ibid, 153.

[10] Ibid, 152.
[11] Ibid, 153.

[12] Ibid.