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.

Review of John Walton's "“The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song,” JBL 122 (2003) 734-743.

In his article, “The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song,” John Walton proposes that the substitute king ritual, which was practiced in ancient Mesopotamia from the Isin period to around 300 BC, provides the historical background for Isaiah’s fourth Servant Song. Walton notes some of the various difficulties that have prevailed regarding how the imagery of this passage is to be understood. He then sets out to show how an awareness of the ancient substitute king ritual provides the necessary pre-understanding for certain aspects of this song. Walton concludes that this background establishes a basis by which these difficulties can be satisfactorily resolved.

Walton begins with an examination of the substitute king ritual. He describes this ritual as an ancient custom that might have been undertaken by a king whenever a life-threatening omen was believed to have been imminent. The substitute king ritual was one in which a substitute king would be temporarily installed in the king’s place. History records both instances in which prominent individuals were made to be substitute kings and instances in which persons of low social standing were chosen for the task. This ritual was not thought to be a means of fooling the gods, but rather the role of the substitute king was to serve as a substitute upon whom the gods could carry out the omen. The substitute would serve as king for a time. He would take a queen and perform some of the king’s duties and functions. In the end, the divergence of the omen to the substitute would be made manifest by putting the substitute to death. He would then be given a royal funeral. The final result of this ritual was believed to be the deliverance of the genuine king from the omen’s effects.

After establishing the central principles and tasks of the substitute king ritual, Walton goes on to draw a comparison between the ritual and the fourth Servant Song. He explains that the parallels between the song and the ritual are sufficient to establish his proposal that the author had a substitute king motif in mind. Walton notes that like the substitute king, the Servant in the fourth song suffers for the transgressions and iniquities of others so that they might be delivered. In addition, he observes that the Servant is depicted as one who is not esteemed, but despised. Walton suggests that this characterization is one which parallels the substitute king ritual since in many traditions the substitute would have been someone from the lower echelons of society who would have been looked upon as dispensable. Similarly, the Servant is here depicted as one who is of low stature. Additionally, the fact that the servant was “with the rich in his death” can be understood in light of the ritual since the substitute king would have been given a royal funeral upon his death. Another important parallel that Walton observes is that in the ritual, it is the will of the gods to bring about the king’s downfall. In the same way, the song states that it is the will of Yahweh “to crush” the servant “and cause him to suffer.”

While Walton shows that there are significant parallels between the song and the ritual, he also explains that the author of the song has altered the substitute king motif in certain ways to express the theological point that he is making. Most evidently, the song does not depict a king who is to be delivered, but rather it is a community who receives the deliverance by means of the Servant’s suffering. And while the king would then see his offspring and his days would be believed to have been prolonged, the Servant Song may be understood as a passage in which the days of the corporate body are prolonged so that they would then be able to continue to produce offspring.

Walton concludes this piece by noting some implications of his thesis. First, if his thesis is accurate, the modification of the substitute king motif to accommodate a community rather than a king becomes a variation on democratization. Thus, while the Servant has been understood by others as a democratization in which the corporate body is itself signified by the Servant, Walton’s model is one in which the democratization involves the replacement of the king with a corporate body who is then understood to receive the deliverance. The second implication that Walton notes is that the Servant’s role must be understood as having a vicarious aspect to it. He notes that this position is one that has been disputed by Whybray and others. The third and final implication that Walton lists is related to the identity of the servant. Some commentators have suggested that the Servant is either the prophet himself or corporate Israel. Walton notes that the vicariousness of the suffering eliminates the possibility that the Servant can be identified as the prophet and the corporate identity of those on whose behalf the Servant suffers eliminates the possibility that the Servant is corporate Israel. In conclusion, Walton proposes that the significant overlap between the first two Servant Songs and the messianic figure of Isaiah 11 and Isaiah 61-62 suggests that the Servant should probably be identified with the Davidic king who is depicted in these passages.

In this article, Dr. Walton presents an outstanding example of how comparative studies should be conducted. He explains the historical background concisely and is thoughtful to mention material that is relevant to his thesis. He then compares the background information with the biblical passage and pays careful attention to note both similarities and differences. Finally, he states the conclusions that can be drawn from his analysis and suggests some different ways of dealing with these conclusions. This format was very straight-forward and easy to follow.

Dr. Walton’s analysis and explanation of both similarities and differences between the Servant Song and the substitute king ritual is especially helpful for the way it illustrates the role that such comparisons should play in the identification of historical backgrounds for biblical studies. Walton clearly establishes his position that the similarities between the fourth Servant Song and the substitute king ritual are so significant that the differences simply serve to illustrate the theological point that the author is attempting to express to his audience. Thus, Walton seems to allow the presence of significant similarities to be the determining factor as to whether or not a biblical author had a particular background in mind when he penned a given passage. And while this criterion is somewhat subjective, it would seem to help prevent the interpreter from seeing parallels when such parallels do not exist.

Nevertheless, while such an understanding of the role of similarities and differences is helpful, Walton’s line of argumentation may leave room for questions about whether the number of similarities is sufficient to see the substitute king ritual as background for the Servant Song. First, one might question whether the fact that the Servant is depicted as one who is despised qualifies as a similarity since there are also examples in which the substitute king was taken from the higher echelons of the community. It can at least be said that this may constitute a similarity between the Servant Song and certain traditions of the ritual. But there is a question about whether this tradition of the ritual would have been the one that the author would have had in mind. Perhaps if the other similarities between the song and the ritual are sufficiently significant, then it can be concluded that this was the particular tradition that the author had in mind. A second question raised about similarities relates to the substitutionary role of the Servant. As Walton notes, there is no king mentioned in the song on behalf of whom the Servant suffers. It should also be noted that the similarity between the fact that the Servant was “assigned a grave with the guilty” is contingent both upon a particular rendering of the word ~y[iv'r> and upon the acceptance of the somewhat questionable idea that this guilt would have been something associated with the king. Thus, the definitive similarities seem to be limited to the burial of the Servant, the fact that it was Yahweh’s will (like Marduk’s) to cause the Servant to suffer, and the Servant suffers on behalf of others that they might be delivered. It seems that if these similarities are significant (and perhaps they are), then other parallels can be drawn. However, I suspect that some might be reluctant to recognize these parallels as so significant as to conclude that the substitute king ritual must have been in the mind of the biblical author. This is especially true in light of the number of significant differences that can also be observed.

Nevertheless, while I think that there are still some unanswered questions regarding parallels between the Servant Song and the substitute king ritual, I was swayed by the force of Walton’s argument. Although I do not think that all of the parallels, which Walton lists as similar, are clearly similar in a one-to-one comparison, there are significant similarities nonetheless. Furthermore, it seems that even the mere potential for similarity which comes with viewing the Servant Song through the lenses of the substitute king ritual adds some weight to the overall argument. In other words, even though these parallels may be somewhat questionable on their own, the possibility that the song can be viewed through this paradigm suggests that the author may have had it in mind. For if one assumes a tradition of the ritual in which the substitute is taken from the lower echelons of society, and if one allows for the idea of guilt proposed by Walton, and if one allows for some of the other assumptions required by the argument, then certain aspects of the Servant Song which interpreters have historically had trouble understanding become explainable. This, I believe, adds strength to the force of the overall argument.

Review of John Walton's “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4,” in The Genesis Debate, Edited by Ronald Youngblood, (Wipf & Stock, 1999) pages 184-209.

In his article, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4,” John Walton argues against interpreting the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as angels. Rather, he proposes that the identification of the “sons of God” is best made in light of parallels between Genesis 6 and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Walton argues that these parallels, along with information from several other ANE sources, provide a historical picture in which the most likely identification of the “sons of God” is ANE kings.

Walton begins with a brief overview of the debate. He explains that there are three basic interpretations of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6. There are those who believe that they are men from the line of Seth. Others believe that the “sons of God” are angels. And lastly, others believe that the “sons of God” are rulers. Walton indicates that there are two recent variations on the second and third views. The variation on the second view is one in which the “sons of God” are understood to be “gods.” The variation on the third view (the position with which Walton aligns himself) is a position in which the “sons of God” are understood to be royalty.

Walton gives a significant amount of space to addressing arguments that have been made by those who hold to the position that the “sons of God” are angels. Walton first gives a brief overview of the basic arguments that have been used to support this position. He says that proponents of this view have argued that the author of this section in Genesis 6 sets the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” in antithesis to one another in such a way that the “sons of God” cannot be understood to be part of the “daughters of men.” Therefore, the “sons of God” cannot be human since advocates of this argument say that the “daughters of men” must be understood to refer to humanity in general. Another argument is that the “sons of God” should be understood to be angels since every other time the same form of the phrase appears in the Scriptures it refers to angels. Lastly, Walton explains that some have argued that the “sons of God” should be interpreted as angels since this is the only known interpretation prior to the time of Christ as well as the way the NT authors interpret it (Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4).

After having presented these basic arguments for this position, Walton then gives the reasons that he does not find these arguments compelling. Regarding the argument dealing with the antithesis between “sons of God” and “daughters of men,” he explains that it has long been recognized that there is no logical problem with the idea that the “daughters of men” refers to women in general while the “sons of God” could refer to certain men. Regarding the lexical argument, Walton points out that the number of times that the phrase “sons of God” occurs in the Scriptures is not sufficient to establish a lexical basis for limiting the meaning of that phrase to angels. Rather, Walton argues, the interpreter should draw from biblical and ANE uses of the formula “son(s) of X.” After examining the way this formula is used, Walton concludes that although it is theoretically possible that “sons of God” refers to angels, it is not an interpretation that is dictated by the use of the phrase “sons of God” or the formula “son(s) of X.” Lastly, with respect to the argument from tradition, Walton observes that while extra-biblical sources are interesting and sometimes helpful, that they are not finally authoritative. And finally, the idea that the NT authors understood Genesis 6 in this way is not definitively demonstrated by the texts in question. Jude 6 uses the word “fornication.” which does not seem to be the same thing that is being expressed in Genesis 6. Similarly, while 2 Peter 2:4 speaks about the sin of angels, it is not explicit about the specific sin which these angels committed.

As an alternative to interpreting the “sons of God” as angels, Walton proposes that the parallels between Genesis 6, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and other ANE texts, suggest that “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to royalty. First, Walton indicates that Gilgamesh and other ANE kings are said to be of divine lineage and are therefore qualified for the title “sons of God.” Second, he indicates that Gilgamesh is depicted as a giant. If the Nephilim are also understood to be giants (as many interpreters understand them to be based on Numbers 13:33), then Gilgamesh may be understood to fit this category as well. Third, by virtue of his heroism, Gilgamesh qualifies as one of the “heroes of old.” Fourth, Gilgamesh seems to be depicted in the epic as detaining women (taking the daughters of men). Lastly, the fact that the “sons of God” find their longevity reduced would have been particularly fitting if they are understood to be royalty. The reason that this is the case is that kings were especially interested in immortality.

Walton concludes that the parallels between Genesis 6 and the Epic of Gilgamesh relate specifically to ANE royalty. And while there is no literary dependence between these two works, he says that both seem to reflect ANE concepts about royalty. If this is the case, then Genesis 6 can be understood as part of a progression from the individual rebellion of Adam, Cain, and Lamech, to the royal rebellion here in Genesis 6, to the societal rebellion in the narratives of the flood and Babel.

In this article, Dr. Walton demonstrates exemplary use background materials. Explaining material that is relevant to his proposal, he describes the historical background from the Epic of Gilgamesh and other ANE texts in relation to Genesis 6. As he presents this information, he compares it with the biblical passage and notes potential similarities between the two. Finally, he states the conclusions that can be drawn from his analysis and explains how one’s understanding of Genesis 6 is enhanced in light of this material.

In the final analysis, I did find Dr. Walton’s proposal convincing, but not definitively so. The problems he notes relating to the arguments for the view that the “sons of God” are angels are well-taken. Certainly, neither the lexical argument nor the antithesis argument is valid if they are presented deductively. However, if the conclusions of these arguments are simply presented as ways of making sense of the material found in Genesis 6, then they are not so easily dismissed. For example, while there is not an antithesis between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” that necessitates that they must be understood as non-humans and humans, respectively, they may be understood in this way without any kind of logical difficulty. Thus, this position cannot be completely dismissed on the basis that the argument does not deductively establish an understanding of “sons of God” as non-human. Similarly, Walton recognizes that while the lexical argument does not necessitate that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are angels, it also does not rule out the possibility that they may be.

I was also not completely comfortable dismissing early extra-biblical interpretations of “sons of God” as angels. While it is true that these interpretations are not ultimately authoritative, sometimes those who are more contemporary to the historical context are better able to understand the text. In addition, such interpreters may also be connected with an interpretive tradition that stems back to the original reading of the text. Of course, in this particular case, this is merely speculative. But while there may not have been a sufficient allotment of space to devote to the question of ancient interpretations in this article, it may be something that could be examined more deeply.

With respect to the specific ANE parallels that Walton observes between Genesis 6, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and other ANE texts, I was convinced that ANE kings could very easily have been categorized as “sons of God.” It is also very intriguing that Gilgamesh is depicted as somehow detaining women. However, the purpose for which these women were being detained is not clear. In addition, the parallels between Gilgamesh and the Nephilim, and between Gilgamesh and the heroes of old, are contingent upon certain understandings of the Nephilim and an identification of the “sons of God” as the Nephilim and/or the heroes of old. Thus, if these conditions could be further established, Walton’s argument might be better established.

In conclusion, while there are still some unanswered questions regarding these parallels, I was swayed by the force of Walton’s argument. And although I do not think that all of the parallels are equally clear, the overall picture seems to enhance the role of the narrative within the greater context. Thus, the progression from individual rebellion, to royal rebellion, to societal rebellion that can be seen through this paradigm, seems to add strength to the overall argument by allowing the interpreter to see a kind of literary structure that is typical of such literature.