Interpretation of the flood account in Genesis

[hjalti]

I've been looking into the claims of some liberal Christians that the story of Noah's flood was never intended to be understood as a description of actual events, and that interpreting it that way is a modern phenomenon and has always been a minority view.

Now it's clear that it's not a modern phenomenon (Augustine clearly thinks it was a real event, chapter 27), and 1. and 2. Peter even speak about it as a real event in my opinion. What's more, it's been hard to find any famous ancient or medieval Christian theologian who didn't interpret the account as an report of an actual event. Even the "arch-allegoriser" Origen think that there was an actual flood. I've seen some liberal believers put the blame on Ussher's chronology, but before him we had Bede and Eusebius writing a similar chronology.

On the Jewish side, Josephus thought it was an actual event, and another "arch-allegoriser", Philo, seems to think of it as an actual event.

And I can't see why the story shouldn't be interpreted in that way. The explanation given for the rainbow (It's a sign of an agreement Yahweh has promised never to flood the earth again) doesn't seem to me to make sense if there wasn't supposed to be an actual flood. And in the next chapter the author has long genealogies of the descendants of Noah (who end up being fathers of various nations), and he says that this happened after the flood.

So what do the more learned members of this forum think? Did the author(s) of Genesis want the reader to think of the flood as being an actual event? Was an exclusively non-literal interpretation ever in the majority? Do you know of any ancient/medieval Christian/Jewish authors who rejected the story of Noah's flood?

[beowulf]

What does “blogger Carrier “say about it?

[neilgodfrey]

Who can tell what any author thousands of years ago was thinking? It sounds to me as if such liberal Christians are imputing their own values and belief systems into the holy book just as others have done when they want to use it to justify slavery or abolitionism, suppression or women or liberation of women, condemnation of gays or inclusion of gays, etc.

Interestingly the many flood myths found around the world may point to folk memories of real events when sea levels were rising, often frighteningly rapidly. Perhaps it is that realization that is influencing the liberal Christians you are speaking about.

If so, that doesn't mean that the stories themselves were understood that way. The Biblical one, like the Mesopotamian and Greek ones, are explanations for how a new race of humans populated the earth. If the exaggerated stories that spoke of catastrophes that wiped out all but a remnant of the human race were originally sourced from real events thousands of years earlier, those real events were totally lost from view by the myth of universal catastrophe.

[beowulf]

Interpretation of Augustine of Hippo :The flood was the baptism of Noah

“As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man; they did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”2690 But because that transaction was also a type of a future event, that flood was a type both of baptism to believers and of destruction to unbelievers, "
Letter CLXIV.
(a.d. 414.)
To My Lord Evodius Most Blessed, My Brother and Partner in the Episcopal Office, Augustin
Sends Greeting in the Lord.

[hjalti]

beowulf, but Augustine also clearly interpreted the story as a description of actual events. (see the reference in the OP)

[beowulf]

Interpretation of Augustine of Hippo: The flood [the real event of the flood, as per reference in the OP] was the baptism of Noah.


The reality of a memorable flood having once occurred, and living an obscure life in the memory of diverse cultures, could easily be accepted as having happened.

Interpreting that real event as the baptism of Noah made me chuckle.

[GakuseiDon]

I've been looking into the claims of some liberal Christians that the story of Noah's flood was never intended to be understood as a description of actual events, and that interpreting it that way is a modern phenomenon and has always been a minority view.

As a liberal Christian myself, I don't think the claim is exactly that the story of Noah's flood "was never intended to be understood as a description of actual events." Do you have someone in mind in particular for that claim? Might be better to work from an actual quote rather than a hypothetical set of "some liberal Christians".

Usually the claim is that the flood wasn't supposed to be a global event. But that isn't even necessarily a liberal Christian claim. What we had was:
1. Some areas were flooded at various times, maybe by floods, or earthquakes, or volcanoes erupting. Many cultures had their own flood story.
2. Ancient people found fossilized remains of sea-shells and fish on top of mountains.

I don't think any person in ancient times doubted that there was some kind of catastrophic flood in their past. Theophilus, writing in the Second Century CE, seems to suggest that Plato put the Greek myth flood back around 200 million years in the past:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book3.html

• For my purpose is not to furnish mere matter of much talk, but to throw light upon the number of years from the foundation of the world, and to condemn the empty labour and trifling of these authors, because there have neither been twenty thousand times ten thousand years from the flood to the present time, as Plato said, affirming that there had been so many years; nor yet 15 times 10,375 years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out; nor is the world uncreated, nor is there a spontaneous production of all things, as Pythagoras and the rest dreamed

Did the authors of the first text of Genesis believe literally in the stories contained in Genesis? I think the answer is yes (though much less concerned with proving details than say modern fundamentalism). If anyone argues that they didn't -- liberal Christian or not -- I'd also be interested in the evidence for that. By the First Century CE there were attempts to understand the Genesis account of the construction of the world allegorically, but I'm not aware that the Flood stories were thought to be allegory, by Jews, Christians or the wider Roman world. They all believed that there had been at least one -- and probably more -- catastrophic floods in the past.

[hjalti]

As a liberal Christian myself, I don't think the claim is exactly that the story of Noah's flood "was never intended to be understood as a description of actual events." Do you have someone in mind in particular for that claim? Might be better to work from an actual quote rather than a hypothetical set of "some liberal Christians".

Usually the claim is that the flood wasn't supposed to be a global event. But that isn't even necessarily a liberal Christian claim. What we had was:
1. Some areas were flooded at various times, maybe by floods, or earthquakes, or volcanoes erupting. Many cultures had their own flood story.
2. Ancient people found fossilized remains of sea-shells and fish on top of mountains.

I'm thinking of liberal Icelandic priests. Maybe I'll translate a quote or two for you. But the claim they make isn't that the story was just a local event or something like that, but that the story was never intended to be understood as a description of actual events.

I don't think any person in ancient times doubted that there was some kind of catastrophic flood in their past.

Well, at least we haven't found anyone who denies it

[semiopen2]

The flood is clearly a global event.

Arnoldo has argued that the Hebrew eretz can mean either land (like my farm) or earth. However the meaning is made clear in the context.

If the flood is meant to be local why does Noah take animals with him

גַּ֣ם מֵע֧וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה זָכָ֣ר וּנְקֵבָ֑ה לְחַיּ֥וֹת זֶ֖רַע עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(Gen 7:3 WTT)

of the birds of the sky also, seven pairs, male and female, to keep seed alive upon all the earth. (Gen 7:3 TNK)

The last phrase khol haaretz - all of the earth.

When the waters had swelled much more upon the earth, all the highest mountains everywhere under the sky were covered. (Gen 7:19 TNK)

וְהַמַּ֗יִם גָּֽבְר֛וּ מְאֹ֥ד מְאֹ֖ד עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיְכֻסּ֗וּ כָּל־הֶֽהָרִים֙ הַגְּבֹהִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־תַּ֖חַת כָּל־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃
(Gen 7:19 WTT)

All the highest mountains under all of heaven.

Ok, so Arnoldo's argument isn't very good but it has been used by respected Christian theologians (who hopefully become a little less respected after saying such twaddle).

The only way one can argue against a universal deluge is to ignore the actual story.

[beowulf]

Covenant & Conversation: A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Genesis: The Book of Beginnings by Jonathan Sacks.
Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks

Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks has been Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth since September 1, 1991, the sixth incumbent since 1845.

In July 2009, appointed to the House of Lords as a cross-bencher.

Noah- page 45
“What does Noah say to God when the decree is issued that the World is about to perish? The answer is: nothing. Noah is not reported as saying a single word. Instead we read, four times, of his silent obedience: “Noah did everything as God had commanded him”
Noah is the paradigm of biblical obedience. He does as he is commanded. What his story tell us is that obedience is not enough”


Obedience is not enough – comments Rabbi Sacks as he invites us to meditate. At this point in the reading of the book I accepted his invitation and closed the book. I meditated on the subject and when I was satisfied with my efforts I continued the reading of his book to compare results. I am now inviting you to do the same and post your cogitation.