The Animals went in Two by Two– Yet Another Flood Account

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 10:46 pm by Ben Witherington

The Animals went in Two by Two– Yet Another Flood Account 2015-03-13T22:46:18-04:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

(A shot of Mt. Ararat I took in 2011).

Our fried Pete Williams, the warden of Tyndale House at Cambridge had this recent report on the finding of yet another flood account, this one perhaps from about 1700 B.C. or so. Here’s the report….
——

The animals went in two by two …

There were many interesting discoveries relating to the Bible in 2014, but perhaps Irving Finkel of the British Museum may be congratulated for making one of the most interesting. Finkel, an expert in the ancient cuneiform writing used by the Sumerians, Assyrians and Babylonians, identified one of the oldest Mesopotamian records of the great flood ever found.

There are a number of different versions of flood stories from Mesopotamia, the most famous being in the epics of Atrahasis and of Gilgamesh. What has made these flood stories so interesting to readers of the Bible has been their undeniable relationship to the biblical story. It is not just that someone builds a boat to rescue humans and animals from a flood. These stories even relate the sending out of birds at the end of the flood.

Finkel has identified an ancient copy of a flood story which is among the oldest yet discovered. We must be careful, of course, to distinguish between the age of an ancient document such as a clay tablet or leather or papyrus manuscript and the age of the text on the document. Texts could be copied for generations before the copy which survives to us. Finkel dates the actual tablet to around 1750 BC.

In a gripping narrative he tells of his discovery and of discovery of Mesopotamian flood stories in general. According to his understanding the tablet tells of a round ark, and he argues that this is the earliest form of the story.

What, however, will be of at least equal interest to some is given less prominence in his book, though he clearly found the discovery exciting.

It’s best told in his own words.

“What gave me the biggest shock in 44 years of grappling with difficult lines in cuneiform tablets was, however, what came next … My best shot at the first two signs beginning line 52 came up with ša and na, both incompletely preserved. On looking unhopefully for words beginning šana- … in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary Š Part I ŠA-ŠAP, I found the following entry and nearly fell off my chair as a result of the words: ‘šana (or šanā) adv. Two each, two by two; OA*; cf. šina’.” (Finkel, The Ark before Noah, p. 187)

On the basis of this he not only read the new tablet as containing reference to the animals going in two by two, but also had another look at a part of one of the tablets of Atrahasis, concluding that though not all the writing was visible at the relevant point it too contained a reference to animals going onto the boat in pairs.

Of course, the nature and relationship of all these flood stories is debated, but, if the way Finkel reads the cuneiform is correct, we can learn at least one lesson.

The detail in the biblical story that the animals went in by pairs is at least a thousand years older than many scholars thought it was.

There are many parallels between the early stories in the book of Genesis and cuneiform accounts of creation, early kings and a great flood. Scholars tend to view the biblical narratives as younger cousins of or perhaps even direct descendants of the Mesopotamian versions.

It is easy to see why. The physical copies of the Mesopotamian texts are very much older than the earliest copies we have of the biblical ones.

But if Finkel is right in his reading of the text, at least one detail in the biblical story can be shown to be almost as old as the oldest copies of a great flood story.

Scholars at Tyndale House often have lively debates about the texts in Genesis, but it’s fair also to say that scholars associated with the House have often favoured earlier dates for the material than have been fashionable amongst other scholars. The debates will go on, but we should all remember this:

Don’t assume that a text is only as old as the earliest physical copy we have of it.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 17, 2015

Kingdom Conspiracy-- Part Ten

Next Post

February 19, 2015 Forward Thinking about 'Reading Backwards'--- Part One

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz