mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Previous | Contents | Next 
_________________________________________________________________

THE STRUCTURE OF THE DELUGE

The fundamentalist interpreters must be given credit for having
stressed the numerical data in the narrative of the Deluge.
Unwittingly, they came to realize that the numerical data were the
frame around which the narrative was constructed. If the text is
interpreted in mathematical terms, it does not appear as intricate as
most critical interpreters make it to appear. For the sake of analysis
it can be divided into four sections:

A. 7:11-23
B. 7:24-8:5
C. 8: 6-12
D. 8:13,14

For the sake of clarity I anticipate what I will demonstrate later, by
explaining that we are dealing with the following five versions of the
chronology:

(i) An original version, presented in sections A and C, according to
which the staying in the Ark lasted 40 + 7 days. The flooding was the
result of a rainpour that lasted 40 days.

Sections A and C form a continuous narrative. For linguistic and
stylistic reasons they can be assigned to the Yahwistic stratum of the
Pentateuch, if one applies the documentary theory. But I do not intend
to exclude the possibility that they may contain some elements from
the Elohistic stratum. In any case, if one wants to apply the
documentary method of analysis, this part is at least as old as the
formation of the combined J-E document. What can be stated with
certainty is that sections A and C have the characteristics of the
oldest strata of the book of Genesis.

(ii) A second version, presented by the addition of the four verses
7:24-8:3, and the first part of verse 13. Section B was inserted into
the body of the original narrative because it intended to present a
different interpretation of the mathematical premises of the original
version. This version did not deal with the other elements of the
narrative, but was merely intended to calculate the height of the
water according to a different system. This is the reason why section
B was fitted into the basic narrative frame provided by section A and
C. It was understood that section C did not need to be changed and
could be read as a continuation of section B. The main point of
Section B is that the water rose gradually for 150 days and ebbed
gradually for 150 days, so that the staying in the Ark lasted 150 +
150 + 7 days. Since the Deluge began on the 17th day of the second
month, the authors of Section B concluded that the Deluge occupied the
balance of a lunar year of 354 days. For this reason they were able to
specify that Noah left the Ark on the first day of the second year
(8:13a).

(iii) The preceding two versions reckoned by a lunar year of 354 days
(months of 30 and 29 days), the usual year of Hebrew and Mesopotamian
reckonings. A third hand, for reasons that I shall explain, thought
that one should reckon by a solar year of 365 days divided into 12
months of 30 days plus 5 epagomenal days, as in the calendar of Egypt.
It therefore added verses 8:4,5 in section B. The same hand also added
some words to Section C in order to extend the duration of the staying
in the Ark from 7 to 18 days (150 + 150 + 7 to 150 + 150 + 18); the
addition of 11 days corresponds to the difference between the lunar
year and the solar year.

(iv) Subsequently, at a very late date there were added two lines,
verses 8:13b, 14, in an effort to reconcile the versions mentioned up
to now. According to this version the staying in the Ark lasted 375
days, that is, a solar year plus 10 days.

(v) A final modification in which verses 7:11b and 12 were added. This
modification was conceived in terms of the so-called Calendar of the
Jubilees, a modified solar calendar which consisted of 364 days
divided into 4 seasons of 91 days. According to the very last version,
the staying in the Ark lasted 375 days, that is, a Jewish solar year
of 364 days plus 11 days.

Altogether one can identify the work of at least five different hands.
But the basic structure of the text can be recognized and the
interpretation of the several elements of the narrative is not as
complicated as it seems. There is a basic and fundamental narrative
(sections A and C), at the middle of which there was inserted a major
modification (section B and 18:13a). Then there were some later
editorial touches.
_________________________________________________________________

Previous | Contents | Next