The Great Flood in Genesis 6–9: An Ecological Reading of the J and P Traditions

Abstract

One of the not so obvious but deeply relevant factors in addressing climate change is religion and the interpretation of sacred texts, especially problematic ones. An example of problematic texts is the story of Noah and the great flood in Genesis 6–9. I will reread the Yahwist and Priestly versions of the story using a modified ecological triangle. This methodology looks at the dynamic relation between the divine and human, between the divine and non-human creatures, between humans and non-humans, and the inner dynamics of these three in the J and P narratives. The various insights gleaned from the investigation impact our rethinking of sacred texts in the age of the Anthropocene (the period during which human activity has been a dominant influence on climate and the environment), respecting boundaries in the context of the Capitalocene way of organizing the relations between humans and the rest of nature. The article provides additional spiritual resources in responding to the climate crisis, and grappling with disturbing images of God, humans, and non-humans in sacred texts in times of disasters.

Keywords

Noah flood ecology age of humans climate change Capitalocene Anthropocene

“Climate change changes religion,” especially in terms of space, spirit, ritual and technology (Bergmann). I will add that it changes or influences the interpretation of texts, or to be more precise, of religious texts. It may not be always obvious for many but one of the more important factors in responding to the global ecological crisis or in denying its threat is religious orientation. In his scathing attack on Christianity as the “most anthropocentric religion,” Lynn White charged that it “bears a huge burden of guilt” on the “root of our ecological crisis” (1205, 1206). In the same article, he challenged that as “human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and our destiny—that is, by religion,” so “[w]hat we do about ecology depends on our ideas of the man-nature relationship. More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one.”(ibid.)

Some of the more problematic texts in terms of rethinking religion and ecology are stories around the world of deities sending a deluge for different reasons, including as a retribution against human transgressions (Dundes). In the Jewish-Christian tradition, the story of Noah and the great flood in Genesis 6–9 serves as an example. In response to White’s challenge and the worsening environmental crisis, I will reread the J and P versions of the deluge story using a modified ecological triangle and posit that each version has its own way of depicting the dynamic divine-human relation but also their individual and common relation with non-human creation present in the text. First, I will briefly explain what the ecological triangle is, how it works, and why is there a need to modify it. Second, I will explore the relationships between Yhwh/God and humans, between Yhwh/God and non-human creation, between humans and the non-human creation, and the inner dynamics among these characters in the Yahwist and Priestly narratives. Finally, I will gather some lessons that we can glean from the J and P versions in light of an ecological reading.

The Modified Ecological Triangle and the Great Flood

Recently, a number of methodologies have developed for reading the biblical text from an ecological viewpoints (Horrell, Hunt, & Southgate). One of these is Hilary Marlow’s ecological triangle, which permits an understanding of the ancient Israelite worldview to come up in the text while being aware that the reading is done through a twenty-first century lens (Marlow: 95; Nilsen & Solevåg: 666–75). She built from C. J. H. Wright’s “ethical triangle” among God, Israel and the land (Marlow: 109–11; Wright: 103–05). In this model, God is on top of the ecological triangle while humanity and non-human creation are on either side. The model explores the interrelationship between God and humans, between God and non-human creation, and between humanity and non-human creation by asking three background questions (Marlow: 111): (1) What understanding of the non-human creation (whether cosmic or local) does the text represent?; (2) What assumptions are made about Yhwh’s relationship to the created world and how he acts within it?; (3) What effect do the actions and choices of human beings have on the non-human creation and vice versa?

The triangular relation and these questions allow “the texts to speak for themselves” as we synchronically “discover the differences in emphasis between books and indeed the tensions inherent within individual texts” and “uncover hitherto neglected ideas and motifs—the unnoticed involvement of creation in the story of Israel” (Marlow: 110–12). Indeed, the ecological triangle allows biblical interpreters to discern the unique relationship that exists not only between divine entities and humanity. More particularly, it explores the dynamics between the divine and non-human creation apart from humanity as seen in the story of the first five days of creation (Gen 1:1–25), between the deity and humans independent of other creatures as exemplified in the tower of Babel narrative (Gen 11:1–8), and between humans and non-human creatures apart from God as found in the Song of Songs. However, in cases like the flood story in Genesis 6–9, which presents the complex interwoven relationships among Yhwh/God, humans and other creatures, three further complementary questions need to be asked to modify the ecological triangle: How does God feature in the human–non-human creature relation? How does non-human creation feature in the God-human relation? How does humanity feature in the God–non-human creation relation? Thus, while this short study highlights the triple relationships that the ecological triangle focuses on, it will equally pay attention to the intertwining dynamic that hovers above the three characters by means of the questions raised by the modified version. Moreover, while the ecological triangle approaches the text synchronically and while the two strands of J and P traditions are creatively interlaced in Genesis 6–9, it will be worthwhile as well to explore the similarities and differences in the J and P versions of the flood from an ecological viewpoint. Habel’s differentiation of the Yahwist (Gen 6:5–8; 7:1–5, 7–8, 10, 12, 16b–17, 22–23; 8:2b–3, 6–12, 13b, 20–22) and Priestly (Gen 6:9–13, 14–22; 7:6, 9, 11, 13–16a, 18–21, 24; 8:1–2a, 4–5, 13a, 14–17; 9:1–19) texts will be used in this rereading (Habel: 18–22).

The Great Flood: Interrelations among Yhwh/God, Humans and Non-Humans in Genesis 6–9 through the Lens of a Modified Ecological Triangle

The Relationship between God and Humans in the Great Flood

In the Yahwist account, Genesis 6:5–6 introduces the relationship between Yhwh and humans in the story of the great flood in Gen 6-9. “Yhwh saw” that the particular wickedness of the humans was great in the earth, “Yhwh was sorry” that he had made the humans and it “grieved” him to his heart (Gen 6:6, 7) and “Yhwh said” that he will destroy (’emcheh) (Gen 6:7) (Westermann: 52). The divine-human dynamics also show the nature and extent of the problem: God saw that human evil and the inclination of humans’ hearts were not only great but also continuous (Gen 6:5) (Habel: 16). Thus, it is with “cosmic regret” that the Creator will bring a watery destruction to this fashioned earthling who in its desire for knowledge of good and evil, does not recognize the evil that humanity has both generated and suffered (Zornberg: 38–39). Along with the earthling is the dissolution of all the other created beings from the earth, of all life (2:9, 19; 6:7) (Zornberg: 39). The flow of the story, however, is halted by Noah finding favor in Yhwh’s sight (Gen 6:8).

In contrast with Jahwist, the Priestly account introduces Noah as righteous and blameless, one who walked with God (Gen 6:9b). The reversed order of “God saw” and “God said” in comparison with the earlier description of “God said” and “God saw” (Gen 1:1–31) signals the gravity of the situation. “God saw” before him that the earth (erets) was corrupted because of all flesh (kol-bāsār) (Gen 6:11–12). There is no description of how God felt. Instead, after “God saw,” “God said” to Noah that he will bring an end to them (qēs kol-bāsār bā‘) and destroy them with the earth (mašchîtām’et-hā’ārets) (Gen 6:13) (Armstrong: 40; Gardner: 118). The Hebrew verb for “corrupt” or “spoiled” (šachath, Gen 6:12) is used in niphal and hiphil to describe the effect and cause of destruction. Šachath depicts physical ruin such that it no longer fulfills its original purpose as source of life or sustainer of all creation (Gardner: 119). Here it is not only humanity which caused corruption, “all flesh” or all sentient beings on earth took part in it, resulting in a corrupted earth (Gen 6:7) (Gardner: 121). Instead of subduing the earth for good (1:28a), they have filled it with violence (chamas), the opposite of the path God had intended for all creation, and broken God’s plan (Gardner: 127). Their depravity and contamination of the earth result in God putting an end to them, but because of one righteous (social) and blameless (cultic) person, God will preserve the world (Westermann: 54).

The Relationship between God and Non-human Creation in the Great Flood

It is interesting that while it is “humankind” that caused evil in J, P recounts from the outset, using the third person, that the earth was corrupt before God and was filled with violence (Gen 6:11). As if looking at it again, the text describes not only that the earth, indeed, is corrupt but also how it came about: “for all flesh ((kol-bāsār) has corrupted its ways on the earth” (Gen 6:12). Since the reference is to “all flesh,” a number of questions abound on the possible relationship between God and non-humans in this version. First, was it really “all flesh” that would be destroyed with the earth? In P, the mention of “all flesh” moves from general to particular. It pertains to all creatures with breath of life (6:17), to every living thing, male and female (6:19), and to all flesh which moved upon the earth, including birds, animals and creeping things (6:20). But how did the non-humans transgress against God? The biblical text does not elaborate. Gardner points out (121–22) that in Genesis 1:30 every beast of the earth, every bird and every creeping thing on earth should eat every green herb as food. She surmises that their transgression might have come through eating foodstuffs other than vegetation such us feeding on dead bodies or killing for food. In Genesis 1:22, 28, God issued to the creatures the blessing and command to be fruitful and multiply, but Graves and Patai (112) cite several midrashim that point to bestiality and the animals’ refusal to breed with their own mates and how the females lord it over the males. Lawee (58) mentions a Talmudic tradition reported in the name of R. Yohanan, a third century Palestinian ’amora, who told of interspecific encounters between beasts and domestic animals as well as between “all and man, and man with all.” Lawee (59–60) further traces the “sins of the fauna” in midrashim and medieval Jewish literature by focusing on Rashi’s justification of the punishment of fauna’s sins. Rashi’s gloss on “all flesh” states that “even domestic animals, beasts, and birds consorted with those not of their own kind.” How were all flesh punished? After giving Noah instructions on how to build the ark, God decreed that he would bring the flood waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh with breath (rûach) of life on earth (Gen 6:17). The deluge came from the great deep (t∂hom) and from the windows of heaven, from the waters above and from below (Gen 7:11). The male and female elements of tehom which God separated in the beginning of creation (Gen 1:6–7) reunited and destroyed the world in a cosmic embrace (Graves & Patai: 112). In the excess of water, the apparent solidity of the flesh, their individual identities, and the boundaries they tried to cross are “melted, thawed, dissolved,” and “disintegrated” (Zornberg: 47). Thus, unlike Gilgamesh XI which shows a natural, catastrophic event, Genesis describes mythological components when chaos returned as it was in the beginning (Westermann: 57).

The Relationship between Humans and Non-Human Creation in the Great Flood

Once again, while the core of the flood narrative contains the interconnected stories of the divine, humans, and non-human creation and is yet to be elaborated below, some hints on the relations between humans and non-human creation can still be discerned especially on the effects of their actions towards each other.

For J, human evil caused Yhwh grief and consequently resulted in the non-human creatures being lumped together in Yhwh’s punishment. For Zornberg (51–53), the offense was precipitated by what she calls rapacious sexuality, full of egotism and cruelty, as seen in the sons of God taking wives of their choosing from among the beautiful daughters of the humans (Gen 6:1–4). The offense against the divine, therefore, is also a transgression against boundaries between humans and non-humans, that is, the sons of God. Mann (22) even calls this preceding story the “most serious—indeed, metaphysical—possibility of human beings becoming ‘like God’ ” (see Gen 3:5) which made the sin even graver. Yhwh’s response was to yield to the humans and non-humans quest for absence of boundaries by asking Noah, his sons and his wife, and the clean and unclean animals to enter the ark and shut them inside this boundary that saves (Gen 7:1 – 5, 7 – 8, 10, 12, 16b, 17, 22-23). Yhwh left the other humans and animals on their own in the limitless world, represented and accomplished by another non-human creature, the water elements (Gen 7:17). The flood (mabbûl) lasted for forty days with the waters lifting the ark up and inundating the dry land and blotting out those with nostrils and breath of life. From those who trod the ground like man and beasts, to those close to it like creepers, to the birds of the air: all died (mētû—Gen 7:17, 22–23). Once again, there was a movement from below (which lifted the ark up) and from above (which flooded the earth). As abrupt as it was for Noah to board the ark (Gen 7:1), so the rain was restrained from heaven and the waters receded continually (8:2b, 3a, 6a). The waters were given boundaries again. Interestingly, it is only in 8:6a that J discloses that Noah was the one who built the ark; Noah was given freedom to set human-animal boundaries against the waters. Opening the ark’s window, Noah sent out two birds, one after another. First, a raven went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. Westermann (61) affirms that an indispensable ancient marine custom was the bringing of birds along and setting them free on the high seas to help detetrmine the direction of the land. It makes sense then that the dove Noah sent later provided better news. At first, it returned to the safety of the ark, welcomed by Noah’s putting out his hand to take it back in and in contrast with the outside world where there was no place for it to perch its feet. When he sent it again after seven days, it returned in the evening with a freshly plucked olive branch in its mouth. The third time, it did not return, signalling that the ground has dried up.

The Priestly version is more elaborate in describing the command to build the ark and the advent of the flood (Gen 6:14-22; 7:6, 9, 11). In contrast with J, the waters were depicted as mightier because they prevailed (yigb∂rû, Gen 7:19, 24), and increased, and the ark floated on its face. The water also covered the high mountains under heaven for 150 days (Gen 7:19, 24). From the heavens’ viewpoint, “all flesh” expired, breathed its last (yigwa‘) – from birds to cattle and beasts, and all the swarming creatures, and all humankind (Gen 7:21).

The foregoing insights show how the ecological triangle can guide the interpretation of the story by paying attention not only to the more apparent divine–human relations, but more so when divine–non-human interactions, and human–non-human dynamics are considered. However, the interrelationships among the characters of the flood narrative are not fully covered, and to this aspect we now turn.

The Deeper Interrelationship among God, Humanity and Non-human creation from the Perspective of the Modified Ecological Triangle

While these investigations on the exclusive relationships between Yhwh/God and humans, between Yhwh/God and non-human creation, and between humans and non-humans as the focus of the ecological triangle result in interesting insights, they are not enough. As the more complex relations among the three characters emerge in both sources, the ecological triangle needs to be modified by analyzing the intricacies of the inclusive relationship among them: the divine, humans and non-human creation.

J and P closely wove together the divine tension between destruction and preservation of the created world (Wester-mann: 50–51). When Yhwh/God decided to destroy the human race, Yhwh/God also sought to preserve Noah. When Y hwh/God made the flood announcement, the command to enter or build an ark was also given. While there was terrible destruction brought by the boundless floodwater, there was also preservation inside the ark and the ceasing of the waters. Moreover, the tension was felt not only by God. Noah and all creation shared in it as well from the moment of ark-building to the bringing of pairs of every kind of animals, to preparing food provisions for all of them, and to finally entering the ark and being shut in. In both stories, the humans were reminded that they do not exist in isolation. Inside the ark are family, work, animals and food provisions; humans and other creation are saved together (Westermann: 55). Outside the ark, humans and other creation perished. The earth and earth-llings dissolved in water just like in the Gilgamesh story when Uthnapishtim saw how humankind drowned and returned to clay (Graves & Patai: 116)

There are also three moments in the story where these interwoven relations among Yhwh/God, humans and the non-human creation are seen: before, during and after the flood. Before the deluge, J tells how Yhwh immediately commanded Noah to board the ark with his household along with seven pairs of clean animals, male and female, and one pair of unclean animals, male and female, and seven pairs also from the birds of the air to keep their species alive upon the face of the earth because Yhwh will blot out all living beings in seven days (Gen 7:1–5). Even if fewer unclean animals were brought into the ark, they were rescued and allowed to live as the clean animals (Westermann: 56). In P, we find the detailed command to make the ark, with all its particularities (Gen 6:14–22). Noah’s part was to build the refuge ark while it was God’s part to bring in the flood to annihilate all flesh that breathe (Gen 7:17). There was also an ante-diluvian covenant of a promise of life for those who go on board. There was gender differentiation—first the males (Noah and sons), then the females (Noah’s wife and the sons’ wives). Noah was likewise commanded to bring every living thing of all flesh, male and female of each sort, aboard the ark to save their lives along with Noah’s. Moreover, Noah had to take every sort of food that the humans and the non-human creatures needed. God made it clear to Noah that to cleanse the earth, God would bring about the flood; but the threefold divine command to build the ark, to enter it with his family, and to bring into it representative animals and food provision were Noah’s part (Zornberg: 59). Their roles were complementary. In Midrash Tanchuma 2, Noah had to take for himself food for all—whether it is a single diet for all or for each individual, a specific food for humans, and provisions for all the species like straw for camel and barley for ass, and he ought to note well the times that they had to be fed (Graves & Patai: 113).

J does not say anything about what happened during the flood. Once again, the details in the P version describe that the coming of the flood marked Noah’s life. It was in his 600th year, 2nd month, and 17th day of the month when Noah and his sons, along with his wife and theirs entered the ark as God commanded him. They went in with every beast and cattle and everything that creeps and birds, male and female from “all flesh” (Gen 7:14-16a).

While he did all that Yhwh/God told him, one of the questionable facets of Noah’s character in both stories was his silence in the face of the imminent destruction. Noah listened to and obeyed God but he did not speak. For Zornberg (49), Noah shared with his generation a pathology that kabbalistic literature calls “exile of speech.” The devastating silence of Noah amidst destruction manifested his own imprisonment within the ark and by the “mighty waters.” Zornberg critiqued the

metastasis of the sickness of his time. He is incurious, he does not know and does not care what happens to others. He suffers from the incapacity to speak meaningfully to God or to his fellow human beings [58].

While Noah was silent throughout the duration of the flood, something had to be going on inside him which changed him. It would be seen in the aftermath of the flood below. For the Priestly narrator, God commanded Noah to prepare provisions of every food that is eaten and to store it up for the animals and his family (Gen 6:21). It is imaginable that during the flood Noah had to relate with the other creatures by “seeing a new world” surrounded by water and by “feeding and sustaining” them (Zornberg: 59). After 150 days, the story points out that God remembered (yizkor—Gen 8:1) Noah, all the living things, and the cattle that were with him inside the ark. This remembrance of God prompted him to make a wind (rûach—Gen 8:1) blow over the earth for the waters to subside. The same wind signaled re-ordering and re-creation (Gen 1:2) as the fountains of tehom, and the windows of heaven were restrained (Gen 8:2). The waters abated after 150 days, and on the 17^th day of the seventh month, the ark rested on the mountain of Ararat (Gen 8:4). The water continued to recede until the first day of the 10^th month, when the tops of the mountains were seen. The ebbing of the waters continued up to Noah’s 601^st year, on the first day of the first month, when the waters dried up from the earth, and finally on the 27^th day of the second month, the earth was dry (Gen 8:5, 13b, 14). Thus, for twelve months, Noah exercised a God-like role and became wise as he communicated with the world that does not speak in human ways and learned how to nurture the animals. “The knowing of need is the highest measure of that curious tender concern that characterizes God and God-like man [sic]” (Zornberg: 61).

In the aftermath of the flood, J narrated that Noah’s relation with the animals symbolized his own relation to himself and also depicted his most real and intimate interaction with the other. When the water receded, Noah sent out the birds, a common motif in advanced Mediterranean flood traditions like the Gilgamesh story (Westermann: 52). Still shut up in the ark, the birds saw what Noah could not (Westermann: 60). In Genesis 8:9, the trust between God’s creatures was seen in Noah’s putting his hand out so the dove could perch when it returned to the safety of the ark. The third flight of the dove indicated coming forth to freedom and becoming part of the new creation (Westermann: 61).

Two elements are important in the aftermath of the flood stories. One of them is landing on mountains (Westermann: 60). In P, the end of the flood signified a new era, the 601^st year of Noah and the first month. Westermann considers it as a New Year’s day of cosmos (1987: 62). Genesis 8:17–19 recalls Noah’s entrance to the ark with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives (Gen 6:18) but with a marked difference: now Noah went out with his wife (Spitzer: 53), his sons and their wives with him, and all other creatures: birds, animals and crawling things, with their families. This new order prepares the reader for the repeated command to repopulate the earth because now it is possible to be fertile and multiply, to emerge as a new community of creation. After blotting out “all flesh” who filled the earth with violence, the command to be fruitful and multiply continues the invitation to re-create and repopulate the world as all the living things, all creepers, all birds, and all those that move on the earth went out of the ark with their clans (l∂mišp∂chōtēhem—Gen 8:19). Curiously, Noah went out with the same arrangement as before, “with his sons and his wife and the wives of his sons” (Gen 7:13; 8:18). Even as Noah did so in the old pattern, God still blessed Noah and his sons with fruitfulness and number to fill the earth (Gen 9:1). God, Noah and “all flesh” were not, however, unscathed after the flood. The scar of the devastation is seen in the succeeding declaration of God that fear and dread of humans will be upon the birds, the creepers, and even the fish of the sea which will now be delivered to humanity’s hands as food like the green plants (Gen 9:2-4). The only prohibition was the eating of flesh with its blood or the shedding of blood which merits reckoning, whether they are beasts or humans. God then reminded Noah that humankind was made in God’s image and doubly commanded him again to be fruitful, abound on the earth and multiply in it (Gen 9:6-7). Afterwards, God established his covenant with Noah and his descendants, with every living creature (nepeš) with its life in the blood—birds, cattle and beasts—that came out of the ark, and with all the animals of the earth (Gen 9:10). The covenant that God established is in plural form (’et-b∂rîtî’itt∂kem). It was set in the negative as a reminder for God’s self to never again cut off all flesh by the waters of a flood nor destroy the earth through a flood (Gen 9:11). God’s bow was set in the clouds as a sign of the covenant between God and the earth (hā‘ārets—Gen 9:13), between God and Noah (in the plural), and every living creatures (nepeš) of all flesh (kol-bāsār). This covenant serves as a great inclusio with Gen 6:11–13. So, the rainbow, an assurance against flood in European and Asiatic folklores, appears (Graves & Patai: 118). As God’s first ever covenant made with all of creation, however unilateral, the covenant was everlasting, included all creation, and was a promise to nevermore cause cosmic destruction (Mann: 24). God restrains God’s self. This perspective governs a tripartite covenant among God, humans and non-human creation as seen in the ecological triangle and highlighted by their interrelationship in the modified ecological triangle.

Another considerable post-diluvian element is the sacrifice to the deity. For some scholars, Noah’s sacrifice was a usual feature of flood stories as seen with Ziusudra, Utnapishtim, Deucalion, and others for them to give thanks for deliverance from mortal danger and to the deliverer for the new life ahead (Graves & Patai: 116–18; Westermann: 62). In J, when Noah removed the covering of the ark and saw that the ground was dry, he built an altar to Yhwh, and from every clean animal and clean birds, he offered burnt offerings on the altar. There is no covenant in J between Yhwh, Noah and the other creatures but the offering’s soothing odor prompted Yhwh to promise two things: to never curse the earth again because of the humans since the purpose of their heart is evil from youth, a realization that forms an inclusio to the story (Gen 6:5; 8:21), and to never again destroy all living beings as he did (Gen 8:20–21). The promise, however, affirmed cosmic boundaries as Yhwh decrees that as the earth endures, the cycles of life shall not cease: seedtime and harvest (agricultural), cold and heat (weather); summer and winter (seasons), and day and night (period of time). The Deity’s response was cast in negative and positive statements of boundaries (Westermann: 63). There will be no more flood; instead, there will be preservation of the earth in great rythms that affect all life in rythmical alternations of the year (seedtime and harvest, summer and winter) and the day (frost and heat, night and day) (Westermann: 63). Now creation is blessed with time, history and God’s work of salvation and judgment become not linear, but cyclical. For Westermann (64), “[I]n the great rythms by which creation breathes, God blesses and sustains our earth.”

The Great Flood: Ecological Lessons from J and P and their Implications

After looking at the J and P versions of the Great Flood, what lessons for ecology can we glean? We can begin with four important insights.

Rethinking Sacred Texts and the Climate Crisis in the Anthropocene

What the modified ecological triangle helped explore in this study is how to rethink our religious or sacred narratives by considering equally the perspective of the non-human creatures in relation with the divine and humanity. For the sake of planetary sustainability, humanity must truly reflect not only on the nature of its relationship with the divine but on how life-giving and sustainable this relationship is even for non-human creatures. Theologians Deane-Drummond, Bergmann, and Vogt underline how the anthropocene—the age of humans—

poses a tremendous challenge for the humanities not least because the human sciences bring tools that can assess the diverse scientific and cultural narratives. For theology and religious studies this includes an assessment of implicit religious narratives, or whether there are social and ethical implications, especially for environmental ethics [1].

Once again, the ecological crisis impels us to reframe our religious and theological concepts in terms of our sacred narratives. In the Anthropocene age, the challenge is for humans to be either world-maker or destroyer (Yusoff). As seen above, the Yahwist attributed to human wickedness the corruption of the earth which Yhwh saw and which caused the divine’s cosmic regret leading to the pronouncement of the consequence: the deluge that destroyed the earthlings and the earth inhabitants. The relationship among the three characters is seen in Yhwh ordering Noah to save both clean and unclean animals. While Noah did gather the non-humans into the ark for safety, he later asked the help of the raven and the dove to assess the destruction and monitor the situation. Thus, while Noah was silent throughout the story, he was also portrayed as able to cultivate inter-creature relation with non-humans as exemplified by his reliance on the non-verbal reports of the raven and the dove. In the end, while there was no mention of a covenant in J, the sacrifice of Noah served as a thanksgiving for life spared and a new beginning for the humans and non-humans. For Yhwh, the sacrifice made the deity realize human frailty.

Boundary Setting in the Context of Capitalocene

Setting boundaries is healthy and sustainable for humans and for the earth community. One of the main problems in the J and P deluge story is the question of boundary—whether it is understood as sexual or dietary. In both cases, what seemed to be at root was the questionable notion of consumption, of economics. It was pointed out above that the prohibition to eat flesh with its blood may give us a clue to the relation between diet and violence as a possible cause of the flood. Even now, there exists crime in nourishment as the food and agriculture sectors are both major contributors to the climate emergency and they are also two of the most affected by it (Clapp, Newell, & Brent: 80–88). Other theologians opine that in Jewish literature, rapacious sexuality was deemed the source of the problem as human–non-human (sons of God, animals and all) engaged in unproductive and violent sexual unions. Gender, violence and ecological crisis are also interrelated. Unjust human relationships have precipated climate change, and the discussion around it is not a simple scientific and gender-neutral discourse (MacGregor: 223–38). What seems to be in common between the questions of dietary and sexual boundaries in the flood story is the notion of the self as primary over others, whether human or non-human. Thus, it is a return to the quest to be like God in terms of control over life in general and the never-ending idea of irresponsible consumption at the cost of life and relationships. Thus, while investigating the anthropogenic causes, Moore argues about the need to situate the person within the “system of power, profit and re/production in the web of life” or what he calls “capitalocene” (Moore: 594–630).

Communal Response to Disaster: Before, During and After the Catastrophe

While the deluge story seems to be a story of catastrophe, it can also be viewed as a story of disaster management. The J and P writers attributed a lot of responsibility to the humans and the contributions of “all flesh” but both of them also narrated the things that need to be done before disaster strikes, during catastrophic events, and post-diluvian realities. Before the return to watery chaos when the divine removed the restraint of flood waters from above and from below, Yhwh/God issued pre-flood warnings and disaster prevention or mitigation decrees. Noah used God’s command to him as a warning to fellow humans, but he was rebuffed (Graves & Patai: 111). Still, Noah followed the instructions to provide nurturance to those who would be inside the ark, sometimes helped by each creature’s guardian angels who provided fodder for them (Graves & Patai: 112). In P, God also told Noah of the ark’s specifications to make sure everyone will fit while Noah used the available resources for him to build the ark as an evacuation center and to gather the species, including the most vulnerable, to ensure continutity of life (Gen 6:14–22—Graves & Patai: 111). While the flood was going on, and even if Noah was also silent, his relationship with the non-human creatures was guided by providing them sustenance—which food for what animal, when, and how to feed it (Graves & Patai: 113).

This caring attitude and the cooperation of each one made God remember Noah and the other creatures. It also prompted God to send the wind (of Gen 1:2?) to settle the chaos of tehom and waters from the heavens for a gradual return to life on the dry ground. For Noah, this significant year of being with the non-human creation served as a growth period in relation with his family and with the other creatures resulting in a new way of being a creation community. For God, this result consequently prompted him to make a covenant for all flesh that will last forever. This covenant showed that no one among God, humans and non-human creatures were unscathed after the disaster. In positive terms, God constantly reminded them that humans were made in God’s image and that all creatures should be fruitful and multiply. In negative terms, the unilateral covenant symbolized by the rainbow reminded God never to flood the earth again and annihilate the living beings. In short, in this covenant, God gave them the scope of being humans; God also made a self-imposed limit interms of causing destruction to the earth and all flesh.

The Divine, Human and Non-human Creatures: Grappling with Disturbing Images in Sacred Texts in Times of Disasters

In the ecological triangle, it is shown how the humans are confronted by their own relationship with fellow beings—be it humans or other non-human creation. Likewise, the model’s focus on the non-human creation’s relation with humanity and with the divine provided alternative insights. Another task at hand is to grapple with the disturbing images of the divine in the story. Both the J and P versions challenge the interpreter to wrestle with an image of a divine destroyer. While both versions somehow excuse the deity from the destruction that consist of punishing the humans, “all flesh”, and the earth because of their evilness and corruption, a bigger challenge is to grapple with this violent image of God. In P, before making the covenant with all created beings, God insisted on the humans identity of being made in God’s own image (tselem) (Gen 9:6). The flood story, told from human viewpoint, poses a challenge – Can we accept an image of God based on human likeness? The deluge depicted God as one who responded against crossing boundaries by actively blotting out the differentiation among creatures through disintegrating their earthly bodies into the flood water. In J, when Yhwh smelled the burnt offerings that Noah offered after the flood to express in silence the psychosocial and spiritual complexities that the disaster brings, we hear a pleased Yhwh recognizing the wickedness of the human heart from youth (Gen 8:21). Is this recognition a mirror of the violence that the deity is capable of? Armstrong (40) critiqued that while biblical writers insist that the divine regret and pain caused the deluge (Gen 6:6), no one prepares us for the merciless divine violence that ensues. This character is very different from the serene Creator God as this image is closer to a tyrant or dictator of our times (ibid.). Both versions of Yhwh/God in the deluge narrative need to caution us that excusing a deity who almost annihilated the whole human race and all other created beings endangers the dulling of our senses in face of the horrors that earthly rulers do to purge their enemies or who blame God in the face of tragedies to escape responsibilities. When disasters like the deluge happen, there is a need for us to ask hard questions and wrestle with the trauma that this image of God and the interpretation of religious texts cause to individuals and communities (Gaspar).

Conclusion

This short study has attempted to make sense of the disturbing story of the Flood in Genesis 6–9 in the J and P versions from the perspective of ecological hermeneutics. As we affirm that climate change changes religion (Bergmann), so it is important to make sense of religious texts to reframe religious belief systems and shape their interpretations as they are “crucial to building a political will to mitigate climate change” (Foust & Murphy: 151–67, 153). It is, thus, an imperative for biblical scholars and theologians to continuously work on and share the perspectives of religion with others in the continuing academic and popular discourses on environmental degradation, its effects, and what people as individuals and communities can do to respond effectively to the climate emergency in both local and global communities.

References

Armstrong, K.

1997. In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Bergmann, S.

2009. “Climate Change Changes Religion: Space, Spirit, Ritual, Technology—Through a Theological Lens.” Studia Theologica 63/2: 98–118.

Clapp, J., Newell, P., &

Z. W.

Brent . 2018. “The Global Political Economy of Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Systems.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 45/1: 80–88.

Deane-Drummond, C.,

Bergmann , &

Vogt . 2018. “The Future of Religion in the Anthropocene Era” Pp.1–15 in Religion in the Anthropocene, edited by

Deane-Drummond ,

Bergmann , &

Vogt . Cambridge, UK: Lutterworth Press.

Dundes, A.

(ed.). 1988. The Flood Myth. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Foust, C. R., &

W. O.

Murphy . 2009. “Revealing and Re-framing Apocalyptic Tragedy in Global Warming Discourse.” Environmental Communication 3/2: 151–67.

Gardner, A.

2000. “Ecojustice: A Study of Genesis 6:11–13.” Pp. 117–29 in The Earth Story in Genesis, edited by

N. C.

Habel &

Wurst . Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Gaspar, K. M.

2014. Desperately Seeking God’s Saving Action: Yolanda Survivors’ Hope Beyond Heartbreaking Lamentations. Quezon City, Philippines: Institute of Spirituality in Asia.

Graves, R., &

Patai . 2005. Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis, edited by

R. A.

Davis

. Manchester: Carcanet.

10.

Habel, N. C.

1988. “The Two Flood Stories in Genesis.” Pp. 13–28 in The Flood Myth, edited by

Dundes

. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

11.

Horrell, D. G.,

Hunt , &

Southgate . 2008. “Appeals to the Bible in Ecotheology and Environmental Ethics: A Typology of Hermeneutical Stances.” Studies in Christian Ethics, 21/2: 219–38.

12.

Lawee, E.

2010. “The Sins of the Fauna in Midrash, Rashi, and Their Medieval Interlocutors.” Jewish Studies Quarterly, 17/1: 56–98.

13.

MacGregor, S.

2010. “ ‘Gender and climate change’: From impacts to discourses.” Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 6/2: 223–38.

14.

Mann, T. W.

1988. The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch. Atlanta, GA: John Knox.

15.

Marlow, H.

2009. Biblical Prophets and Contemporary Environmental Ethics: Re-Reading Amos, Hosea, and First Isaiah. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

16.

Moore, J. W.

2017. “The Capitalocene, Part I: On the nature and origins of our ecological crisis.” The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44/3: 594–630.

17.

Nilsen, T. D., & Solevåg, A. R.

2016. “Expanding Ecological Hermeneutics: The Case for Ecolonialism.” Journal of Biblical Literature 135/4, 665–83.

18.

Spitzer, J. R.

2000. “Noach: Mrs. Noah.” Pp. 53–56 in The Women’s Torah Commentary: New Insights from Women Rabbis on the 54 Weekly Torah Portions, edited by

Goldstein

. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing.

19.

Westermann, C.

1987. Genesis: A Practical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans.

20.

White, L.

1967. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science 155/3767: 1203–07.

21.

Wright, C. J. H.

2004. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.

22.

Yusoff, K.

2016. “Anthropogenesis: Origins and Endings in the Anthropocene.” Theory, Culture & Society 33/2: 3–28.

23.

Zornberg, A. G.

1996. The Beginning of Desire: Reflections on Genesis. New York, NY: Doubleday.