When we consider the modern sexual politics of the Catholic Church they are, in comparison to those of the broader secular world, quite conservative. What many don’t realise is that much of what makes up the contemporary sexual politics of the Catholic Church stems from the works and thinking of one man: St. Augustine. This essay will explore the life and works of St. Augustine and how it was that he profoundly affected the thinking of both the Catholic Church and the broader secular community right up to the present day.

Essential to understanding the works of St. Augustine is an understanding of his background leading up to his career as a member of the Catholic Church. Augustine lived from 354CE to 430CE and was born to a devout Christian mother and devout Pagan father in Thagaste, a Numidian town. His mother was earnest to raise her son a Christian and this, coupled with Augustine’s brilliant scholarly ability and the patronage of a wealthy benefactor led to his education in Carthage. Augustine took easily to education and he exhibited an insatiable lust for knowledge, coming quickly to grasp Latin and the finer points of rhetoric. Early in his life Augustine had become a teacher of Pagan rhetoric at Carthage, regardless of his mother’s wishes. Augustine was very much his own man who not only went against the wishes of his family (especially his mother) but seemed to often behave in an actively antagonistic fashion. Augustine had a self-professed and over-active libido and, much against his mother’s wishes, Augustine took a concubine with whom he had a child, named Adeodatus, meaning “the gift of god”. Riling against his mother’s desire for him to seek Christian spiritual guidance, Augustine joined a Persian derived sect called the Manichaeans who related evil to matter and the realm of the physical. His devotion to the Manichaeans was shaken, however, when he met Bishop Ambrose at the request of his mother. Ambrose answered many of the Manichaeans’ objections to the Old Testament and exposed many of the flaws of Manichaean thinking with an eloquence and intellectual strength that amazed Augustine. The influence of Ambrose on Augustine was profound, as Bainton notes “here was a man who grappled with the problems of faith and who showed that one could be an intellectual and a Christian”. During Easter in 387CE Augustine and his son were baptised by Ambrose. Soon after this Augustine became a monk and then, in 396CE became a bishop in the town of Hippo in Northern Africa.

Throughout his career Augustine never lost his love of the scholarly pursuits and spent much of his time reading about and writing on Christian theology. Much of this seemed to be fueled by his apparent obsession with his own sexuality and with the nature of human sexuality in general. This is best displayed in his reflective autobiography and spiritual treatise Confessions which first appeared in 397CE. This document formed the core of what would become Augustinian sexual politics and, eventually, Catholic doctrine. Central to Augustine’s notion of human sexuality is that of Original Sin. According to Augustine, man was irreversibly corrupted by the fall of Adam and is inescapably tied to his sin against God. Adam’s (and by association man’s) punishment for disobedience to God was one of forced disobedience to one’s self. This is essentially the notion that the human body and mind became separate and opposed to one another. The free will of the human mind could no longer exert itself to control the base desires of the flesh. This is most notably present, Augustine claims, in the sexual passions of human beings. Augustine observed that sexual arousal seems to occur automatically, regardless of what the mind desires. Augustine saw this as proof that the body’s disobedience of the mind often manifested itself in the form of lust. The central problem for this explanation of the uncontrollable sexual desires of mankind was explaining how it is that something that Adam did could condemn every subsequent human.

Unlike the archaic biological notion of preformationism (which suggested that a child existed perfectly formed in miniature inside of its parent’s sex cells, extending all the way back to Adam and Eve), Augustine contended that the entire human lineage had not existed within Adam but that the whole of Adam had been corrupted, including his semen. This meant that every child that Adam created was imbued with evil, sinful seed which passed his sin onto all of his children. Therefore all descendants of Adam (that being the entire human race) were created with fundamentally flawed semen and inherited the Original Sin from all of their descendants. The implications for Augustine arriving at this conclusion were enormous. If all human beings were inherently flawed and sinful, then that meant they could not possibly be trusted to administer to anything without the constant guidance of God. This meant that perfection or a utopian, peaceful existence was impossible for mankind. Furthermore, if we couldn’t trust our bodies to behave appropriately towards sexual desire (because of the rampant influence of lust) then how were we to know what kind of sexual interaction or attraction was safe in the eyes of God? The only safe solution, according to Augustine, was to only have sex for the purposes of procreation which meant that only sex within marriage was acceptable. Augustine contended that the physical act of sex itself was not sinful, but that it was inexplicably linked to a lustful sexual desire that caused man to lose his rational control of himself and his body. However, because God ordained the marital bond, the lustful experience of sex within marriage was far more acceptable than sex outside of marriage that wasn’t for the purpose of procreation.

There was naturally opposition to these views. The transition from the writings of one man to official Church doctrine was by no means an instant or unanimous one. Julian of Eclanum was appalled at the notion that human sexuality or semen could in any way be sinful or anything but completely natural:

God made bodies, distinguished the sexes, made

genitalia, bestowed affection through which bodies

would be joined, gave power to the semen, and

operates in the secret nature of the semen – and

God made nothing evil.

-As quoted in Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve and the Serpent, p. 132

So why would St. Augustine’s beliefs become adopted by the Catholic Church as doctrine? One possible explanation is that it would have been a very effective way for the Church to assert its place and power within society. If mankind cannot be trusted to control his base physical urges and requires a constant spiritual communion with God to save his eternal soul, then the Church is there, ready to offer spiritual guidance. If human beings cannot be trusted to govern themselves without the guidance of God, and the Church is the representative God on Earth, then that places the Church in a unique position of power. This alone could not account for the adoption of Augustine’s stance on Original Sin. Elane Pagels suggests that is the simplicity and compelling nature Augustine’s theory that allowed it to endure. In the face of human suffering, it answers the question of “why is this happening to me” by simply and efficiently removing the immediate blame from the individual and placing it on our collective ancestors, Adam and Eve. Augustine’s thinking tells us not only the cause of our suffering but also gives our suffering meaning and significance. The other advantage in this kind of thinking is that it removes much of the responsibility or guilt which stem from suffering or wicked behaviour by removing the blame from the individual. If good and evil are predetermined and we’re all sinners, then we can do anything we like as long as we ask God for forgiveness and absolution.

Let us now consider the legacy that St. Augustine has left and where it endures to this day. The Catholic Church still has a hard-line policy with regards to sex. Sex before marriage is unacceptable, sex is to be strictly for procreation and, as a result, contraception is strictly forbidden. Catholic priests are celibate, in order to turn their attention wholly towards matters spiritual. We need to understand, however, that St. Augustine’s thinking has had a wide-reaching and insidious effect on broader, secular society. We are very body conscious and have a number of nudity taboos (such as the generally negative view of public breast-feeding or nude swimming) and tend to frown on excessive premarital sex (especially in the case of women). While contraception is more acceptable in secular society it is often more for its uses as a means to prevent sexually transmitted diseases or allow for family planning amongst married people or couples in ‘committed relationships’.

In conclusion, the works and thinking of St. Augustine has had a powerful effect on both the thinking of the Catholic Church and broader secular society. The concept of Original Sin provided both a platform for the Church to assert itself within society and a mechanism with which the lay person could rationalise and understand suffering in their lives and in the world in general. Many of the central elements of Augustinian politics are preserved in the beliefs and social conventions of both the Catholic Church and secular society to this day. St Augustine may not be a figure of popular conversation but when we examine his life and his works we can see how profoundly one individual can personally alter the thinking of millions.

Further Reading

• Bainton, Roland, The Penguin History of Christianity, Vol. 1, London, Nelson, 1964, pp. 129-135
• Chadwick, Henry, The Early Church, London, Hodder Stoughton, 1968, pp. 216-236
• Pagels, Elaine, Adam, Eve and the Serpent,New York, Random House, 1988, pp. 98-150

When we turn to significant landmarks in human cultural history it is often easier to acknowledge that a landmark occurred than it is to pin down the specific details of that landmark. It is an oft touted idiom that “history is written by the victor” and, even when we are not concerning ourselves with military victories, the same phenomenon of historical whitewashing occurs with cultural revolutions. While historians agree that the Western world is a predominantly democratic one, one would be hard pressed to find two who reached a consensus about the origins, birth and development of the concept. Did it begin with the Ancient Greek senate or was that such an alien form of democracy from that which we practice today that it doesn’t bare comparison? The same problems arise for any historian that attempts to trace the origins of the momentous cultural development that was Israelite Monotheism. This article will attempt to trace the roots of Monotheism in Ancient Israel and assess the speed with which it was adopted.

Before we can examine the rise of Monotheism in Israelite culture we must ask the crucial question of why such a belief system arose. Polytheism was and had been the accepted model of worship in every major civilization in the region, from the Egyptians to the Mediterranean to the Babylonians and Assyrians of Mesopotamia. It was not only an established model, but likely an apparently sensible one to those living in the ancient world, particularly those in the Ancient Near East. Firstly, the natural environment in which people found themselves was a harsh and contradictory one. Subject to droughts, floods, sand and dust storms as well as fierce electrical storms assailed the settlers of the Ancient Near East (Boadt 545). It would be difficult or near impossible for people to simply rationalise these natural occurrences as the work of a single deity. Such a deity was surely a cruel and fickle one who cared little for the plight of his people. It was almost certainly much easier to believe that these natural misfortunes were the work of several conflicting gods, some of whom were benevolent (or at least indifferent) towards human beings. Furthermore, when there is more than one entity which has an influence over the world of men it is easier to rationalize faults in those entities. Each god has their strengths and weaknesses, areas of responsibility and personal shortcomings (Boadt, 245). Across the entire pantheon these various strengths and weaknesses balance one another out in such a way that everything is under the control of a god and any discrepancies in the expected outcomes or events of these gods’s work can be explained away by inter-deity conflict or shortcomings. Finally, representing the gods as a community of interacting entities, each with their own strengths, weaknesses and interactions with one another creates a set of higher beings who are, ultimately, easier to understand and identify with. The question then, is why would a culture develop a need for Monotheism?

The answer lays in an unusual permutation of the common Near Eastern Practices of adopting and distorting the myths of neighbouring peoples and the tying of the actions of the Gods to the events in the world of men. The successes and defeats of the deities of the Ancient Near East were, naturally, tied to the successes and defeats of their earthly subjects. Let us examine the Canaanite pantheon as an example, as it is in this region that Israelite Monotheism would eventually arise. The Canaanite religion was typical of the Ancient Near Eastern polytheistic religions described above, with each god controlling a specific portfolio, each of which directly related to a component of the natural world and the impact that component had on the pantheon’s mortal subjects. A brief summary of each major god of the Canaanite pantheon follows:

El: The father of all gods and chief creator of all creatures. The authority figure of the gods, El is the chief judge of any dispute amongst the gods but is apparently distant from his human subjects.

Baall: The god of the storm. Baal is responsible for the annual rainfall and fertility cycle of the earth. Baal is often also depicted as the triumphant General and lord of War.

Asherah: The Goddess of the Sea and wife of El. An important council to El with a minor association to fertility.

Anat: Sister and wife of Baal. Like the Babylonian Goddess, Ishtar, Anat combines the aspects of the goddess of love and war simultaneously.

Astarte: Another Goddess relating to fertility, strongly resembling Anat.

-All sourced from Boadt, 218.

We can see from this brief summary that, in this small sampling of Gods, each has a link to both the natural and human world. Baal is the god of storms (natural) and the god of war (human). Asherah is the goddess of the sea (natural) and the goddess of conciliation (human). Astarte and Anat are goddesses associated with both natural and human fertility, as well as human passion. Even in these god’s portfolios we find a direct relationship between the events of the human world and actions of the Gods. To further illustrate the relationship between the actions of the gods and the world of men, we must turn to the Epic of Baal, which accounts a conflict between Baal and Mot, the personification of death (Boadt, 219). Through a successful military campaign, Baal becomes the king of the gods. Unhappy with this and believing that he is more deserving of the kingship, Mot demands that the other gods to hand over Baal to him. Baal accepts the challenge and travels to the underworld to battle Mot, but eats the bread of death and is overcome. Without the god of storms, the earth wilts from lack of rain. Anat goes searching for Baal, finds him and frees him. Anat battles with Mot, who she defeats, shreds to pieces and sprinkles like seed across the earth. Baal returns and, with him, comes the rain that the earth was lacking. The rain of Baal causes the seeds of Mot to sprout and the earth is rejuvenated (Boadt, 219-220). We can see, very explicitly, in this story that conflict of wet and dry seasons in the Ancient Near East was tied directly to the trials and tribulations of the Gods. In order for civilization to prevail, Baal must prevail (Boadt, 220). We can see exactly the same thinking in the creation, depiction and evolution of Yahweh, the god of the Israelites.

It is crucial to understand that, for the Ancient Israelites, there arose a point in their history when, besieged from all sides, the most important and significant element of the divine to them was that which protected the Israelite people and destroyed their enemies (Boadt, 221). Many accounts openly steal from the other Near Eastern accounts of the triumphs of the Gods who were sympathetic towards human beings over those who were not (Boadt, 222). As Boadt astutely observes, “While rejecting the multiple gods and the nature myths of Canaan, Israel felt itself free to use many of the themes to enhance the power of Yahweh” (Boadt, 222). An excellent example of this is the manner in which the Israelites selectively condemned parts of Baal’s portfolio while adopting and attributing those that suited them to Yahweh. While the Israelites were uncomfortable with the fertility rights associated with Baal and his wives and condemned them, they were happy to adopt other aspects of Canaanite worship and adopt them to suit their needs (Boadt, 223). For example, both the Canaanites and Israelites placed a large significance on the power of sacrifice and the Israelites adopted many of the rites and details of Canaanite sacrifice (down to modelling their sacrificial altars in similar shape to those of the Canaanites) they dispensed with and forbade the Canaanite practice of child sacrifice (Boadt, 223). When we examine the development Israelite monotheism we can see that it appears to be an amalgamation of polytheism in which the powers and portfolios of all of the Gods are brought under the single name of Yahweh.

If we examine the early works of the Torah we can the pushing and pulling of these schizophrenic divine personalities pushing and pulling against one another. In Genesis we can see a suggestion of a dual male/female identity for Yahweh, despite the assertion that of Genesis 1:1 that “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (King James Bible, Genesis 1:1). This position of a solitary creator is diametrically opposed to other Near Eastern creation myths, like the Babylonian Enuma Elish, in which creation results from the interactions and conflicts of many gods. We still see all of the portfolios of Near Eastern God’s represented in Genesis, except they are either subsumed by Yahweh himself or his actions/creations. For example, each of the stages of the Genesis creations myth mirrors the stages of creation in the Enuma Elish except that in the Enu Elish, a different god is responsible for each stage (Frymer-Kensky, 154). Instead of Apsu and Tiamat creating water from their mere presence in the chaotic void, Yahweh wills there to be water from the chaotic void. The end result is the same, but the origin has been subtly altered to allow for a single deity. Hooke presents and excellent example of this in his analysis of the story of the Tree of Knowledge in Genesis 3 and its similarity to the Babylonian myth of Enki and Ninhursag:

“According to Sumerian myth the only thing Dilmun lacked was fresh water; the god Enki (or Ea) ordered Utu, the sun-god, to bring up fresh water from the earth to water the garden… In the myth of Enki and Ninhursag it is related that the mother-goddess Ninhursag caused eight plants to grow in the garden of the gods. Enki desired to eat these plants and sent his messenger Isimud to fetch them. Enki ate them one by one, and Ninhursag in her rage pronounced the curse of death upon Enki. As the result of the curse eight of Enki’s bodily organs were attacked by disease and he was at the pain of death. The great gods were in dismay and Enlil [the chief god] was powerless to help. Ninhursag was induced to return and deal with the situation. She created eight goddesses of healing who proceeded to heal each of the diseased parts of Enki’s body. One of these parts was the god’s rib, and the goddess who was created to deal with the rib was named Ninti, which means “lady of the rib”.”

-Hooke, pp. 114-115

The parallels here to the tree of knowledge story in Genesis 3 are obvious. What is significant, for our purposes, is that rather than the eating of forbidden fruit and the consequences of such an action are not a collection of happenstance interactions between various gods, but stem from the deliberate action of Yahweh (who created the tree of knowledge), the folly of man who disobeyed him and the fallout from such disobedience. We see the same plundering of myth and absorption of foreign gods in the Genesis flood story and the flood stories found in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish (Hooke, 127).

We can see from these parallels in Genesis that there was no instant ‘switch’ between monotheism and polytheism. While lip service is paid to the notion of one God, the behaviour of that single god is drawn directly from the myths of polytheistic cultures. In many cases Yahweh behaves in contradictory or inexplicable ways, which are not easily rationalised in terms of a single god. It takes a long period of time until Yahweh is completely unified with a purpose for himself and the Israelite people and there is a gradual evolution of concrete monotheism. In Exodus 34:14, in which Yahweh commands “thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God” (King James Bible, Exodus 34:14) he does not deny the existence of other gods, merely prohibits their worship. This is immediately reinforced in Exodus 34:15 in which Yahweh forbids his followers from making “a covenant with the inhabitants of the land” and “whoring after their gods” (King James Bible, Exodus 34:15). By the time we reach Deuteronomy 4:39, however, the message could not be more absolute.

“Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else”

-Deuteronomy 4:39

Furthermore, when we arrive at the books of Joshua and Judges the classic model of Israelite Monotheism is complete, with the firm depiction of Yahweh as not merely a single god, but the God, with the Israelites as his chosen people (Herrmann, 155).

It is impossible for us to say precisely when the Israelites completely embraced monotheism (Garbini, 32). There are too many unknown variables at work. For example, let us entertain the question of whether there was a discrepancy in monotheism’s adoption in the cities over the rural areas? Centres of spiritual and military might, as well as being the symbol of centralization and streamlining, the cities were likely to adopt the notion of Monotheism faster. Conversely, rural farmers, shepherds and pastoralists were more intimately concerned with the themes present in and adopted from the Babylonian myths, specifically as fertility and the cycle of seasons. Surely, the people in these rural communities would take much longer to fully embrace the tenets of monotheism. We run into further problems when, as we have seen above, the nature of Israelite monotheism was not a static one. The faith begins with the amalgamation of many local deities and myths, under the banner of one God. Yahweh is not instantly a unified entity, but becomes one, slowly over time and under the supervision of countless authors and editors. All we can say, with any certainty, is that the introduction of Monotheism to the Israelites was definitely a gradual one.

Bibliography

• Boadt, L. Reading the Old Testament, New York, Paulist Press, 1984
• Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, “The Atrahasis Epic and its Significance for our understanding of Genesis 1-9” Biblical Archaeologist 40 (4), 1977
• Garbini, G. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel, London : SCM, 1988.
• Hermann, S. A history of Israel in Old Testament times, London: SCM Press Ltd, 1981.

• Hooke, S. H. Middle Eastern Mythology. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. 1978.
• King James Bible.

Welcome to what is, I hope, the first of many history articles on Wonderbread. In completing a double major in cinema and history I’ve learned many interesting things and would love to share some of them with you. Some of my fellow history students will also be contributing articles, so keep your eyes on the History category. I’d like to open with an article I wrote earlier this year for a class on Ancient Israel. It explores the similarities between the Ancient Israelite creation and flood stories and those of the Babylonians before them. Ultimately, we can see that there is common mythic tradition in the Ancient Near East.

-Morgan

When we examine the narrative and thematic structure of Genesis 1-2:4a we can see a structural and thematic core which appears to originate from a broad mythic tradition which existed in the Ancient Near East, long before the Israelites codified their scripture in writing. The central parallels exist in the Babylonian texts of the Enuma Elish, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis epic. We can find elements of each of these ancient stories present in Genesis, however, it is the differences (rather than the similarities) in these narratives that reveals to us the details of the philosophy of the Iraelites which distinguished them from their contemporaries. It is worthwile, however, to consider the similarities because these provide us with useful information about the collective experience of life in the Ancient Near East.

The central and broadest similarity that exists between Genesis 1-2:4a and Babylonian myth comes in the form of the Creation Myth presented in the Enuma Elish. The notable (and obvious) exception between the two myths is that, while the Enuma Elish presents a polytheistic model, the Genesis creation myth seems to lean towards a monotheistic model (we will address this after we examine the structural composition of the two myths). It is worth noting that, while they arrive at completely different answers, all of the myths which we will discuss attempt to define the relationship between divinity and humans and to why life in the ancient near east was so difficult. Let us begin by examining the narrative structure of the Enuma Elish.

We begin with two Gods, Apsu (male, relating to fresh water) and Tiamut (female, relating to salt water and chaos?) who exist in a formless void (Heidel, 3). From this initial generation comes Ahmu (male),  Lahamu (female) who are both silt deposits as well as Anshar (the rim of the sky) and Kishar (rim of the earth). Anshar and Kishar engender Anu (the sky). Anu gives birth to Ea and his wife is named Damkina.

At this point, we can already see similarities to the Genesis creation story. The basic, fundamental material elements of creation appear first (before they are structured and joined by life) but rather than these elements being made or shaped by a single God, acting as a divine architect, the Gods themselves make up the raw material of creation. This is a trend which continues throughout the Enuma Elish, which we will see as we return to its narrative.

The younger and older Gods are divided into two generations. Apsu and Tiamut form the elder generation, who have stagnated and prefer a lack of activity. The younger generation (comprised of all the Gods spawned by Apsu and Tiamut) have grown noisy and, irritated by this imposition, Apsu plans to kill them. The younger Gods learn of this plan and Ea puts Apsu to sleep and kills him. At this point Ea and Damkina build a house on Apsu’s body and have a son, Marduk. Anshar asks Marduk to kill Tiamut and Marduk agrees, as long as he’s made ruler over all of the Gods. Marduk and Tiamut meet in a titanic battle and, when she opens her mouth to swallow him, he sends the winds to lock her jaws open and shoots an arrow down her throat which pierces her heart.

He then vanquishes her army and captures her son and consort, Kingu. Marduk splits Tiamut in half, dividing the waters above from the waters below. He removes her eyes and the Tigris and Euphrates are formed. He puts the Gods in the heavens, which form the stars and is proclaimed King of the Gods. The Gods begin to work the land which Marduk has created but soon find that the work is too hard. Ea creates human beings out of clay and the blood of the executed Kingu so that the Gods will no longer have to work.

We can see from this summary that the prevailing message from the Enuma Elish is that the Babylonian Gods have, at best, an antipathetic relationship with Human beings and the world that they have created. The structural nature of the world is directly related to the creation and activities of the Gods and the Humans are only created as a subservient means to save the Gods from working the land. It establishes a series of etiological explanations for why life in the ancient Middle East was hard and the resounding explanation is the presence of an uncaring, fickle pantheon.

The Genesis narrative, on the other hand, presents a very similar narrative with two key (and significant) changes. The first is that the creation myth is presented with a single God. The Enuma Elish’s basic structure is kept, but rather than the birth and actions of various Gods being responsible for the stages of creation, each stage results directly from the action of a single deity and is represented by a single day:

Day 1 Created light. Light called day and darkness called night.

Day 2 Expanse between water from above and below. Expanse = Sky

Day 3 Dry ground / Vegetation: Plants and Trees. ” According to their various kinds”

Day 4 Light in sky to separate day and night. Sun / Moon / Stars

Day 5 Life in water and birds in the air. ” According to their various kinds”

Day 6 Land Animals ” Each according to its kind”     Then God created man in his image to rule over: Fish / Birds / Livestock     Every green plant is given for food.

The second significant difference lies in the relationship which is established between human beings and the divine. While in the Enuma Elish man is created to be a slave to the Gods, the prevailing message throughout Genesis is a single, loving and involved God who creates the earth and mankind in his own image. This distinction in divine attitudes persists when we compare the Genesis Flood Story with the other flood narratives of the Ancient Near East.

The accounts are nearly identical in their narrative. Each of them follows the basic formula of :

1. God(s) create humans
2. There is a problem with the humans.
3. God(s) send a flood.
4. A new order is created to fix the problems which existed before the flood

The differences lie in the moral tone of each story and the manner in which God(s) are depicted. Let us begin by examining the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The Gilgamesh epic uses the flood story as method of explaining human mortality. The story focuses on Gilgamesh’s quest to become immortal, after the death of his friend Enkidu. Because this issue of mortality is the central narrative thread in the story the flood component is only used in relation explaining human mortality. Gilgamesh encounters Utnapishtim, an immortal man and asks him how he gained his immortality. As Utnapishtim relates his story, we can see clear parallels between him and Noah in the Genesis flood story. However, the reasons for the flood are not stressed, only that Utnapishtim’s reward for being a dutiful servant and saving humanity was immortality. In this sense, the Gilgamesh epic is not concerned with the hows and whys of the Flood, only in its usefulness for explaining the problem of why people die (Frymer-Kensky 154-5).

In the Atrahasis epic, on the other hand, is a more direct parallel with the Genesis flood story (the scope of the Atrahasis epic is much broader than merely describing the flood, but we will focus on the flood component alone for now). In the Atrahasis the flood is used to describe the antagonistic relationship between the Gods and humanity (the flood is sent because the humans have grown to populous and are too noisy). The narrative of the flood itself is almost identical to that of the story in Genesis, but there is a major difference in tone. The Atrahasis epic gives us an interesting window into the psyches of the Babylonian people (Boadt 127).

When we consider the climate and geography of the ancient Middle East, with its droughts, storms and floods it is easy to imagine why their Gods were depicted as angry, fickle beings. It is the obvious explanation for the climatic woes which beset them.

If we turn now to Genesis we can see that while the flood narrative is essentially the same, the moral and depiction of God’s relationship to mankind is completely different. While in the Atrahasis epic presents a relatively flippant reason for the floods (the humans were annoying) the Genesis flood is released by God because the world has become corrupted. To say that it was simply because humans had been wicked undermines the deeper meaning of the shift in moral and tone. If it were merely a case of human beings being wicked, why not simply wipe out the humans rather than killing the humans and everything else on earth? We can gain an understanding of both God’s motivations for the flood and society and belief in ancient Israel if we examine the covenant God presents to Noah and his sons after the flood.

• God’s covenant contains 3 basic rules:
• Be fruitful and multiply
• You may eat animals, but not alive and no drinking blood
• No one, beast or man, may kill a human being

The first covenant seems to be in direct opposition to the Babylonian explanation of overpopulation and the annoying nature of humans as a reason for the flood.

The second covenant contains clues about both Israelite society and culture and the third covenant. First we can infer that before the flood, if vegetarianism wasn’t the norm then eating meat was, at the very least, a taboo. Second, the mention of blood and the prohibition of drinking it hints at the strong significance of blood in Israelite culture.

Frymer-Kensey (152) comments that blood holds a special significance for the ancient Israelites. They believed that the spirit of an animal (and possibly humans?) existed in the blood. It was a great taboo to spill the blood of an animal anywhere outside of the temple. The blood spatter on the altar was considered redemptive.

The commandment against killing human beings is a new one. In other near eastern legal systems it seems that capital punishment is widespread. We need only to look to Hammurabi’s law code, which proscribed capital punishment for many offences. Frymer-Kensey (152) notes that in Israel, capital punishment was reserved only for the most serious offences against God and was ‘never invoked for offences against property’. Conversely, murder could not be rectified by commercial means, only the death of the murder could set things right.

We can infer from the 3^rd commandment that the antediluvian Israel was as enthused with capital punishment as the rest of the world. Frymer-Kensey (153) suggests that it is this which is the reason that God sent the flood in genesis. He suggests that Murder has its consequences for both the murderer and the earth itself. In Gen 4:10-12 God tells Cain that the blood he spilled on the ground has made it infertile for him. In Israelite theology, the blood of innocents, when spilled on the ground, passes a physical taint to the earth itself, corrupting it. By the time of the flood, the sheer scale of the murder of innocents meant that the whole earth was physically corrupted from the blood spilt upon it. We know (from Acts, Leviticus and Ezekiel) that the ancient Israelites believed that physical acts of moral wrongdoing tainted people and places physically.  Frymer-Kensey (153) sums it up beautifully:

“The flood is not primarily an agent of punishment … but a means of getting rid of a thoroughly polluted world and starting again with a clean, washed one”

Bibliography

• Boadt, L. Reading the Old Testament, New York, Paulist Press, 1984
• Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, “The Atrahasis Epic and its Significance for our understanding of Genesis 1-9” Biblical Archaeologist 40 (4), 1977 pp.147-155
• Heidel, A. The Babylonian Genesis, Chicago: University of Chicargo Press, 1963
• King James Bible.