This description of a worldwide flood, in which the highest of mountains was submerged and which led to the deaths of all living creatures except Noah, his immediate family, and the animals taken into the ark, seems to stretch credulity well beyond its breaking point.  The water would have been more than five miles above normal sea level: where did all that water come from, and where, when the flood subsided, did it go to?

Comparative Ancient Near East Literature

Noah’s flood has many parallels in the literature of the ANE.  The Epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia, the Babylonian story of Atrahasis, and Sumerian text known as the Eridu Genesis have a number of similarities with the Genesis account.  Each of these records a flood sent by the gods to destroy the world, except for a Noah-like figure and his family, who survived in an ark.

These multiple accounts suggest a single catastrophe that was independently remembered in different cultures.

1. A global flood?

Richard Davidson (EDBT) writes,

‘Many lines of biblical evidence converge in affirming the universal extent of the flood and also reveal the theological significance of this conclusion:

1. the trajectory of major themes in Genesis 1-11-creation, fall, plan of redemption, spread of sin-is universal in scope and calls for a matching universal judgment;

2. the genealogical lines from both Adam (Gen 4:17-26; 5:1-31 ) and Noah (Gen 10:1-32 11:1-9 ) are exclusive in nature, indicating that as Adam was father of all preflood humanity, so Noah was father of all postflood humanity;

3. the same inclusive divine blessing to be fruitful and multiply is given to both Adam and Noah; (Gen 1:28; 9:1 )

4. the covenant (Gen 9:9-10 ) and its rainbow sign (Gen 9:12-17 ) are clearly linked with the extent of the flood; (Gen 9:16,18 ) if there was only a local flood, then the covenant would be only a limited covenant;

5. the viability of God’s promise (Gen 9:15; cf. Isa 54:9) is wrapped up in the universality of the flood; if only a local flood occurred, then God has broken his promise every time another local flood has happened;

6. the universality of the flood is underscored by the enormous size of the ark (Gen 6:14-15 ) and the stated necessity for saving all the species of animals and plants in the ark; (Gen 6:16-21; 7:2-3 ) a massive ark filled with representatives of all nonaquatic animal/plant species would be unnecessary if this were only a local flood;

7. the covering of “all the high mountains” by at least twenty feet of water (Gen 7:19-20 ) could not involve simply a local flood, since water seeks its own level across the surface of the globe;

8. the duration of the flood (Noah in the ark over a year, Gen 7:11-8:14) makes sense only with a universal flood;

9. the New Testament passages concerning the flood all employ universal language (“took them all away”; (Mt 24:39 ) “destroyed them all”; (Lk 17:27 ) Noah “condemned the world”; (Heb 11:7 ).

10. the New Testament flood typology assumes and depends upon the universality of the flood to theologically argue for an imminent worldwide judgment by fire.’ (2 Pet 3:6-7 )

2. A local flood?

Instone-Brewer (Science and the Bible, ch. 11) argues for a local flood.

The word for ‘earth’ (the narrative doesn’t use the word for ‘world’ at all) can mean simply ‘land’ or ‘country’.  So, by itself, it does not imply a worldwide flood.  The ‘global’ language of Gen 41:57, for example, is clearly not to be taken literally.  (See also Col 1:23).

According to Gen 7:20, the flood waters rose to over 20 feet above the highest har.  This word can mean anything from a mountain (Ex 19:18) to a hill (1 Kings 16:24) or even to a hillock (1 Sam 26:13).

We do not know how widely the human race had spread across the globe by the time of the Flood.  It is possible, then, that even a fairly localised flood could have wiped out the entire human population of the world apart from those saved on the ark.

When Gen 7:19 says that the flood covered everything ‘under the entire heavens’, this could mean everywhere (Deut 4:19) or everywhere between the two horizons (Job 37:3).  It is used in Deut 2:25 to refer to the lands borderng Palestine.

We can conclude from these first three points that, from the linguistic point of view, the flood could be considered as covering every mountain on earth, or covering all the hills as far as the eye can see.

In the 1930s, archaeological evidence was found of one or more floods, dating back to before 3,000 BC, that covered a large area of the Mesopotamian plain (140,000 square miles).  The area is mainly flat, with just a few small hills.  The deposited silt was up to six feet deep.  It must have had a devastating effect on the entire population.

According to Gen 8:1, a strong wind blew the ark towards the mountains of Ararat.  Although v4 can be understood as meaning either that the ark came to rest ‘on the mountains’, or ‘among, or near, the mountains’

On the assumption of a world-wide flood, the dove could not have found a fresh olive leaf (all the trees having been submerged for at least seven months (note too that olive trees do not grow much above 1,000 metres).

The local flood hypotheses allows for the ark to have been populated with a limited number of pairs of animals and birds – especially those which had been domesticated.

Instone-Brewer concludes:

‘The details about Noah in the Bible text are therefore compatible with the interpretation that this flood covered all the hills in the land that Noah and his civilization lived in, leaving his family as the only survivors, floating in a boat on water that stretched as far as the eye could see.’

However, 2 Pet 3:3-7 draws a clear parallel between the Genesis Flood and the fiery final judgment.  If the latter is to be worldwide, as it certainly will be, it might be argued that the former must have been worldwide also, or else the parallel would break down.

According to the relevant entry in Hard Sayings of the Bible, the jury is still out on the question of whether the Flood was a local or a worldwide phenomenon.  Either way, it was a terrible judgment of God on human wickedness.

3. Hyperbolic account?

Enns and Byas (Genesis For Normal People) notes that there are a number of other accounts – from ancient Sumeria, Assyria and Babylon – of a catastrophic flood affecting the ancient Near East.  These pre-date the biblical account.  Archaeologists suppose that such a flood occurred around 2900 BC.

This Biologos article argues for an interpretation that takes the characteristics of ancient literature and cosmology seriously:

‘The scientific and historical evidence is now clear: there has never been a global flood that covered the entire earth, nor do all modern animals and humans descend from the passengers of a single vessel.’

So,

It is necessary to ask what a biblical narrative would have meant to its original readers, and also to re-visit our own interpretation in the light of scientific knowledge.

Many ancient texts (including the Gilgamesh Epic) have a story about a catastrophic flood.  The account given in Genesis 6-9 may well draw on a common cultural memory of such an event.

The point of the biblical story is not to give precise facts about what happened, but rather to use the story to convey a message about God and humankind.

The story itself contains many clues that indicate that it is not meant to be understood literally.  The descriptions of the extent and duration of the flood, the size of the ark, and the number of animals carried in it all suggest that the literary device of hyperbole is being used.  Moreover, the instruction to treat ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ animals differently is anachronistic, since such a distinction was not made until the time of Moses.

We should also consider the general nature of the first eleven chapters of Genesis: these cover a huge swathe of history and serve as ‘a grand and poetic “introduction” to the story of God’s people’ which begins with the call of Abraham in Genesis 12.

The Flood story not only draws on ancient styles of literature but also on ancient ideas about cosmology:

‘Ancient Near Eastern people thought that rain comes from an ocean above the sky (which explains why the sky is blue), and that this ocean wraps all the way around the earth (which explains why deep wells always hit water). They also thought of the “whole Earth” as simply the edges of their current maps, which mostly consisted of today’s Middle East.’

The Flood narrative relies on the same assumptions: as the ‘firmament’ above the earth collapses and the ‘fountains of the deep’ explode, the earth returns cataclysmically to the chaos of Gen 1:2, and a new start must be made.  And all of this is due to the chaos of sin.

It follows that notions about a ‘global’ flood are beyond the point (the ancients did not know that the earth was a ‘globe’), as are speculations about water sources, ark buoyancy, geological effects, post-Flood animal migrations, and so on.

The view just outlined should not be taken as undermining the biblical doctrine of inspiration:

‘God chose to communicate his message through ordinary people, accommodating himself to their limited knowledge in order to draw themselves to him.’

In conclusion:

‘The story of Noah, the Ark, and Flood speaks an inspired and powerful message about judgment and grace, that has instructed God’s people throughout the ages about God’s hatred of sin and his love for his creation. Most importantly, we see God’s promise never to destroy the Earth again fully realized in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, where God takes the judgment for sin upon himself rather than humanity. Thus, through the lens of Christ, the biblical Flood story proclaims the marvelous news of God’s grace and love for his people.’