Don’t Miss the Boat! : A Geologist’s Take on the Historicity of Noah’s Ark (Guest Post)

Jonathan Baker

The story of Noah and his ark is one that will never lose its ability to captivate young minds. When I was a child, I regularly reenacted the scene in our bathtub with plastic figures (unbeknownst to my parents, who were paying the water bill) and shared the story with my friends. But then something terrible happened: we all grew up. Some simply drifted away from the congregation, consigning the fanciful tale to the naïveté of their youth. For those who remained in the church, we may have heard the narrative in passing, but rarely as the focus of any single sermon. More than 200 years of historical and scientific research have incited the world to mock our beloved Noah, and many a preacher will not dare risk controversy by recounting the narrative as historical—or worse, as ahistorical. Has Noah’s ark finally capsized in a deluge of intellectualism, more than 4,000 years after the waters receded?

Christians have responded in various manners: some, through cognizant dissonance; others, through scientific dereliction. The latter case is exemplified by recent efforts to construct a theme park centered around a ‘life-sized’ ark. “What if we built the Ark (out of wood) today,” asks the Ark Encounter website. “What a powerful outreach to teach the world about God’s Word and the message of salvation!”

My reaction is torn. I understand the importance of Noah’s ark to the biblical narrative, but attached to the Ark Encounter’s evangelistic message are dubious, pseudoscientific claims regarding Earth history. As a geologist, I recognize that if Noah’s flood covered the Earth in our recent past, then it failed to leave a mark. Tragically, I have seen many Christians ‘jump ship’ after assenting to the same, but organizations like Answers in Genesis continue to insist that either it ‘really happened’ or Christianity is without a foundation. If this dichotomy is a false one, however, then by constructing an ark in Kentucky, we are chipping away at the ark that is Christ’s church.

I propose that the solution is profoundly simple and rooted in Scripture: “Make yourself an ark of gopher wood” (Gen. 6:14). Yes, let’s build an ark out of wood today—not of Kentucky pine, but of gopher wood. The term gopher, which has been left untranslated from the Hebrew, connects the story of Noah to that of Abraham and Moses. Derived from Akkadian, the word means “pasture” or “meadow” and is recounted by its linguistic cognate to describe Abraham and his descendants as Hebrews (gfr vs. hbr). Conceptually, the term also appears in the birth story of Moses, whose mother constructed an ark of papyrus reeds (i.e. wood from the meadow) coated with pitch (Exod. 2:3). The blueprint for Noah’s ark, itself a scaled-up version of the tabernacle, anticipates the building of God’s temple and, ultimately, Christ’s church. All are centered around an Israel of God built from living stones, whose vocation remains the same today. Set on the chaotic seas, we are called to take part in calming the waters by His Spirit (Gen. 8:1), as Noah did when he sent out the raven (Gen. 8:7).

Now that the beads are strung, let’s tie the Pentateuchal necklace together. Moses, whose name means child, is the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15) that would die the death of Adam (Gen. 3:19; Deut. 34:5–6) on behalf of his people (Deut. 1:37) so that they might reenter and cultivate the garden of God (Gen. 3:20; Deut. 1:39). These are the literary elements so elegantly captured in the gospel narratives, so that Christ might be understood to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17) as one greater than Moses (Matt. 17:1–5; John 6) and return his people to Eden like Joshua (cf. Josh. 5:13–15).

I submit to you, therefore, that the historical question of Genesis 6–9 is not primarily ‘whether it really happened’, but how is it happening now? The author of Genesis transformed an ancient tradition to present two ever-present realities common to the human condition: the justice and redemption of God. The grand irony of the narrative is that the cause of the flood itself (Gen. 6:5) and the promise never to flood again (Gen. 8:21) are one and the same: that the formations of man’s heart are wicked. This contradictory dialogue, which makes sense only in the reality of the cross (Rom. 3:25-6), foreshadows the heart-transforming gospel entrusted to us for the nations.

Perhaps the $24.5 million cost of the Ark Encounter would be better spent in service to our struggling communities and churches? Don’t miss the boat by overlooking the artistry of God’s narrative and the canonical significance of Genesis. Our ark is already being built, and on a foundation of far fewer materials—two planks and three nails.

Jonathan Baker is currently a Ph.D. student in geology and holds M.S./B.S. degrees in the same. The focus of his dissertation research is the use of stable-isotope geochemistry to characterize mid-Holocene climate change and modern climate dynamics of the Volga Basin and Izhora Plateau (Russia). Twelve years ago, he developed a passion for the Earth sciences while studying scientific questions raised by proponents of Young-Earth Creationism. His academic journey is recounted by his blog, Questioning Answers in Genesis, wherein he discusses geological and science/faith topics in light of the Young-Earth movement. In his spare time, he enjoys studying theology, literary criticism, and Russian language. He currently lives with his wife and two ferrets in Las Vegas, Nevada, but is looking forward to moving to St. Petersburg, Russia this May.

 

Jonathan Baker
Jonathan is a guest contributor to The Two Cities.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You might also enjoy…

14 responses to “Don’t Miss the Boat! : A Geologist’s Take on the Historicity of Noah’s Ark (Guest Post)”

  1. John Anthony Dunne
    John Anthony Dunne

    Jonathan,

    Thanks for writing for us. I appreciate the creativity of this post and the way you wrestled with the historicity of Noah’s Ark. I can’t begin to question you at the level of geology and science, so I respect your perspective and will attempt to respond with my limited scientific knowledge.

    I have two non-scientific critiques. I think you present two false dichotomies:

    First, I think you presented a false dichotomy by stating that the historical question behind Genesis 6-9 is not whether it really happened but rather how is it happening now. I would say that both questions are important (although I feel that your ‘now’ application is a bit too allegorical for my sensibilities). So I would simply say that personally I’m not ready to place the historicity of Noah’s Ark on the shelf just yet.

    Second, you’ve presented us with a false dichotomy since it appears like you’re exclusively interacting with a fundamentalist version of Noah’s Flood, i.e. its either a global flood or no flood (e.g. Answers in Genesis). As I’m sure you’re aware, several biblical and scientific scholars hold a ‘local flood position.’ So as a geologist would you find that view compatible with your understanding of Earth history? However, can I stir the pot a bit more? I’m skeptical of the local flood view primarily because of God’s promise never to destroy the world by a flood again. So i’m not sure how one who holds to the local flood could legitimately square God’s promise with the fact that local floods happen perennially! Thoughts?

    So in short, I really respect this post and your scientific knowledge, though I’m not ready to agree with you. However, your thoughts are welcome here. We don’t want to shy away from these discussions. This is exactly why blogs exist. I’d be interested to hear more from you regarding your unique insights as a scientist. Thanks for getting us all to think about this issue!

    PS I’ve been to the creation museum in Kentucky ; )

    Reply
  2. Jon Baker

    John,

    Thanks for the opportunity and for the feedback. Let me say first that my intention in this article was not to wrestle with the historicity of the story, per se. Though I mention my take on the geological evidence in passing, I would summarize my main point thusly: “Our obsession with the historicity of this narrative has detracted from our understanding of how the story functions canonically and relates to the vocation of the church.” The unfortunate result for the church, in my opinion, is a major stumbling block at the door and rather uncomfortable pews.

    So I did not intend to present a dichotomy of any kind with regard to the historical question (hence my use of ‘primarily’). In fact, I do think it is important to ask ‘whether it happened’ and how that might have looked, so long as we recognize this to be a historical-critical task (one that is potentially at odds with faithful exegesis).

    The second dichotomy you attribute to me (global flood or no flood) I attribute to AiG and the like. I do not believe in this dichotomy, but I did not engage with the spectrum of Christian thought because it was beyond the purview of this (short) article. The notion of a local flood is broadly consistent with archaeological/geological evidence (although that evidence is too sparse to draw any real conclusions either way). Regardless, I do not think Gen. 6–9 describes a local flood in its present form. My take is that the author of Genesis has transformed (and even critiqued) an ancient tradition/mythology that possibly/probably refers back to a devastating (but local) flood. These ancient traditions formed the cultural fabric from which Israel was cut, so it is only fitting that she interact with those claims and their underlying worldview. Since the author of this narrative was rather artistic with the ‘facts’ of the story (e.g. 40 days of rain), and used them to his literary advantage, I would be cautious to say that the narrative was intended to provide us with the ‘documentary’ details.

    I’m sure there will be more to come, so I’ll stop there. 🙂

    Reply
  3. John Anthony Dunne
    John Anthony Dunne

    Jon,

    I’ll interact with each paragraph in order.

    You’re right on one level that there is a grand meta-narrative to scripture that the church desperately needs to grasp. However, on the other hand, I wouldn’t want to miss the trees amidst the grand forest of the biblical narrative. So sure, the reverberations of the Noah story are echoed throughout scripture and there are timeless truths about God’s character and humanity’s need of redemption interwoven in this narrative (among other things), but I wouldn’t want to simply condense the narrative to theology, which is why I push back at the ‘big picture’ idea you’ve presented.

    Fair enough.

    Granted. You had a limited presentation for us. But you aren’t persuaded towards the local flood idea? In regards to ancient mythology, it is quite clear that Genesis is engaging with ANE ideas throughout. Often times it is subversive and polemical as you suggest (there are several examples as I assume you know already). The story of Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh has some surprising similarities with Genesis 6-9. Yet I wonder if this is simply evidence of an original event which was received by different cultures in the ANE in different yet similar ways. But regardless of direction of influence, Gen 6-9 doesn’t appear polemical to me as, say, in the reference to the sea dragon in Gen 1.21. So I’m not entirely sure how it is being “counter-cultural” so to speak. How do you imagine Gen 6-9 to engage other cultures?

    Thanks for your notes of clarification!

    Reply
    1. John Anthony Dunne
      John Anthony Dunne

      One more thought: What exactly do you mean by saying that the text in its present form doesn’t support a local flood view? To be honest, the only thing holding me back from this position is God’s promise not to destroy the world again with a flood. Other than that specific statement, the rest of the descriptions regarding the flood fit naturally within the Cosmic Geography of ancient Israelites. From them, the idea that the “land” (ארץ) was completely covered with water would never have been conceived in a modern sense of the word “global” since they had no perception of the size of the earth, etc… So I’d be curious to hear your thoughts, if you’d like, regarding how the “present form” doesn’t convey a local flood.

      Thanks!

      Reply
      1. Jon Baker

        When I was originally pursuing these questions, I was fairly convinced by a local flood interpretation (I still maintain that it was a local flood, but not for exegetical reasons). On my blog (June 2011) you can find a more lengthy discussion of that idea, including an attempt to incorporate the promise into a local context (Israel’s cosmic geography, as you say).

        I refer to the text “in its present form” to allow for the possibility that Gen. 6–9 itself has a compositional history (I’m inclined to agree that it does). If one examines only the ‘non-Priestly’ fragments, it seems one could make a good case for a local flood that was framed geographically with respect to the parallel, non-Priestly creation narrative (Eden). However, the ‘Priestly’ author frames the narrative in terms of a new creation of the cosmos that loses its significance if read as a regional phenomenon. Whether or not one accepts the source division, the present canonical form must be understood in terms of Genesis 1 and following.

        One may also consider that older versions of the flood have the ark landing on the highest mountains known to their audience. The Genesis narrative cites the (even higher) Mountains of Ararat—the highest peaks known to its own audience. It’s clear that the author intends us to read the the event as global, since he has adapted it to the ‘growing’ geographical knowledge of the ANE.

        Reply
    2. Jon Baker

      John,

      I’m glad you highlighted the risk of “condensing the narrative to theology”. Though ostensibly I hope to avoid this, I depend on critiques like yours to make it work. 🙂 In my opinion, tackling the question of historicity is far more involved than elucidating the narrative’s theology, because it requires that we understand how the historiographical methods applied in Genesis differ from our highly nuanced, post-Enlightenment expectations. NT scholars face similar issues when trying to extract biographical and historical information from the gospels, which themselves do not accord to our genres of biography and history. This analogy is not entirely fair, but I hope it begins to clarify my approach.

      The ‘polemic’ of the flood narrative has been widely discussed by more capable authors than myself, but I’ll offer a few points. First, the polemic is subtle and not the main thrust of the text. It rejects the bickering within a pantheon—itself subject to the chaotic realm—in favor of the holy and sovereign God of Israel. It reinterprets the flood as a just judgment on the rebellious ‘adam’ (note the use of this term in Gen. 6). In Gilgamesh, surviving the flood was the means to ‘eternal blessedness’; in Genesis, the heart of ‘the adam’ was still wicked from his youth. Genesis anticipates a covenantal relationship with Yahweh as the foundation for its worship, social structure, and ‘foreign policy’ so to speak.

      For Sumeria, the flood story had already been transformed into a founding myth of their culture (an etiology of the kingship/cities of the valley). Babylonian versions subverted that text in favor of their own pantheon and festivals (I’m simplifying a bit). To retell this story as Genesis does deconstructs not only pagan theology, but the very foundations of Babylonian society.

      You’re question about the direction of influence is valid. I’m inclined to state the direction thusly because of intertextual relationships between Genesis and Atrahasis/Gilgamesh (much in the same way that NT scholars argue for Markan priority, etc.). As with the gospels, however, this observation does not preclude the texts from describing an original event that was received differently by various cultures. It merely argues that the Genesis author was aware of these texts and intended to incorporate them somehow.

      Reply
      1. John Anthony Dunne
        John Anthony Dunne

        Thanks for your response regarding ANE stuff. I guess calling it polemical is just a matter of perception. There are conflicting theologies at work, no doubt. Its all very interesting. I’m glad to see you studied ANE writings! That was one of my favorite classes in Seminary.

        But what about your point that the present form of the text doesn’t comport with a local flood view? Can you briefly address that? I appreciate the back and forth discussion. I’ll go ahead and announce that this will be my last comment for you, but I eagerly await your response to my local flood question. Peace.

        Reply
  4. SM

    You marginalize a big group of people by seeming to lump all pro-historicity people in with the pro-ark-building people. Not to mention global-flood-believing geologists who disagree with your “it failed to leave a mark” comment, and would also not feel the need to build an ark theme park.
    One problem you don’t address is that the lessons we are meant to learn from the ark depend on its historicity. For example, in 2 Peter 2, the author lists the flood as evidence that God “knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment”. In the next chapter, he uses the “fact” of the flood as a pointer to the judgement by fire coming “by the same word”. Citing an event that God didn’t actually do as evidence of his character is meaningless, and using it to bolster an argument for future destruction is self-defeating.

    Reply
    1. Jon Baker

      SM,

      I’m not sure that I lumped these groups together in the article. Regardless, it was not my intention. I recognize that even many supporters of AiG are critical of the Ark Encounter project. As I commented above, my hope was not to address the historicity of the narrative (though I anticipated the discussion would lead that way) but to question whether a preoccupation with the historical-critical question might have detracted from a more important message to the detriment of the modern church.

      Had I the space, I would have addressed the relationship of NT citations to the historicity of the narrative (e.g. 2 Peter 2). Since I don’t reject its historicity (only the flat-footed interpretations of ‘how’ it happened), I did not see this point as pertinent. Peter’s reference to the flood is brief and exegetical (i.e. not critical), and it’s a stretch, in my opinion, to say that his mere reference to the story bolsters a particular hermeneutical approach (i.e. this is a ‘fact’ in terms of 21st-century historiography). Besides, Peter also references an apocryphal interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4 in the prior verse that is far removed from the historical meaning of the original narrative.

      I still maintain that there is no geological evidence for a global flood, but that discussion is the aim of my own blog. Though there are geologists that disagree with my comment, I have yet to see any substantive argument from them otherwise, and many of their attempts have been intellectually dishonest in my opinion. If I am wrong, please feel free to direct those arguments my way (my personal contact info is posted on my blog, if you prefer).

      Thanks for your comments, and I apologize that I seem to have marginalized those groups in my article.

      Reply
      1. SM

        John, thanks for your reply. I mention the geologist not to bring up the discussion of ark geology, but because you seemed to only address two groups, the non-literalists and the ark builders. I just wanted to remind of the other people.
        And I also didn’t want to bring up the historicity argument for its own sake, but rather to say that “how is it happening now?” cannot be divorced from “whether it really happened”, at least from 2 Peter’s point of view.
        Personally (although the price tag isn’t justified), I would like to see the ark built. Not for evangelistic purposes, but because it would be really cool to visit.

        Reply
        1. Jon Baker

          Yes, despite my comments here, I am very interested to visit the final product. 🙂 I will visit first chance I get.

          You are right that the two concepts cannot be divorced. However, by use of the terms “not primarily A, but B” my hope was to say ‘Let’s get the application of the story—a valid reading for the church and her vocation—before we divide the church over a hermeneutical conflict and marginalize ourselves from modern society.’ Because I see evidence that the Genesis author was a bit ‘playful’ with the factual details of the story, I felt justified in concluding that within the Pentateuch, the story was primarily (but not only) intended to prefigure the wilderness experience of Israel, etc. rather than reconstruct the events to the satisfaction of, say, a documentary filmmaker.

          Thanks again for your feedback!

          Reply
  5. Virginia Peterson

    You mention Gen. 3:15, “the seed of the woman”, as referring to Moses. I’ve never run across that interpretation before – how does that fit better than the usual interpretation that it refers to Christ?

    Reply
    1. Jon Baker

      Virginia, nice catch. 🙂 I’m not denying that the ‘seed of the woman’ motif finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ. However, there are many steps along the way (e.g. the story of Tamar and Judah in Gen. 38, which is even recounted by Matthew 1 before identifying Jesus as the seed of the woman in the virgin birth narrative).

      Within the Pentateuchal narrative (to which I restricted that statement), I would try to argue that Moses takes on that role most explicitly (see Exod. 1–2). He is the seed (of the Hebrew woman) that Pharaoh sought to destroy. Jesus is depicted as the seed of the woman, in part because he (like Moses) was threatened by Herod (identified with Pharaoh) before birth. Note also the emphasis on women in the birth narrative and rescue of Moses (the father is mentioned so briefly as to be absent from the picture). Exodus 2:2-3 is most telling to me: the mother of Moses “saw that he was good” (same phraseology as in Eve’s depiction of the fruit that precipitated the curse and Gen. 3:15; i.e. a thematic reversal), so she took an “ark made of reeds and covered it with pitch”. There is a clear intertextual link, therefore, between Moses and Noah and Adam (the flood narrative is quite explicit that Noah is a type of new Adam).

      Lastly, the promise in Gen. 3:20 that “[Eve] shall be called the mother of the living” wraps the chiastic story around on itself (cf. Gen. 2:7, ‘the adam’ was called a living creature). It anticipates that the woman’s seed would be a sort of new Adam, through whom mankind might re-enter the garden of God. Moses took on that role for Israel, who became known as the ‘firstborn son of God’. Deuteronomy also frames the imminent conquest of the land as a return to Eden by a generation that ‘does not yet know good and evil’.

      I apologize if my thoughts seem scattered/disorganized. I am writing hurriedly and drawing from a number of sources here; also, I am not the first to suggest this sort of literary unity between narratives through repetition of motifs. In any case, I realize that by themselves, these observations may seem coincidence or tenuous connections. The preponderance of literary patterns, however, falls in favor of a common thread that weaves this mosaic of narratives together. Or so I would like to think. 🙂 Thanks for your feedback.

      Reply
  6. Don’t miss the boat! | Age of Rocks

    […] currently on hold here. In the meantime, I am redirecting you to a guest post I authored, entitled “Don’t Miss the Boat!” The (short) article was published recently on The Two Cities blog, which many of you will find a […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *