How many animals did Noah take aboard the ark?

"Cattle of every kind"

How many kinds of cattle were there? Holsteins and Texan longhorns and Angus ... Wikipedia List of breeds of cattle says that there are over 800 breeds of cattle.

TomS said: "Cattle of every kind" How many kinds of cattle were there? Holsteins and Texan longhorns and Angus ... Wikipedia List of breeds of cattle says that there are over 800 breeds of cattle.

Ah, but most of those breed only evolved after the Flood!

Well, beetles are clean, at least according to one passage from an English translation, so how many of each species were brought in? Especially considering the Designer's fondness for them.

Dung beetles presumably would do quite well, and flies would be wonderfully abundant, too, so no troubles there. One wonders how many aphids Noah brought along for the ladybugs, though, and how they were kept fresh. Carrion beetles probably ate the dinosaurs, which apparently died. Did Noah grow pine trees for the pine beetles, fig trees for fig wasps?

Come on, Ken, we need the science behind all of this.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Come on, Ken, we need the science behind all of this.

All Noah needed was two of each "kind," as after the flood ebbed and animals were again set forth upon the soggy earth, they immediately began to furiously breed, producing the creationist Noahian "explosion" of species after species evolving so rapidly before his eyes into the so many different animals we see today. Why, it even would put the Cambrian "explosion" to shame it happened so durn fast.

DavidK said: All Noah needed was two of each "kind," as after the flood ebbed and animals were again set forth upon the soggy earth, they immediately began to furiously breed, producing the creationist Noahian "explosion" of species after species evolving so rapidly before his eyes into the so many different animals we see today. Why, it even would put the Cambrian "explosion" to shame it happened so durn fast.

Does Richard Friedman separate the Gilgamesh flood account into J and P as well?

Since we are neither creationists nor ID advocates, whoever proposes the Documentary Hypothesis has to specify what happened when. The Gilgamesh Epic is about 1,000 years older than the Noah account in Genesis. Supposedly the Genesis account derives from Gilgamesh. Did the J author read Gilgamesh and write down his take on the flood? Then did the P source read Gilgamesh and spin things his way? And then the Redactor "skilfully wove the two accounts together"? (Or not so skillfully.)

That sounds like a weird sequence to me. It's simpler to assume a single Gilgamesh account became a single Genesis account (Occam's Razor).

Or is Gilgamesh a single source J? Or is it P?

Do the Elohist and Deuteronomist sources play any role here?

And then the Redactor “skilfully wove the two accounts together”? (Or not so skillfully.)

Carl Drews said: Does Richard Friedman separate the Gilgamesh flood account into J and P as well? Since we are neither creationists nor ID advocates, whoever proposes the Documentary Hypothesis has to specify what happened when. The Gilgamesh Epic is about 1,000 years older than the Noah account in Genesis. Supposedly the Genesis account derives from Gilgamesh. Did the J author read Gilgamesh and write down his take on the flood? Then did the P source read Gilgamesh and spin things his way? And then the Redactor "skilfully wove the two accounts together"? (Or not so skillfully.) That sounds like a weird sequence to me. It's simpler to assume a single Gilgamesh account became a single Genesis account (Occam's Razor). Or is Gilgamesh a single source J? Or is it P? Do the Elohist and Deuteronomist sources play any role here?

Genesis seems to be out to reconcile different versions of similar accounts

"History of the Documentary Hypothesis" http://trinity-evangelical-church.org/resources/articles/sm_documentary.pdf

It's been conceded for some time now that the Documentary Hypothesis is, in its further reaches, overblown. The attempt to attribute passages in the Pentateuch to specific separate authors, and to deduce the chronology from what is assumed to be their contributions, is to build out from insecure foundations.

Nevertheless, the textual evidence from doublets, variations in vocabulary, outlook, narrative differences and style is sufficient to say that there were multiple authors and multiple sources. FL's article simply handwaves these aside, engaging in special pleading to do so.

It goes further to assert that the tradition is right, and Moses wrote the whole thing, except the last few verses of Deuteronomy. Even more, it asserts that the text itself says he wrote it. Well, it doesn't.

Dave Luckett said: It goes further to assert that the tradition is right, and Moses wrote the whole thing, except the last few verses of Deuteronomy. Even more, it asserts that the text itself says he wrote it. Well, it doesn't.

Dave Luckett said: Even more, it asserts that the text itself says he wrote it. Well, it doesn't.

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said: Even more, it asserts that the text itself says he wrote it. Well, it doesn't.

You mean [gasp!] his source (and through it, FL) claims that the Bible says things that it actually doesn't? I am shocked. Shocked, I say! Have these people, in the end, no decency at all?

TomS said:

Dave Luckett said: It goes further to assert that the tradition is right, and Moses wrote the whole thing, except the last few verses of Deuteronomy. Even more, it asserts that the text itself says he wrote it. Well, it doesn't.

It possible that the Omphalos Hypothesis is true: that God created the universe some few thousands years ago (or Last Tuesay) with all the appearances, from the beginning, of there having had a history of billions of years. It is possible that God dictated the Pentateuch to Moses with all the appearances of its being written centuries in the future. What I don't understand is why any one would balk at the Mosaic authorship of the last chapter of Deuteronomy. Why could not God have revealed to Moses his death, burial, and future standing, and that Moses could not have also written that?

Real scientists are glad when new data is discovered, because it gives them additional ways to test their hypotheses and hopefully get closer to the truth. Richard Freidman's field of study is the origin of the Hebrew Bible. The flood story in the Gilgamesh Epic is relevant to his field of study. Yes, it's a big field. He does not have to deal with Gilgamesh in one particular book, or certainly in one particular research paper. But sooner or later the Documentary Hypothesis has to reckon with Gilgamesh and determine how that earlier flood story fits into the hypothesis. Paleontologists don't get to ignore fossils. Proposals contrary to the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible do not get a free pass to behave like the Intelligent Design movement.

To review, I registered a mild objection to the following model of the flood story:

Single text Gilgamesh -> dual texts J and P -> single text Genesis 6-8

Glen Davidson doesn't like that model either; he proposes that the Gilg and Gen accounts derive from a common older source, not Gilg straight to Gen.

I don't dispute that the Pentateuch has multiple authors.

When I read the original post, I tried to test the Documentary Hypothesis. How many animals of each kind does Utnapishtim say were brought onto the Ark? That information should tell us if Gilgamesh is J or P. Gilgamesh ought to be identifiable as J or P if the DH is true. Answer: My translation of Gilgamesh merely says "take aboard the ship examples of every living creature." No animal counts are given. This is one reason why I don't like the Documentary Hypothesis; it fails to make successful predictions.

I prefer Glen Davidson's model.

Okay, just now I read Dave Luckett's post, which I'm in agreement with.

TomS said: What I don't understand is why any one would balk at the Mosaic authorship of the last chapter of Deuteronomy. Why could not God have revealed to Moses his death, burial, and future standing, and that Moses could not have also written that?

Carl Drews said: Yes, I know I'm going to die someday, but learning that I'm never going to make it into the Promised Land would be heart-breaking.

Carl Drews said:

TomS said: What I don't understand is why any one would balk at the Mosaic authorship of the last chapter of Deuteronomy. Why could not God have revealed to Moses his death, burial, and future standing, and that Moses could not have also written that?

I'll balk at that scenario. It's creepy! Try reading Deuteronomy 34 and filling in your own name. I recognize that my objection is neither theological nor scientific. Yes, I know I'm going to die someday, but learning that I'm never going to make it into the Promised Land would be heart-breaking.

TomS said: Once you allow mere human reasons for rejecting a text as being written by Moses, what about the other standard a-Mosaica and post-Mosaica?

Deuteronomy 34 was written after the death of Moses, by an author who was not Moses.

Carl Drews said:

TomS said: Once you allow mere human reasons for rejecting a text as being written by Moses, what about the other standard a-Mosaica and post-Mosaica?

Carl declares:

Deuteronomy 34 was written after the death of Moses, by an author who was not Moses.

Reasons: Common historical sense. Examining the biblical text and making sense of it. Giving the author some credit for honest narrative. Trying to determine the original author's intent. Not making up stuff that is absent from the text.

Carl Drews said: My translation of Gilgamesh merely says "take aboard the ship examples of every living creature."

Genuine critical analysis - way cool

Nevertheless, the textual evidence from doublets, variations in vocabulary, outlook, narrative differences and style is sufficient to say that there were multiple authors and multiple sources.

Hey FL.

Gravity waves.

Pretty cool, huh.

Please do not bait the FL troll -- it is bad enough that I am allowing his comments, but in this case he is providing potentially useful links, which I may check out after I emerge from under a mountain of grading. I think I can safely predict, however, that Dave Luckett's earlier comment will remain pertinent.

How many animals did Noah take aboard the ark?

After giving this a bit of thought, my answer is:

None.

Henry J said: How many animals did Noah take aboard the ark? After giving this a bit of thought, my answer is: None.

FL said:

Nevertheless, the textual evidence from doublets, variations in vocabulary, outlook, narrative differences and style is sufficient to say that there were multiple authors and multiple sources.

Well, actually, no they are NOT sufficient. The works of OT scholar Dr. Gleason Archer, especially his textbook "Survey of Old Testament Introduction", make this very clear. Meanwhile, I selected the first item you mentioned, "doublets", and am offering readers an easy-to-understand article (one that is partially based on Archer's "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" and a couple excellent textbooks from other scholars), that clearly shows that doublets do NOT mean multiple sources. http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5system_moses/dh11.aspx **** You also mentioned the topics "variations in vocabulary" and "style." That's been responded to as well, in textbooks, and more recently via Internet. Again, a plain-English example: http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5system_moses/dh10.aspx **** By the way, TomS mentioned "a-Mosaica" and "p-Mosaica." That's another issue, and again it's one that Christians have responded to. http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5system_moses/dh12.aspx It's a lot of information (and the textbooks have a lot more on these topics), but the important point is just for readers to be aware that the information exists. To simply be aware that skeptical attacks (such as "Documentary Hypothesis" and "Multiple Sources") really HAVE been responded to and countered by Christian scholarship. **** Sure, I was taught about the doublets, the Doc Hyp and the JEDP and etc in the university religion classes, but us students were never taught that published, scholarly rebuttals such as OT professor Archer's textbooks, even existed. One time, I even snuck a hardback copy of Archer's "SOTI" textbook into OT class, a new copy that I bought with my own cash, and quietly gave it away to another student, another church kid, who seemed very unprepared and unarmed (as I was initially) for the skeptical challenges that was being presented. It just seemed the right thing to do. The church kid smiled, accepted the offer, and thanked me. It was a very good, very subversive moment. FL

Gleason Archer was no fool. His work is not lightly to be tossed aside, no indeed. Rather, it should be hurled with great force.

It's a crying shame. Here was a man who was a genuine scholar in the languages, but with a mind crippled and blasted by a presupposition - that the text is authoritative, inerrant and directly inspired by Almighty God. He filtered everything through that. Anything in the text that is incompatible with it couldn't mean what it seems to mean. It must mean something else. Or nothing at all, as required by the presupposition.

As Helena says, he didn't respond to or counter anything with evidence. All he offered was trenchant assertion and dogmatic denial, underpinned by one unfailing mechanism - omphalos. God can do anything, therefore anything can be explained as an act of God. Even where the text does not specify a miracle, if one is required, one is to be assumed. For instance, the miracle of direct divine inspiration of the whole text of the Pentateuch to Moses and its unfailing preservation through God knows how many copyists is to be assumed, because the text couldn't be inerrant without it. And the text is so inerrant, because Gleason Archer says so.

It's useless to argue against omphalos. All you can do is point to it. It's useless to object that if natural cause can explain, then natural cause should explain. Omphalos is proof against that: God could have done it miraculously, and it can't be proven that He didn't, therefore He did.

It's even useless to argue that to demand uncovenanted miracles, such as the one above, is an example of what Jesus called "straining at gnats while swallowing camels". If sufficient miracles are rung in, the text could be inerrant. Therefore it is inerrant. The marks of multiple authorship are therefore to be dismissed. God and Moses could have done it all, therefore God and Moses did do it all.

That's it. That's all of it.

As I said, it's a crying shame.

Dave Luckett said: It's even useless to argue that to demand uncovenanted miracles, such as the one above, is an example of what Jesus called "straining at gnats while swallowing camels". If sufficient miracles are rung in, the text could be inerrant. Therefore it is inerrant. The marks of multiple authorship are therefore to be dismissed. God and Moses could have done it all, therefore God and Moses did do it all.

Helena Constantine said: The documentary hypothesis, on the other hand, required that a single editor had exactly five texts before him that he cut into little bits ranging from a paragraph to individual words, and then glued them back together into the order we find, which is a bit much.

The documentary hypothesis, on the other hand, required that a single editor had exactly five texts before him that he cut into little bits ranging from a paragraph to individual words, and then glued them back together into the order we find, which is a bit much.

Matt Young said:

The documentary hypothesis, on the other hand, required that a single editor had exactly five texts before him that he cut into little bits ranging from a paragraph to individual words, and then glued them back together into the order we find, which is a bit much.

I had always understood that the Redactor was not a single person but a number of people, not necessarily even at the same time. The idea that there was 1 Redactor and a lot of Bronze-Age Scotch tape is relatively recent and seems to me to be a considerable stretch. Nevertheless (whether or not we can find Mr. Drews's transitional form between the Bible and Gilgamesh), someone, somewhere, sometime combined several sources into a single (incoherent) narrative. For that reason, if for no other, we cannot take the Bible literally -- there are too many inconsistencies.

TomS said: And by similar criteria, take Genesis 36:31 "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel". That sounds like it could not be composed long before the reign of Saul.

*As early as the eleventh century CE[AD] it was pointed out that the Edomite king list in this chapter was made up of names of persons who would have reigned long after Moses had died. It was one of the earliest passages that scholars said must have been written by someone other than Moses. [Friedman 2003]

Here's a short piece I long ago translated from a Norwegian book:

QUOTE
Into this storytelling old adventure stories also were incorporated, and they were told as being as credible as the heroic epics. The motif in the story about Joseph and the wife of Potifar for instance is copied from the Egyptian fairytale “The two Brothers”.
Of old an enmity existed between the semi-nomadic sheepherders and the Bedouins. In the production of myths, the sheepherders therefore made a story about how the Bedouins were descendants of a farmer that had fled because of murdering his brother. We recognize the story about Cain and Abel. They then equipped Adam and Eve with a third son, Set, who was made god-fearing and straight enough to be the one they themselves descended from.

In Canaan, drought was the enemy; high summer was the death of nature. But with autumn the rains came, and nature awakened to life again. The creation myth of the Canaanites therefore speaks of the dry, arid land that is being blessed by their God with rain and wells breaking forth.
Thus life was created on Earth. Contrary to that; in Babylon floods were the dangerous problem. Their creation myth, that also became known by the Israelites and incorporated into their folklore, therefore tells that it began with water all over, then with land rising out of the water. The two creation myths are placed side by side in the Bible and they are both equally true and believable.
UNQUOTE

In the production of myths, the sheepherders therefore made a story about how the Bedouins were descendants of a farmer that had fled because of murdering his brother. We recognize the story about Cain and Abel.

Interview, The exodus is not fiction, with Richard Elliott Friedman in the quarter's issue of Reform Judaism.

Henry J said: Except that didn't all of Cain's descendants drown? Or am I missing something?

Matt Young said: Interview, The exodus is not fiction, with Richard Elliott Friedman in the quarter's issue of Reform Judaism.

What was that a reply to?

John Harshman said:

Henry J said: Except that didn't all of Cain's descendants drown? Or am I missing something?

How do you know that? All you have is the direct patrilineal descent of Noah. You know nothing about any of his ancestors outside that line, not to mention the four women on the boat.

Matt Young said:

What was that a reply to?

Were the Jews slaves in Egypt? by S. David Sperling, and Torah is not history by David Wolpe, both in the spring 2013 issue.

FL said: ...simply be aware that skeptical attacks (such as “Documentary Hypothesis” and “Multiple Sources”) really HAVE been responded to and countered by Christian scholarship.

Matt Young said: Interview, The exodus is not fiction, with Richard Elliott Friedman in the quarter's issue of Reform Judaism.

harold said:

TomS said: It possible that the Omphalos Hypothesis is true: that God created the universe some few thousands years ago (or Last Tuesay) with all the appearances, from the beginning, of there having had a history of billions of years. {snip}

Thursday. He created it last Thursday. Not Tuesday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Last_Thursdayism

J. L. Brown said: I am kind of a fan (not at all a believer, but a fan) of Next Thursdayism. God actually created everything next Thursday, and everything before that is a carefully constructed lie; our current existence is an illusion, a false memory created & set in place by the G-man when he gets around to the actual creation event. With deception on this scale, though, I have to wonder how setting up 'Satan' as the father of lies is at all useful.

TomS said:

J. L. Brown said: I am kind of a fan (not at all a believer, but a fan) of Next Thursdayism. God actually created everything next Thursday, and everything before that is a carefully constructed lie; our current existence is an illusion, a false memory created & set in place by the G-man when he gets around to the actual creation event. With deception on this scale, though, I have to wonder how setting up 'Satan' as the father of lies is at all useful.

It is applying merely human standards to gods to characterize this kind of behavior as "lying". Just we cannot call death brought about by gods "murder". Every human (so far, at least) has been called to eternal bliss or punishment, as determined by God's will, but we cannot call it "murder", or "injustice" - it is the will of God. Nor can we call it "robbery" or "theft" when God takes our property from us. No can we call it cruelty when animals (or humans) suffer pain by the will of God. So, too, when God intelligently, purposely designs the world of life to appear to our minds (which minds are also intelligently, purposely designed to come to that conclusion) as if were has been common descent with modification for billions of years, we are not to call that a "lie". Or when God designs the Bible to make it look as if a product of an Ancient Near Eastern civilization, with the Pentateuch being composed as if it were written centuries after Moses, when the true facts are different. It is not a "lie" when God does it.

TomS said: It is not a "lie" when God does it.

Richard Nixon said: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

Maybe I'd make it clear that this was not my opinion, nor of anyone else that I've heard of.

Just Bob said:

TomS said: It is not a "lie" when God does it.

Richard Nixon said: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

Just Bob said:

TomS said: It is not a "lie" when God does it.

Richard Nixon said: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

KlausH said:

Richard Nixon said: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

When did Nixon allegedly say that?

Matt Young said: Interview, The exodus is not fiction, with Richard Elliott Friedman in the quarter's issue of Reform Judaism.

John Harshman said: What was that a reply to? What that says is that the Levites were Semitic speakers who had once lived in Egypt. He suggest no evidence that they were slaves, or that Joseph was a real person, or Moses for that matter.

Matt Young said: Were the Jews slaves in Egypt? by S. David Sperling, and Torah is not history by David Wolpe, both in the spring 2013 issue.

John Harshman said: I meant "What post in this thread was that a reply to?"