The Flood Story and Biblical Criticism

This topic is currently in progress

Overview

At first glance, the story of the Flood appears to contain several doublings and inner contradictions.  Source critics point to these as proof that the Torah's Flood narrative is the composite work of a later editor who conflated supposed earlier and contradictory versions of the story without reconciling their inconsistencies.  The Flood story is further viewed by them as one of the strongest corroborations of the validity of the Documentary Hypothesis as a whole.

The analysis below examines some of the flaws inherent in the source critical approach to the Flood narrative.  Building on traditional exegesis, this article then attempts to demonstrate how an understanding of Biblical literary style and structure helps dissolve most of the perceived difficulties, leaving a coherent, consistent, and flowing narrative.

Introduction

The account of the Flood and its aftermath in Bereshit 6–9 abounds with apparent doublings and contradictions, with almost every key element in Chapters 6–7 seemingly recorded twice. Additionally, there also appear to be internal contradictions regarding the number of animals to be brought into Noah's ark and the nature and length of the Flood. Let us examine these various issues in greater detail:

Apparent Doublings:

• Noach's descendants – Both 5:32 and 6:10 list Noach's offspring.
• Corruption and verdict – In 6:1-8 and then again in 6:9-13 the Torah describes: the corruption of mankind, Hashem's decision to destroy the world, and Noach's righteousness.
• Command to enter the ark – In 6:17-22 we read of Hashem's promise to save Noach and the animals, His command to gather them into the ark, and a general description of Noach's compliance.  7:1-5 appears to repeat all of these elements.
• Noach's fulfillment – Each of 7:6-9 and 7:10-16 furnishes a more detailed account of Noach's fulfillment of the Divine instructions.  Both also mention Noach's age at the beginning of the Flood, the start of the Flood, and the entry of Noach, his family, and the animals into the ark.  Each then concludes with a statement that Noach did as commanded. Within the second section of 7:10-16, there is ostensibly further redundancy, as verses 15 and 16 both speak of the animals coming in pairs.
• Floodwaters:
• Forty days of rain – Both 7:12 and 7:17 speak of a forty day period of rain.
• Waters rising – Both 7:18-20 and 7:24 speak of the waters rising.
• Ark rising – Both 7:17 and 7:18 mention the ark being lifted by the floodwaters.
• Death – The death of all living things is repeatedly discussed in all of 7:21, 22, and 23.

Seeming Contradictions:

• Two vs. seven – 6:19-21 speaks of two animals from each species entering the ark, without differentiating between pure and impure species.  7:2-3, in contrast, recounts Hashem's command to take seven pairs of each pure animal,¹ but only one pair of each impure animal.  7:8-9 similarly distinguishes between pure and impure animals, but mentions only their coming to the ark as pairs.  Finally, 7:15-16 speaks only of pairs and also makes no reference to purity status.
• Entry into the ark – 7:7 and 10 appear to suggest that Noach entered the ark seven days before the Flood started, while 7:13 implies that he did so on the very day that the rain began.
• Water source – 7:11 speaks of the opening of the floodgates both from the depths and the heavens, while 7:12 mentions only rain.
• 40 or 150 days – Two verses (7:12 and 7:17) speak of a forty day period of rain, while two other verses (7:24 and 8:3) describe a 150 day period of rising waters.
• Raven or dove – While 8:7 speaks of Noach sending out a raven to check the status of the floodwaters, 8:8-12 speak of his sending a dove.

Source Critical Approach

Proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis claim to have a simple solution for all of the above difficulties.  In their opinion, the Torah is the work of a Redactor (or series of redactors) who conflated competing and contradictory accounts of the Flood which originally existed as independent documents.  According to their theory, the editorial process preserved all of these supposed versions of the story, thereby creating a composite text with irreconcilable contradictions and redundancies.  For purposes of the analysis here, we will utilize one of the most popular iterations of this theory, that of R. E. Friedman,²  and the table below will depict his division of the Flood narrative into its alleged sources.

שם הוויה – "J"‏ ("non-P")	שם א-להות – "P"
פרק ו (א) וַיְהִי כִּי הֵחֵל הָאָדָם לָרֹב עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה וּבָנוֹת יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם. (ב) וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי הָאֱ-לֹהִים אֶת בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ. (ג) וַיֹּאמֶר י״י לֹא יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם בְּשַׁגַּם הוּא בָשָׂר וְהָיוּ יָמָיו מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. (ד) הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְגַם אַחֲרֵי כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱ-לֹהִים אֶל בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם. (ה) וַיַּרְא י״י כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וְכׇל יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ רַק רַע כׇּל הַיּוֹם. (ו) וַיִּנָּחֶם י״י כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ. (ז) וַיֹּאמֶר י״י אֶמְחֶה אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָאתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה מֵאָדָם עַד בְּהֵמָה עַד רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם כִּי נִחַמְתִּי כִּי עֲשִׂיתִם. (ח) וְנֹחַ מָצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֵי י״י.	פרק ו (ט) נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה בְּדֹרֹתָיו אֶת הָאֱ-לֹהִים הִתְהַלֶּךְ נֹחַ. (י) וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ שְׁלֹשָׁה בָנִים אֶת שֵׁם אֶת חָם וְאֶת יָפֶת. (יא) וַתִּשָּׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ לִפְנֵי הָאֱ-לֹהִים וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ חָמָס. (יב) וַיַּרְא אֱ-לֹהִים אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ. (יג) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ-לֹהִים לְנֹחַ קֵץ כׇּל בָּשָׂר בָּא לְפָנַי כִּי מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ חָמָס מִפְּנֵיהֶם וְהִנְנִי מַשְׁחִיתָם אֶת הָאָרֶץ. (יד) עֲשֵׂה לְךָ תֵּבַת עֲצֵי גֹפֶר קִנִּים תַּעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַתֵּבָה וְכָפַרְתָּ אֹתָהּ מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ בַּכֹּפֶר. (טו) וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אַמָּה אֹרֶךְ הַתֵּבָה חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה רׇחְבָּהּ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים אַמָּה קוֹמָתָהּ. (טז) צֹהַר תַּעֲשֶׂה לַתֵּבָה וְאֶל אַמָּה תְּכַלֶּנָּה מִלְמַעְלָה וּפֶתַח הַתֵּבָה בְּצִדָּהּ תָּשִׂים תַּחְתִּיִּם שְׁנִיִּם וּשְׁלִשִׁים תַּעֲשֶׂהָ. (יז) וַאֲנִי הִנְנִי מֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל מַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ לְשַׁחֵת כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ יִגְוָע. (יח) וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת בְּרִיתִי אִתָּךְ וּבָאתָ אֶל הַתֵּבָה אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ וְאִשְׁתְּךָ וּנְשֵׁי בָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ. (יט) וּמִכׇּל הָחַי מִכׇּל בָּשָׂר שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל תָּבִיא אֶל הַתֵּבָה לְהַחֲיֹת אִתָּךְ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה יִהְיוּ. (כ) מֵהָעוֹף לְמִינֵהוּ וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ מִכֹּל רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה לְמִינֵהוּ שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל יָבֹאוּ אֵלֶיךָ לְהַחֲיוֹת. (כא) וְאַתָּה קַח לְךָ מִכׇּל מַאֲכָל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְאָסַפְתָּ אֵלֶיךָ וְהָיָה לְךָ וְלָהֶם לְאׇכְלָה. (כב) וַיַּעַשׂ נֹחַ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱ-לֹהִים כֵּן עָשָׂה.
פרק ז (א) וַיֹּאמֶר י״י לְנֹחַ בֹּא אַתָּה וְכׇל בֵּיתְךָ אֶל הַתֵּבָה כִּי אֹתְךָ רָאִיתִי צַדִּיק לְפָנַי בַּדּוֹר הַזֶּה. (ב) מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה תִּקַּח לְךָ שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא טְהֹרָה הִוא שְׁנַיִם אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ. (ג) גַּם מֵעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה לְחַיּוֹת זֶרַע עַל פְּנֵי כׇל הָאָרֶץ. (ד) כִּי לְיָמִים עוֹד שִׁבְעָה אָנֹכִי מַמְטִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה וּמָחִיתִי אֶת כׇּל הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. (ה) וַיַּעַשׂ נֹחַ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ י״י. (ז) וַיָּבֹא נֹחַ וּבָנָיו וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּנְשֵׁי בָנָיו אִתּוֹ אֶל הַתֵּבָה מִפְּנֵי מֵי הַמַּבּוּל. (י) וַיְהִי לְשִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וּמֵי הַמַּבּוּל הָיוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ. (יב) וַיְהִי הַגֶּשֶׁם עַל הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה. (טז) וַיִּסְגֹּר י״י בַּעֲדוֹ. (יז) וַיְהִי הַמַּבּוּל אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיִּרְבּוּ הַמַּיִם וַיִּשְׂאוּ אֶת הַתֵּבָה וַתָּרׇם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ. (יח) וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד עַל הָאָרֶץ וַתֵּלֶךְ הַתֵּבָה עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. (יט) וְהַמַּיִם גָּבְרוּ מְאֹד מְאֹד עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיְכֻסּוּ כׇּל הֶהָרִים הַגְּבֹהִים אֲשֶׁר תַּחַת כׇּל הַשָּׁמָיִם. (כ) חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה מִלְמַעְלָה גָּבְרוּ הַמָּיִם וַיְכֻסּוּ הֶהָרִים. (כב) כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁמַת רוּחַ חַיִּים בְּאַפָּיו מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה מֵתוּ. (כג) וַיִּמַח אֶת כׇּל הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה מֵאָדָם עַד בְּהֵמָה עַד רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיִּמָּחוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ וַיִּשָּׁאֶר אַךְ נֹחַ וַאֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ בַּתֵּבָה.	פרק ז (ח) מִן הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנָּה טְהֹרָה וּמִן הָעוֹף וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר רֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאֲדָמָה. (ט) שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם בָּאוּ אֶל נֹחַ אֶל הַתֵּבָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֱ-לֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ. (יא) בִּשְׁנַת שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה לְחַיֵּי נֹחַ בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה נִבְקְעוּ כׇּל מַעְיְנֹת תְּהוֹם רַבָּה וַאֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמַיִם נִפְתָּחוּ. (יג) בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה בָּא נֹחַ וְשֵׁם וְחָם וָיֶפֶת בְּנֵי נֹחַ וְאֵשֶׁת נֹחַ וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת נְשֵׁי בָנָיו אִתָּם אֶל הַתֵּבָה. (יד) הֵמָּה וְכׇל הַחַיָּה לְמִינָהּ וְכׇל הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ וְכׇל הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ לְמִינֵהוּ וְכׇל הָעוֹף לְמִינֵהוּ כֹּל צִפּוֹר כׇּל כָּנָף. (טו) וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל נֹחַ אֶל הַתֵּבָה שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם מִכׇּל הַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. (טז) וְהַבָּאִים זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה מִכׇּל בָּשָׂר בָּאוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱ-לֹהִים (כא) וַיִּגְוַע כׇּל בָּשָׂר הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ בָּעוֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה וּבְכׇל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ וְכֹל הָאָדָם. (כד) וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם.
פרק ח (ב) וַיִּכָּלֵא הַגֶּשֶׁם מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם. (ג) וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ הָלוֹךְ וָשׁוֹב (ו) וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וַיִּפְתַּח נֹחַ אֶת חַלּוֹן הַתֵּבָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה. (ח) וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת הַיּוֹנָה מֵאִתּוֹ לִרְאוֹת הֲקַלּוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. (ט) וְלֹא מָצְאָה הַיּוֹנָה מָנוֹחַ לְכַף רַגְלָהּ וַתָּשׇׁב אֵלָיו אֶל הַתֵּבָה כִּי מַיִם עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וַיִּשְׁלַח יָדוֹ וַיִּקָּחֶהָ וַיָּבֵא אֹתָהּ אֵלָיו אֶל הַתֵּבָה. (י) וַיָּחֶל עוֹד שִׁבְעַת יָמִים אֲחֵרִים וַיֹּסֶף שַׁלַּח אֶת הַיּוֹנָה מִן הַתֵּבָה. (יא) וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו הַיּוֹנָה לְעֵת עֶרֶב וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ וַיֵּדַע נֹחַ כִּי קַלּוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ. (יב) וַיִּיָּחֶל עוֹד שִׁבְעַת יָמִים אֲחֵרִים וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת הַיּוֹנָה וְלֹא יָסְפָה שׁוּב אֵלָיו עוֹד. (יג) וַיָּסַר נֹחַ אֶת מִכְסֵה הַתֵּבָה וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה חָרְבוּ פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. (כ) וַיִּבֶן נֹחַ מִזְבֵּחַ לַי״י וַיִּקַּח מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה וּמִכֹּל הָעוֹף הַטָּהוֹר וַיַּעַל עֹלֹת בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ. (כא) וַיָּרַח י״י אֶת רֵיחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ וַיֹּאמֶר י״י אֶל לִבּוֹ לֹא אֹסִף לְקַלֵּל עוֹד אֶת הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּר הָאָדָם כִּי יֵצֶר לֵב הָאָדָם רַע מִנְּעֻרָיו וְלֹא אֹסִף עוֹד לְהַכּוֹת אֶת כׇּל חַי כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי. (כב) עֹד כׇּל יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ.	פרק ח (א) וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱ-לֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ וְאֵת כׇּל הַחַיָּה וְאֶת כׇּל הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ בַּתֵּבָה וַיַּעֲבֵר אֱ-לֹהִים רוּחַ עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמָּיִם. (ב) וַיִּסָּכְרוּ מַעְיְנֹת תְּהוֹם וַאֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמָיִם (ג) וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם מִקְצֵה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם. (ד) וַתָּנַח הַתֵּבָה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ עַל הָרֵי אֲרָרָט. (ה) וְהַמַּיִם הָיוּ הָלוֹךְ וְחָסוֹר עַד הַחֹדֶשׁ הָעֲשִׂירִי בָּעֲשִׂירִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ נִרְאוּ רָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים. (ז) וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת הָעֹרֵב וַיֵּצֵא יָצוֹא וָשׁוֹב עַד יְבֹשֶׁת הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ. (יג) וַיְהִי בְּאַחַת וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ חָרְבוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ (יד) וּבַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ יָבְשָׁה הָאָרֶץ. (טו) וַיְדַבֵּר אֱ-לֹהִים אֶל נֹחַ לֵאמֹר. (טז) צֵא מִן הַתֵּבָה אַתָּה וְאִשְׁתְּךָ וּבָנֶיךָ וּנְשֵׁי בָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ. (יז) כׇּל הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר אִתְּךָ מִכׇּל בָּשָׂר בָּעוֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכׇל הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ [הַיְצֵא] (הוצא) אִתָּךְ וְשָׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ. (יח) וַיֵּצֵא נֹחַ וּבָנָיו וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּנְשֵׁי בָנָיו אִתּוֹ. (יט) כׇּל הַחַיָּה כׇּל הָרֶמֶשׂ וְכׇל הָעוֹף כֹּל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיהֶם יָצְאוּ מִן הַתֵּבָה.

According to this division, there were two stories of the Flood, the "J" (or "non-P") version which recounted the tale of a storm which lasted for forty days and the "P" version which describes a deluge which endured for almost a year.³  By dividing the Biblical text into disparate sources, documentary critics attempt to account for the existence of the following repetitions and inconsistencies:

Redundancies

• Noach's descendants – One mention (5:32) is attributed to the Redactor, while the other (6:10) is attributed to source P.
• Corruption of mankind and decision to destroy – The first discussion of these issues (6:1-8) is attributed to "J", while the second (6:9 ff) is attributed to "P."
• Command to enter – The theory splits the two commands of Hashem regarding entry into the ark, attributing one (6:17-22) to "P" and the other (7:1-5) to "J".
• Noach's compliance – Noach enters the ark only once according to each source, as 7:7 is attributed to "J" and 7:13 to "P".
• Waters rising – The repeated mentions of the waters rising are split between the two sources, with some attributed to "J" (7:18-20) and another to "P" (7:24).
• Death – The redundancy regarding the death of all living creatures is reduced, as the passages are divided between "P" (7:21) and "J" (7:22-23).

Inconsistencies

• Two vs. seven – The "P" document is presented as preserving a tradition in which only two of every species was saved (6:19-21, 7:8-9, 7:15-16), while the "J" document differentiates between pure and impure species (7:2-3).
• Day of entry – It is only according to "J" that Noach entered the ark seven days prior to the rain (7:7, 10).  According to the "P" source, he did so on the very day that the Flood began (7:13).
• Source and length of the Flood – Each source reflects a different position regarding the source and length of the Flood.  While "J" speaks of rain (7:4, 12), "P" speaks of overflowing springs (7:11).  In "J" the rain lasts 40 days (7:4, 12, and 17), while in "P" the waters rise over 150 days (7:24, 8:3).
• Dove or raven – It is only the "J" source which speaks of Noach's sending out a dove (8:8-12).  The "P" document, in contrast, has Noach sending a raven (8:7).

Weaknesses of the Source Critical Approach

Prefatory note:  The analysis in this section relates solely to the textual problems inherent in the application of the Documentary Hypothesis to the Flood narrative.  It does not relate to the issue of theological incompatibility of source criticism with Divine authorship of the Torah, and it also does not address the broader methodological weaknesses of the Documentary Hypothesis in general.  IY"H, these will be discussed in separate pages on this site.

Redundancies Remain

Despite the division into distinct sources, several redundancies remain in each putative document, significantly weakening the argument that doublings are the product of source conflation. Several examples follow:

• Noach's fulfillment – In the "P" document, there remain multiple mentions of Noach's fulfillment of Hashem's command.  First, 6:22 mentions Noach's compliance in general terms: "וַיַּעַשׂ נֹחַ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱ-לֹהִים".  Then, both 7:8-9 and 7:14-16 describe the specifics of that fulfillment, detailing twice how the animals entered the ark. Each of these passages also ends with the fact that Noach did as commanded: "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֱ-לֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ"‎ / "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱ-לֹהִים".‎⁴
• Forty days – The "J" source retains the redundancy regarding the forty day period of rain, mentioning this fact in both 7:12 and 7:17.  When the "J" source is viewed in isolation, these statements are just half a verse apart, making the doubling even more confounding.
• Rising waters and ark – The repetition regarding the rising waters is also not solved by the division into distinct sources.  The "J" document mentions the fact multiple times in 7:18-20.  Similarly, it notes twice in this same section (7:17-18) that the waters lifted the ark.
• Earth dries – The "P" source also preserves a dual mention of the drying of the land, in both 8:13 and 14.⁵

Incoherent Sources and Inconsistent Editing

The Documentary Hypothesis not only fails to eliminate all of the redundancies it was created to solve, but also introduces new difficulties along the way. The division of the Biblical text into distinct sources creates gaps in each of these accounts, as certain facts are missing from one or another of the supposed documents. As a result, the reconstructed texts often become incoherent. For example:⁶

• In the "J" source, the building of the ark is never discussed, and the ark appears out of nowhere in 7:1, when Hashem commands Noach to enter it.
• In the "P" source, the mention of both pure and impure animals in 7:8 is extraneous.  Since this source maintains that two of each type of animal, regardless of purity, entered the ark, why differentiate between pure and impure at all?
• The theory's splicing of 6:16 means that the phrase "וַיִּסְגֹּר ה' בַּעֲדוֹ" in the isolated "J" source is missing its antecedent.  Since it no longer follows Noach's entry into the ark, this phrase becomes an incomprehensible non-sequitur.
• In "P", Noach's sending of the raven similarly becomes difficult to understand and simply hangs in the narrative since it is not accompanied by a survey of the land.
• In "J", too, Noach's sending of a dove to check the land "after forty days" does not make sense.  Since this source does not record a gradual lessening of waters, it reads as if immediately after the rain stopped, Noach assumed that the dove might find dry land, a strange and unrealistic notion.⁷
• In other cases, the ordering of the story is illogical.  Thus, "J" presents Hashem shutting the door to the ark only after describing how it rained for forty days.

To account for these problems, adherents of the theory must postulate that parts of each document were not preserved by the supposed Redactor when he conflated his sources to create the Biblical text. This, however, means that the Redactor would have been very inconsistent in his use of sources, sometimes creating unnecessary redundancies by preserving both versions of a story, while at other times retaining only one account.  Such capricious editorial practice seems farfetched.

Unexpected Terminology

Source critics claim that their division of the text into discrete documents is supported by the unique phraseology used by each of these purported sources.  These terminological pairs include the names of God (שם הוויה vs. שם א-להות) as well as other pairs of phrases such as: "אֲדָמָה" vs. "אֶרֶץ",‎ "אָדָם" vs. "בָּשָׂר",‎ "זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה" vs. "אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ",‎ and "חרב" vs. "יבש".  Oftentimes, this becomes circular, as their assigning of verses to a particular source is driven by the language utilized by the verse.  Yet, in the case of the Flood narrative, despite their best efforts, the source critics are left with terminological doublets which do not always neatly line up with the alleged documentary lines.  Thus, the texts attributed to each of "J" and "P" sources use both "אֲדָמָה" and "אֶרֶץ"‎,⁸ and "אָדָם" and "בָּשָׂר".‎⁹  Additionally, the supposed "J" source uses "זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה" alongside "אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ",‎¹⁰ and the supposed "P" source uses "חרב" as well as "יבש".‎¹¹  And in several other cases, verses need to be fractured (e.g. "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱ-לֹהִים / וַיִּסְגֹּר י"י בַּעֲדוֹ") in attempts to salvage the theory.

Thus, the claim that such doublets are signs of the distinct terminology of each document does not hold up, and for good reason.  The source critics are confronted by an intractable problem:  their supposed source division based on repetitions and contradictions simply doesn't match the source division which the linguistic data could sustain, and this requires sacrificing one or the other.¹²  This inevitably forces them to choose from among three options: having unexplained redundancies and contradictions, remaining with inconsistent stylistic features, or positing convoluted redactor modifications as piecemeal solutions.  All of these would seem to be unappealing options.

Exaggerated Contradictions

In some cases, source critics overstate the difficulties they find in the Biblical text, suggesting that something is inconsistent, when there is no need for such a claim. Thus, in our story, four of the five supposed discrepancies listed above are not really contradictory:

• Water source – The description of heavenly windows and deep fountains pouring forth water can easily coexist with the account of rainfall, as there is no reason that Hashem could not have flooded the world using both means.¹³
• 40 and 150 days – Consequently, there is also no contradiction between the 40 and 150 day periods.  While the former describes the duration of the rainfall, the latter speaks of the length of the flooding from the waters below.¹⁴
• Noach's entry – Though Noach's entry into the ark in 7:7 is followed by the statement that the flood began "at the end of the seven days" this need not imply that Noach entered the ark at the beginning of the week.  The verses just as easily allow for him to have entered immediately before the rain began on the seventh day itself, exactly as 7:13 says explicitly.
• Raven and dove – Finally, the sending of the raven and dove not only do not contradict each other, but directly flow from one to another.  Only because the raven went to and fro did Noach need to send a different bird to check the water's status.¹⁵

The only seeming inconsistency which remains to be addressed relates to the number of animals taken into the ark (two versus seven). This will be explored and resolved below.

Literary Approach and Unitary Authorship

This section presents an alternative solution to explain the apparent difficulties in the Biblical narrative. It suggests that with a close reading of the text and an appreciation of its literary form, most of the redundancies dissipate. Attempting to understand "דרכי המקראות", the literary devices employed by Tanakh, has long been a tool of traditional exegesis, and it constitutes both a foil and a much more persuasive alternative to the theories of source criticism. Its starting point is the opposite of the Documentary Hypothesis, as it recognizes the unitary nature of the Biblical text and, in fact, finds therein the solution to its apparent difficulties. Recognizing the unified character of Torah allows commentators to identify patterns that run throughout, properly analyze its structure, and pay attention to exceptional language or grammatical forms.

Bereshit and Noach

At first glance, Bereshit 6:1-8 and 6:9-13 appear to have unnecessary overlap, with each describing Hashem's decision to destroy the world.  However, this seeming redundancy is predicated upon the erroneous assumption that the two sections are part of the same story.  A closer examination of these units reveals that 6:1-8 actually forms the conclusion to the Creation story, while the Noach/Flood narrative first begins only in 6:9.¹⁶  This structural division is reflected in the traditional division of the Parashot (in which 6:1-8 concludes Parashat Bereshit, while 6:9 begins Parashat Noach), in contrast to the non-Masoretic chapter division.

The two units, thus, serve very different functions and correspondingly have different emphases.  While the former focuses on the decision to destroy, the latter highlights the decision to save.  The following table highlights the contrasting perspectives of these two units, by noting the variations in their presentations of Hashem's decision:

בראשית ו':א'-ח'	בראשית ו':ט'-י"ג
(א) וַיְהִי כִּי הֵחֵל הָאָדָם לָרֹב עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה וּבָנוֹת יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם. (ב) וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי הָאֱ-לֹהִים אֶת בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ. (ג) וַיֹּאמֶר י"י לֹא יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם בְּשַׁגַּם הוּא בָשָׂר וְהָיוּ יָמָיו מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. (ד) הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְגַם אַחֲרֵי כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱ-לֹהִים אֶל בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם.	_____
(להלן פסוק ח)	(ט) אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת נֹחַ נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה בְּדֹרֹתָיו אֶת הָאֱ-לֹהִים הִתְהַלֶּךְ נֹחַ.
(לעיל בראשית ה':ל"ב)	(י) וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ שְׁלֹשָׁה בָנִים אֶת שֵׁם אֶת חָם וְאֶת יָפֶת.
(ה) וַיַּרְא י"י כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וְכׇל יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ רַק רַע כׇּל הַיּוֹם. (ו) וַיִּנָּחֶם י"י כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ. (ז) וַיֹּאמֶר י"י אֶמְחֶה אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָאתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה מֵאָדָם עַד בְּהֵמָה עַד רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם כִּי נִחַמְתִּי כִּי עֲשִׂיתִם.	(יא) וַתִּשָּׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ לִפְנֵי הָאֱ-לֹהִים וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ חָמָס. (יב) וַיַּרְא אֱ-לֹהִים אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ. (יג) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ-לֹהִים לְנֹחַ קֵץ כׇּל בָּשָׂר בָּא לְפָנַי כִּי מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ חָמָס מִפְּנֵיהֶם וְהִנְנִי מַשְׁחִיתָם אֶת הָאָרֶץ.
(ח) וְנֹחַ מָצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֵי י"י.	(לעיל פסוק ט)

• Undoing vs. destroying – The first unit portrays Hashem's decision to destroy the world as a regretting and undoing of His original act of creation.¹⁷ This perspective constitutes a natural conclusion to Parashat Bereshit, but stands in contrast to the second unit which introduces Parashat Noach. Thus, Hashem's statements in 6:6-7, "אֶמְחֶה אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָאתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה" and "כִּי נִחַמְתִּי כִּי עֲשִׂיתִם" are not simply a declaration of destruction (as is 6:13), but rather a decision to erase and reverse the earlier creation.  The language of the verses similarly harks back to the opening chapters of Bereshit.  The root ברא is central to the Creation narrative, appearing eleven times in Parashat Bereshit, but never again in the Flood narrative, and "הָאָדָם" and "הָאֲדָמָה" allude to cursing of the אדם and אדמה described thrice earlier in Parashat Bereshit (3:17-19, 4:11-14 and 5:29).
• Is Noach the focus? – Noach's righteousness is only briefly alluded to at the very end of the first unit since he is not the focus of this section; the fact is mentioned there only as a segue into the next unit.  The second unit, in contrast, begins with and elaborates on this fact, since it introduces Hashem's decision to save Noach, the focus of the rest of Chapter 6.
• Thought vs. speech – Conversely, while the decision to destroy is central to the first unit, it is mentioned in the second unit only as necessary background to the salvation highlighted in the rest of the chapter.  Thus, in contrast to the first unit where Hashem's decision process is a purely internal one ("אֶל לִבּוֹ"), in the second unit Hashem shares the fact with Noach ("וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ-לֹהִים לְנֹחַ").  Only with such information do Hashem's subsequent commands to build the ark and gather the animals and His covenant to save Noach make sense.

Long Term vs. Immediate Commands

Hashem's commands to Noach in Chapter 7:1-5 initially appear to simply recapitulate His directives of 6:13-22. In both, Noach is told of the approaching flood and to gather the animals and enter the ark. A closer look at the following table, however, reveals that the redundancy disappears when considering the nature and timing of the commands contained in each unit.

בראשית ו':י"ג-כ"ב	בראשית ז':א'-ה'
(יג) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ-לֹהִים לְנֹחַ קֵץ כׇּל בָּשָׂר בָּא לְפָנַי כִּי מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ חָמָס מִפְּנֵיהֶם וְהִנְנִי מַשְׁחִיתָם אֶת הָאָרֶץ.	_____
(יד) עֲשֵׂה לְךָ תֵּבַת עֲצֵי גֹפֶר קִנִּים תַּעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַתֵּבָה וְכָפַרְתָּ אֹתָהּ מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ בַּכֹּפֶר. (טו) וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אַמָּה אֹרֶךְ הַתֵּבָה חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה רׇחְבָּהּ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים אַמָּה קוֹמָתָהּ. (טז) צֹהַר תַּעֲשֶׂה לַתֵּבָה וְאֶל אַמָּה תְּכַלֶּנָּה מִלְמַעְלָה וּפֶתַח הַתֵּבָה בְּצִדָּהּ תָּשִׂים תַּחְתִּיִּם שְׁנִיִּם וּשְׁלִשִׁים תַּעֲשֶׂהָ.	_____
(יז) וַאֲנִי הִנְנִי מֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל מַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ לְשַׁחֵת כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ יִגְוָע.	(להלן פסוק ד)
(יח) וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת בְּרִיתִי אִתָּךְ וּבָאתָ אֶל הַתֵּבָה אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ וְאִשְׁתְּךָ וּנְשֵׁי בָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ.	(א) וַיֹּאמֶר י"י לְנֹחַ בֹּא אַתָּה וְכׇל בֵּיתְךָ אֶל הַתֵּבָה כִּי אֹתְךָ רָאִיתִי צַדִּיק לְפָנַי בַּדּוֹר הַזֶּה.
(יט) וּמִכׇּל הָחַי מִכׇּל בָּשָׂר שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל תָּבִיא אֶל הַתֵּבָה לְהַחֲיֹת אִתָּךְ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה יִהְיוּ. (כ) מֵהָעוֹף לְמִינֵהוּ וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ מִכֹּל רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה לְמִינֵהוּ שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל יָבֹאוּ אֵלֶיךָ לְהַחֲיוֹת.	(ב) מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה תִּקַּח לְךָ שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא טְהֹרָה הִוא שְׁנַיִם אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ. (ג) גַּם מֵעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה לְחַיּוֹת זֶרַע עַל פְּנֵי כׇל הָאָרֶץ.
(כא) וְאַתָּה קַח לְךָ מִכׇּל מַאֲכָל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְאָסַפְתָּ אֵלֶיךָ וְהָיָה לְךָ וְלָהֶם לְאׇכְלָה.	_____
(לעיל פסוק יז)	(ד) כִּי לְיָמִים עוֹד שִׁבְעָה אָנֹכִי מַמְטִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה וּמָחִיתִי אֶת כׇּל הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה.
(כב) וַיַּעַשׂ נֹחַ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱ-לֹהִים כֵּן עָשָׂה.	(ה) וַיַּעַשׂ נֹחַ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ י"י.

Hashem's words to Noach in Chapter 6 are relayed many months or even years before the Flood, while the directives of Chapter 7:1-5 are given just a week before the rain began. Thus, verses 6:13-22 comprise Hashem's long-term commands directing Noach to prepare for the Deluge (building the ark and gathering the animals and food),¹⁸ while 7:1-5 transmit the short term directives relating to the imminent rain.¹⁹ In light of this, most of the redundancies between these passages disappear or become self-explanatory:

• Future flood vs. imminent rain – In Chapter 6, Hashem speaks of the distant flood in general terms, "וַאֲנִי הִנְנִי מֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל", in order to explain the need to build the ark.  In Chapter 7, in contrast, He states that the rain is imminent, "כִּי לְיָמִים עוֹד שִׁבְעָה אָנֹכִי מַמְטִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ", to explain the immediate need to enter (not build) the ark.
• Entry: promise vs. command – Despite initial appearances, Hashem does not actually command Noach to enter the ark twice.  In contrast to the command form of "בֹּא אַתָּה" in 7:1, Hashem's words of "וּבָאתָ אֶל הַתֵּבָה" in 6:18 are not a directive, but rather a description of what is to happen in the future.  He is promising, rather than commanding, Noach that he will be saved in the ark.²⁰
• Differing directives – The directives of Chapter 6, thus, relate only to the building of the ark and gathering of animals, neither of which are mentioned again in Chapter 7, which speaks only of entry into the ark.  Thus, the contrast between the future form of "וּבָאתָ" and the jussive forms of "עֲשֵׂה לְךָ" and "קַח לְךָ".
• Two vs. seven – In Chapter 6, when Hashem is relaying general preparatory commands, He simply tells Noach to gather two of each species, male and female.  Only in Chapter 7, when the command becomes immediately relevant, does He add the specifics, that Noach should select seven pairs of each pure animal but only one pair of each impure animal.  This distinction will be elaborated upon in the next section.

"Two", "Seven", and "Two by Two"

In light of the above discussion, the supposed contradiction regarding the number of animals brought to the ark evaporates. In Hashem's initial command, He speaks generally, telling Noach only that he should bring two of each animal, male and female to the ark. At this point, months before the Flood, when the focus is on building the ark and preparing the food supplies, it is of trivial significance that there will be a few select species from which seven pairs will be saved, as this had negligible impact on the dimensions of the ark or the quantities of the food supply. Only closer to the actual Flood, when the animals need to enter, does Hashem elaborate and dictate that there is a distinction between the pure and impure animals and that seven pairs of the latter are to be brought (7:2-3).²¹

This readily explains the difference between the first two passages.²²  In the subsequent fulfillment of the command in 7:8-9, though, the Torah appears to hedge, by continuing to distinguish between pure and impure animals as in the second passage, while at the same time reverting to speaking only about "twos", as in the first passage.²³  This is illustrated by the following table:

בראשית ו':י"ט-כ'	בראשית ז':ב'-ג'
(יט) וּמִכׇּל הָחַי מִכׇּל בָּשָׂר שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל תָּבִיא אֶל הַתֵּבָה לְהַחֲיֹת אִתָּךְ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה יִהְיוּ. (כ) מֵהָעוֹף לְמִינֵהוּ וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ מִכֹּל רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה לְמִינֵהוּ שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל יָבֹאוּ אֵלֶיךָ לְהַחֲיוֹת.	(ב) מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה תִּקַּח לְךָ שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא טְהֹרָה הִוא שְׁנַיִם אִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ. (ג) גַּם מֵעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה לְחַיּוֹת זֶרַע עַל פְּנֵי כׇל הָאָרֶץ.
בראשית ז':ח'-ט', ט"ו-ט"ז
(ח) מִן הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנָּה טְהֹרָה וּמִן הָעוֹף וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר רֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאֲדָמָה. (ט) שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם בָּאוּ אֶל נֹחַ אֶל הַתֵּבָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֱ-לֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ... (טו) וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל נֹחַ אֶל הַתֵּבָה שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם מִכׇּל הַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. (טז) וְהַבָּאִים זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה מִכׇּל בָּשָׂר בָּאוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱ-לֹהִים וַיִּסְגֹּר י"י בַּעֲדוֹ.

While at first glance, it might appear from 7:8-9 that only two of each species entered the ark, even of the pure animals (thus contradicting 7:2), in order to understand the relationship between all of the various verses, it is necessary to distinguish between the terms "שְׁנַיִם" and "שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם".  These terms are outwardly similar, but have completely different meanings.  As several commentators point out (e.g. R"Y Bekhor ShorBereshit 7:9About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RadakBereshit 7:9About R. David Kimchi, R D"Z HoffmannBereshit 7:9About R. David Zvi Hoffmann) the phrase "שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם" does not mean that only two ("שְׁנַיִם") of each species came, but rather that the animals came in pairs, be they seven pairs or one, depending on the species.²⁴  And as R D"Z HoffmannBereshit 7:9About R. David Zvi Hoffmann notes, the Torah intentionally chose the inclusive formulation of "שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם" so that it could apply to all of the types of living creatures, without the need to repeat the details of the distinction between the pure and impure species.²⁵  On this backdrop, the verses all fit together and their language was intentionally chosen so that they would work in concert.

Recap of Historic Event

The entry of Noach and his entourage into the ark appears twice in the text, in both 7:6-9 and 7:10-16, and juxtaposing these two passages will illuminate the nature of and reason for the repetition.²⁶

בראשית ז':ו'-ט'	בראשית ז':י"א-ט"ז
(ו) וְנֹחַ בֶּן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וְהַמַּבּוּל הָיָה מַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ.	(י) וַיְהִי לְשִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וּמֵי הַמַּבּוּל הָיוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ. (יא) בִּשְׁנַת שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה לְחַיֵּי נֹחַ בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה נִבְקְעוּ כׇּל מַעְיְנֹת תְּהוֹם רַבָּה וַאֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמַיִם נִפְתָּחוּ. (יב) וַיְהִי הַגֶּשֶׁם עַל הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה.
(ז) וַיָּבֹא נֹחַ וּבָנָיו וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּנְשֵׁי בָנָיו אִתּוֹ אֶל הַתֵּבָה מִפְּנֵי מֵי הַמַּבּוּל.	(יג) בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה בָּא נֹחַ וְשֵׁם וְחָם וָיֶפֶת בְּנֵי נֹחַ וְאֵשֶׁת נֹחַ וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת נְשֵׁי בָנָיו אִתָּם אֶל הַתֵּבָה.
(ח) מִן הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנָּה טְהֹרָה וּמִן הָעוֹף וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר רֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאֲדָמָה. (ט) שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם בָּאוּ אֶל נֹחַ אֶל הַתֵּבָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֱ-לֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ.	(יד) הֵמָּה וְכׇל הַחַיָּה לְמִינָהּ וְכׇל הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ וְכׇל הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ לְמִינֵהוּ וְכׇל הָעוֹף לְמִינֵהוּ כֹּל צִפּוֹר כׇּל כָּנָף. (טו) וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל נֹחַ אֶל הַתֵּבָה שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם מִכׇּל הַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. (טז) וְהַבָּאִים זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה מִכׇּל בָּשָׂר בָּאוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ אֱ-לֹהִים וַיִּסְגֹּר י"י בַּעֲדוֹ.

From the above table, we can readily see that the first section is a much briefer description and constitutes the simple recording of the day's events as part of the broader story line of the Flood.  But even for a Torah replete with significant stories, this was no regular event, but rather one of uniquely historic and cosmic proportions.  As civilization is being obliterated, Hashem fulfills His covenant with Noach, thus enabling the world's repopulation through him and those with him on the ark.  Due to the extraordinary significance of this event, the second passage recaps and proclaims the momentous nature of the occasion with the addition of several important details which are absent in the earlier verses:

• The rare and dramatic phrase "בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה" underscores the historic nature of the event, and its appearance here parallels its use in the festive recaps at the end of both the stories of Avraham's circumcision (Bereshit 17:26-27) and the Exodus (Shemot 12:41, 51).  In both of these additional cases, there is also a repetition in a more festive manner to emphasize the significance of the occasion and fulfilling of a covenant.
• The exact day and month are recorded – "בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ".  Significantly, the Flood is the only event in all of Sefer Bereshit for which the Torah gives precise dates.
• The proper names of Noach's three sons "וְשֵׁם וְחָם וָיֶפֶת" are specified here.  This is the only time in the story of the Flood itself that they are listed by name, rather than referred to by the more generic "sons of Noach".
• The passage concludes with Hashem's personal intervention, "וַיִּסְגֹּר י"י בַּעֲדוֹ", the fulfilling of His covenant to save Noach.

The second passage is also formulated with the earlier one in mind.  Thus, in contrast, to the standard form of "וַיָּבֹא נֹחַ" in the first passage, the second section uses the past-perfect form of "בָּא נֹחַ".  On this backdrop, the second passage is not a redundant and parallel account to the first, but is rather intended to follow it in order to emphasize its exceptional import.²⁷

Conclusion

The above analysis attempted to account for the apparent doublings and inconsistencies found in the Noach narrative. It examined the conclusions of the source critical approach and pointed out its weaknesses. Many of the repetitions the critics attempt to eliminate are nonetheless retained in each purported source. In addition, it creates new difficulties, as the sources, when viewed in isolation, contain gaps and incoherencies, requiring the assumption of a capricious and inconsistent editor.

The alternative literary solution is much more compelling. Recognizing both the Torah's unitary nature and individual structural units allows for the realization that Bereshit 6:1-8 and 6:9-13 constitute parts of disparate narratives with different purposes, rather than repeating each other. While 6:1-8 concludes the Creation narrative and emphasizes the impending undoing of Creation, 6:9-13 introduces the Flood narrative and the salvation of Noach. Paying attention to the timing of the Biblical narrative highlights that repeated and seemingly inconsistent directives are not redundant, but are rather a product of plot development. The instructions of Chapters 6 and 7 are not alternative accounts of the same story, but were rather given months or years apart. The lapse in time allows for a level of overlap between the commands, while the varying contexts account for their differences.

Close attention to language and grammar corroborates these conclusions and further solves the second seeming contradiction regarding the number of animals brought to the ark. Since "שְׁנַיִם" and "שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם" are distinct terms, the verses work together harmoniously. Finally, a literary sensitivity reveals that at times repetition is intentional and serves to highlight and emphasize. Due to the momentous and historic nature of the beginning of the Flood and Noach's salvation, the Torah adds a special summation.  Thus, with an understanding of the literary artistry of the Biblical text, most of the ostensible contradictions and repetitions disappear, leaving a unified but not uni-dimensional text.

¹ Though Noach is told to take seven pairs of birds, their purity status is not mentioned in the text. See below for R. D"Z Hoffmann's explanation of this omission.

² R. E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed (New York, 2003): 42-47.  Adherents of the Documentary Hypothesis frequently disagree with one another regarding the assigning of individual verses to different sources, however, much of their basic documentary division and methodology is shared.

³ Friedman's division also attributes 5:32 ("וַיְהִי נֹחַ בֶּן חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ אֶת שֵׁם אֶת חָם וְאֶת יָפֶת") and 7:6 ("וְנֹחַ בֶּן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וְהַמַּבּוּל הָיָה מַיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ") to a separate "Book of Records" source, and the first three words of 6:9 ("אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת נֹחַ") to a Redactor.

⁴ For extended discussion, see Joshua Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism, (New York, 2017): 236-268, who mentions these and some of the other redundancies listed below as part of his arguments against the validity of the Documentary Hypothesis.

⁵ See R. Aryeh Klapper's article, "Who Wrote the Torah", where he brings other similar examples in which the "P" source repeats itself in the same or consecutive verses.  These include:

• The two halves of Bereshit 6:9 both speak of Noach's righteousness.
• There is double mention of the world's corruption in 6:11 and 6:12.
• Both 6:19 and 6:20 speak of the animals coming in pairs.
• Bereshit 9:1-17 contains multiple mention of almost every detail in that unit, including Hashem's promise of fruitfulness (9:1,7), His keeping of His covenant (9:9-10,11,17), the rainbow as sign (9:13,14,16,17), and Hashem's remembering His covenant (9:15,16).

⁶ See also J. Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah, and R. Klapper (both cited above), who each discuss some of the examples below.

⁷ In the full Biblical account, the larger context of the verse suggests that the forty days do not relate to the period of rain, but to a separate forty day period which occurred later on.

⁸ See 6:4-7, 6:17-20, 7:3-4, 7:8, and 9:2.

⁹ See 6:3, 7:21, and 9:5-6.

¹⁰ See 7:2-3.

¹¹ See 8:13-14.

¹² This is also what underlies much of the variation between source critics regarding these verses.

¹³ See J. Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah, (cited above), who points out that the combining of the motifs of rain and deep springs is found elsewhere as well, both in Tanakh (see Mishlei 3:20), and in the Epic of Gilgamesh (Tablet 11).

¹⁴ See SfornoBereshit 7:24About R. Ovadyah Sforno who points this out.  For a full discussion of the chronology of the flood and different understandings of the various time frames mentioned, see Chronology of the Flood.

¹⁵ See J. Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah, (cited above), who additionally notes that in the flood legend preserved in the Gilgamesh Epic, the protagonist also sends out different species of birds: a dove, a swallow and a raven. Thus, existence of multiple birds in one story need not be viewed as a contradiction.

¹⁶ Cf. R. D"Z HoffmannBereshit 6:9Bereshit 7:2-3Bereshit 7:7Bereshit 7:9About R. David Zvi Hoffmann who views 6:1-8 as a transition unit, while similarly maintaining that the Flood story itself begins only in 6:9.

¹⁷ For more on the Flood as a reversal of Creation, see The Flood Story: Undoing and Redoing Creation.

¹⁸ The fulfillment of these presumably occurred over a period of months.

¹⁹ See Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 7:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra and RambanBereshit 7:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman.

²⁰ Cf. RambanBereshit 6:18About R. Moshe b. Nachman who similarly points out that 6:18 is saying that when the Flood comes, Hashem will keep his covenant, as Noach and the animals enter the ark.

²¹ R. D"Z HoffmannBereshit 7:2-3About R. David Zvi Hoffmann attempts to explain why the Torah mentions the criterion of pure/impure status regarding livestock, but not fowl. He posits that the verses here are speaking of only domesticated animals (cf. Malbim below), as it was only from these that seven pairs were to enter the ark. [Preserving more than one pair of specifically the "pure" and domesticated species enabled the post-Flood sacrifices which were offered from them (8:20), and sacrifices are brought only from domesticated animals, and not from all "pure" animals.] Since some domesticated animals (e.g. donkeys) were impure, the criterion needed to be stated by them. On the other hand, all of Noach's domesticated birds were pure, and thus there was no need to mention this criterion by them. R. D"Z Hoffmann further proposes that since these were domesticated animals, found near his home, Noach is directed to take them on his own ("תִּקַּח לְךָ"). In 6:19-20, in contrast, when speaking of wild animals, the verse states that they were to come to Noach of their own accord ("יָבֹאוּ אֵלֶיךָ").

²² MalbimBereshit 7:1-2About R. Meir Leibush Weiser offers an alternative resolution of the contradiction, suggesting that Noach was given a different set instructions regarding his own possessions than he had been given regarding the rest of the animal world.  Thus, verses 7:3-4, which speak of seven pairs of pure and one pair impure animals, refer to the entry of Noach's personal livestock, while verses 6:18-22, 7:7-9, and 7:13-16, which mention only one couple, refer to the salvation of each species for the world. Malbim further points out that the personal animals were actively collected by Noach ("תִּקַּח לְךָ") at the beginning of the seven day period ("כִּי לְיָמִים עוֹד שִׁבְעָה"), while the other animals came of their own accord to the ark ("בָּאוּ אֶל נֹחַ"), on the very day that the Flood began ("בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה").

²³ See above that this synthesis poses a significant difficulty for the source critical approach.

²⁴ In other words, the verse is describing, not the number of animals, but rather how they came. Had the verse wanted to express the former it would have written that "שנים באו" or "שנים מכל באו" as it does in 6:19.

²⁵ Building on the position of Malbim and R. D"Z Hoffmann (above) limiting the taking of seven pairs to the domesticated animals readily available in Noach's household, Shlomo Katz (private communication) suggests that this can explain why verses 7:9,15 had no need to repeat that seven pairs came from the "pure" species.  In contrast to the miraculous arrival to the ark of pairs of wild animals from all over, Noach's taking along a few extra of his own domesticated animals was of relatively minor significance and did not need to be specified.

²⁶ As noted above, the source critical division does not account for this doubling.

²⁷ Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 7:5-7About R. Avraham ibn Ezra (followed and elaborated upon by AbarbanelBereshit 6Bereshit 6:14About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel) offers an alternative explanation for the doubling, suggesting that the sets of verses describe two distinct stages in the process of entering the ark. The former describes the week before the Flood, when Noach only brought the animals towards the ark, while the latter describes the day the rain began, when Noach and the animals actually boarded the boat. However, one difficulty with this theory is that the identical language "אֶל הַתֵּבָה" is used in both sets of verses, one time to mean "towards" and a second time to mean "into".