Tell me more ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In tablet 11 of the epic of Gilgamesh, after Utnapishtim's ark lodges on a rock, he releases a dove, a swallow, and a raven, in that order. The first two birds return when they fail to find a resting place. He releases the raven, witch does not return, after which Utnapishtim opens the ark.

The NASB translation of Genesis 8:7, which of the commonly available English translations appears to me to be closest to the original in this case reads:

"And he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth."

I think that the translation should "And he sent the raven, which did go out but returned to wait until the waters dried." The reasoning is that the original uses the the "heh ha'yidiah", the definite article "the" before "raven" (not "a raven", but "the raven", or possibly "the Raven" meaning the raven as a representative of it's species), and a double form of the verb to go out, "vayetse yatsu", meaning that it indeed did go out but implying a reluctance to go out. I read the clause break after "did go out" so that "v'shuv" ("then returned") applies to the "until the waters dried". The NASB reads reads the clause break after "v'shuv" so they translate "flew [went out] here and there". The NASB and similar readings are problematic in that they make it look as if the raven went out but did not come back, leaving us to ask why Noah didn't see this as a sign to open the ark.

In any event, the raven's mission is clearly a failure. The entire episode is dismissed in one verse of eleven Hebrew words.

Following the raven's mission, Noah sends the dove. The dove goes out and returns "to him", to Noah, whereas the raven just returns, but not "to him". Noah sends the dove on a second mission. Again, she returns "to him", this time with an olive twig. She is clearly a willing participant in these missions. Noah sends the dove a third time, and she does not return - she has a mission of her own now. The dove's missions take up five verses with a total of seventy-five Hebrew words.

What does the raven symbolize in the Biblical story?

It is clear that Genesis has reversed the story of birds in the flood episodes with respect to the Gilgamesh text. What is Genesis trying to tell us by this reversal?

Given that we know that in Israelite culture the raven is an "unclean" bird and the dove is a "pure" bird, what is the meaning of the failure of the raven's mission?

Finally, what was Noah thinking when he sent a raven on this mission?

share|improve this question
I wish I could upvote this question twice. – Frank Luke Oct 29 '12 at 15:52
1  
When asking about symbolism you're toeing the line between theology and hermeneutics. Symbolism will invite greater subjectivity (which is acceptable to a certain degree) that may not comport well with either your base question (title) or the sites objectives. – swasheck Apr 18 at 2:29

4 Answers

I can't comment on the Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient poem from Mesopotamia, but interestingly your observation about the Hebrew is identical to Luther's.

the carelessness of a translator has given rise to a question in connection with this passage. The Hebrew does not say that the raven did not return, as Jerome renders it. There was, therefore, no need to invent a reason why he did not return; for it is alleged that he found everything full of dead bodies and that this delightful and abundant fare kept him from returning. Moses states the opposite, namely, that the raven which had been sent out returned, although it did not allow itself to be caught and shut up in the ark again, as the dove did. Moses reveals that Noah sent out the raven in order to learn through him whether the animals could now find a footing and have food. The raven did not carry out this mission carefully; but, as though he were glad to be set free from the prison of the ark, he flew to and fro as he rejoiced in the open sky and now paid no attention to Noah. (Luther's Works, Volume 2, P109)

I think Luther has it right. Noah either sent out the raven and the dove around the same time as two witnesses regarding the status of the receding waters, winged spies as it were, or upon the poor performance of the raven only then chose the meek and cooperative dove as a replacement.

In either case, the dove proves faithful and is miraculously guided by God to deliver the hopeful message about the receding waters.

It would seem than that these two birds symbolize the kind of new creation out of the death of the flood, this will be no utopia now that the world has been cleansed from sinners, rather both ravens (impure) and doves (pure) will repopulate the world.

The raven is a predator that feeds on dead flesh and makes irritating sounds, these are like the wicked that seek no comfort in the protection of an Ark, or the hopeful faith of Noah. The dove is a likable sweet and peaceful bird representing the pure and faithful spirit.

Christians find it of no surprise that when Jesus underwent his own baptism as the Ark to save sinners, the Spirit from heaven came upon him as a 'dove'. (Matt 3:16) So we may add under the Christian view that the dove represents the heavenly guidance of the Spirit upon the salvation afforded to Noah and those in the Ark. The raven does not seem to be included in this poetic picture.

share|improve this answer
2  
+1 for finding this in Luther. – Eli Rosencruft Nov 2 '12 at 13:22

As noted by Luther quoted in this answer, and also rabbinic literature I've seen but can't now find, when the raven flew "to and fro" it was feeding on the bodies floating in the receding floodwaters. The raven is a carrion-eater and the flood had provided it an endless buffet. The raven therefore had no need to return to the ark.

Another interpretation of "to and fro" is offered in the midrash B'reishit Rabbah 33:5 (quoting from the Soncino translation):

AND IT WENT FORTH TO AND FRO (YAZO WA SHOB). R. Judan said in the name of R. Judah b. R. Simon: It began arguing with him: 'Of all the birds that thou hast here thou sendest none but me!’ ‘What need then has the world of thee?' he retorted; 'for food? for a sacrifice?' R. Berekiah said in R. Abba's name: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him [Noah]: ‘Take it back, because the world will need it in the future.’ 'When?' he asked. ’When the waters dry off from on the earth' He replied: ‘A righteous man will arise and dry up the world, and I will cause him to have need of them [the ravens],’ as it is written, And the ravens (‘orbim) brought him bread and flesh, etc. (I Kings XVII, 6).

This argument is also recorded in the Babylonian talmud, Sanhedrin 108b, where the raven argues that it is being picked on because there are fewer ravens (unclean) than clean birds, so sending it puts the entire species at risk should the raven die.

According to these rabbinic interpretations, "going to and fro" was a verbal back-and-forth, not necessarily a physical one. Why did Noah choose to send the raven? He was willing to risk a lower-value scout on the mission before endangering one he actually valued, a clean bird.

It's not clear to me that, if the raven did go out "to and fro", its mission failed. If even the raven couldn't find food, then sending an herbivore would clearly be premature. Sending the more-versatile scout first, before sending the one with limited options, makes sense tactically.

As for Gilgamesh, asking about the reversal presupposes that Gilgamesh (a) came first and (b) was known to the biblical author. For all we know, even if we assume human authorship, it is possible that the two stories have a common third source. This is pure speculation.

share|improve this answer
This is the best answer – swasheck Apr 18 at 2:27

First, the translation on Wikisource:

And he sent the crow; and it went back and forth, until the waters dried above the land.

This is using the exact same definite article, which can be because there is only one (male) crow on the ark, or because it is a representative, both readings are allowed. The "going back and forth" is probably as Luther said, resting and eating floating corpses, but there is no implication that it came back to the ark. But there is no reason that Noah would have interpreted this as the waters abating, perhaps because the crow has plenty of food, perhaps because the author didn't think of this very minor inconsistency.

The crow is an impure bird, it is a carrion eater, while the dove is pure. So Noah is simply relying on a species of bird which is more godly in the Hebrew version of the tale. There is no need to iron out minor inconsistencies, like whether Noah knew the crow found dry land, anymore than you have to know where the hero in a western goes to the bathroom. It's just a story.

share|improve this answer

Attempting to interpret and isolated chapter from a book or an isolated scene from a movie is not a recipe for success. Events viewed out of context are events without meaning. We are forced to read purpose into them based upon our own presuppositions, our own context. This is part of the reason why moderns have such trouble with the Bible. We have been taught to read it by an army of Andy Warhols, men with no sense of narrative. Placing an image outside its usual context renders it an open invitation for the reader to fill the hole with whatever seems right in his own eyes.

What was going through Noah's mind when he sent out the raven? Did the raven return? Was the raven sent first because it was unclean and therefore a less valuable animal to preserve for the new world? Or was it sent first because it was a stronger bird? Does the phrase "to and fro" suggest a single outward journey and return? Or did the bird not return, eating and resting upon floating corpses, as Luther suggests? All sorts of Jewish and Christian sources have been quoted, but it seems to me that everybody has missed the point.

The Church possesses the complete Word of God, and thus has a "bird's eye view" of all Bible history. If we are open to the idea of one story being told over and over again in different ways, using different "raw materials," we are not left helpless in pondering Noah's possible thoughts. If the Spirit of God was work, it is likely Noah was thinking God's thoughts. How can we know God's thoughts? We can see the same action taking place in other places in the Bible, and the clue is not so much the raw materials as the structure, the "process" of God's work in the world.

The chain of events in the Garden of Eden prefigures the annual feasts of Israel. This sevenfold pattern then becomes the first cycle in a history of seven cycles, taking us from Adam to Noah, from the beginning of the first world to the beginning of a new one.

In Eden, the Day of Atonement was the Spirit of the Lord "moving to and fro" searching for Adam and Eve "in the Spirit of the Day." Blood was shed and the Land was rendered clean. Man moved from the Garden into the Land and began farming. In the greater pattern, the Day of Atonement is the flood. Once again blood was shed and the Land was rendered clean. This connection between eyes, ravens, obedience to God (Father) and the Church (Mother), and His subsequent blessing upon the Land turns up in some strange places. Here's one that puts a Noahic spin on one of the Ten Commandments:

The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures. (Proverbs 30:17)

The High Priestly rite of atonement, introduced many centuries later, is the same process in miniature. The urim and thummim, a white stone and a black stone hidden in the ephod, communicated the mind of the Lord concerning the offering. A white stone meant that the offering had been accepted and the Land was once again considered clean by the Lord for another year. (It is interesting that the Talmud records that a black stone was drawn every year after the death of Christ until the destruction of the Temple. [1])

In Hebrew, the word "redeemer" is two fold. It means both avenger and redeemer. The Lord destroys His enemies and rescues His people. So, the black bird is the eyes and mouth of the destroyer. He is unclean because he has the job of cleaning up the mess, eating death just like the serpent eats (Adamic) dust. The Covenant curse included being left unburied, left exposed to be eaten by birds and beasts. (Note that similar words from the mouth of Goliath were what filled David with righteous indignation. Goliath was cursing the children of Abraham.) As the black bird moved "to and fro" like the eyes of God, scanning the face of the waters, so the white bird searched for a holy remnant of the old world to save and carry into the new: "The Branch."

Not only can we read this dual act of blessing and cursing back into the history of Noah, we can read it forward in the book of Revelation, which takes just about every Covenant/festal cycle in the Bible and rolls them all together into an amazing tapestry of Israel's history, one shaped like a wheel full of eyes.

Revelation 19 is the end of the story of two women, or rather, two sides of the same woman. The gospel of Jesus goes out as four horsemen and divides the Jews into two camps: those who received the Spirit (the Dove, like David) and those who rejected Him, and received an evil spirit instead (like Saul). The choice for the Jews was not, in their mind, a choice concerning God, but a choice concerning who was His representative. It was a choice between two kings, between Herod and Jesus, Christ and antichrist. This choice of who was their head was the beginning of a Covenant harvest cycle. At the end of the process, the body was divided. Or rather, there were two bodies. The holy remnant was a chaste bride and the rest of Israel was an exposed harlot. [2] The chapter speaks of the harlot being eaten by scavenging birds while the true bride dined with her Bridegroom in heaven. The members of the true bride had been gathered and purified by the Dove, and she got to eat delicacies. The harlot had been dismembered, scattered into pieces [3], and she got to be a delicacy. It was much like the days of Noah.

Of course, the raven did return to his mate eventually. We still have ravens. And the Word of the Lord never returns to Him empty, even when that Word is a curse. [4]


[1] See A White Stone - 3.

[2] What is interesting is that both bodies, by the end, were Jew-Gentile combinations. Those who reject God's temple inevitably do so by building a counterfeit. The New Covenant united Jews and Gentiles into one body of the Spirit, and the political harlotry of the Herods attempted to unite Jewish priesthood with Roman power through compromise rather than faithful witness. In the end, the Roman eagles circled the corpse, as Jesus predicted.

[3] We do see women dismembered in Covenant history: one the concubine of the unfaithful Levite (Judges 19); the other the tyrant Jezebel (2 Kings 9), who was dismembered and eaten by dogs while Jehu enjoyed a vengeance feast up in the palace. The Bride images always have to do with the gathering or scattering of the body, which puts an interesting spin on Paul's description of the Church as a body. Is my assembly united in a the Spirit of holy compromise (i.e. humility) or unholy compromise? Who is the true Bride in the eyes of Jesus? We have the biggest "Church split" in history as our example.

[4] An interesting spin off is the question of whether the prophet Elijah was fed by ravens or by "Arabians" as the Talmud suggests as a possibility. The fact that the prophet, out in the world, away from the Covenant people, was being fed during a famine by unclean birds is a deliberate irony. While the grain of the old order was starving away, the "oil and wine" of the new would not be harmed. We see the same process during the first century, with Gentile churches supporting Jews during the famine resulting from the slaughter of Stephen (the shedding of innocent blood brings famine, going back to Cain).

share|improve this answer
1  
Another interesting answer, but could you perhaps tease out more the narrative's correspondence to the festal calendar? – Soldarnal Feb 14 at 20:49
Sure. The 3fold Creation of Man (Physical, Social, Ethical) ends with Day 7, Sabbath, the first feast in Lev. 23, which sets the 7fold pattern for the year (Genesis). Passover is the slaughter of Abel (waters divided/Exodus). Firstfruits begins a new priesthood and ascension of Enoch (Land, grain&fruits/Leviticus). Pentecost: "mighty men" from the intermarriage of the priesthood with idolatry (Governing Lights/Numbers). Trumpets: witness of Noah and mustering of animals (Swarms/Deut.). Atonement: the flood. Waters UN-divided. Booths: A new land, with Noah as shelter, a tree of righteousness – Mike Bull Feb 14 at 21:22
@Soldarnal Here's an expanded answer (rewritten). Hope this helps. – Mike Bull Jun 3 at 14:19
Thanks, Mike. I'd read through The Bible Matrix and that helped me understand your position as well, and I already upvoted your answer from before, but I appreciate you taking the time to update it. – Soldarnal Jun 4 at 2:59

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.