by Tim Chaffey
It turns out that ancient Jewish writings also connect giants to cannibalism. The book of 1 Enoch, which is not part of the Bible, was penned sometime between the writing of the Old and New Testaments. Obviously, it was not written by Noah’s great grandfather Enoch, although the work pretends to be from his hand. The book describes events prior to the Flood and mentions giants who consumed all the things grown by men, but “when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind” (1 Enoch 7:1–5). Another popular non-biblical Jewish writing from the intertestamental period, the Book of Jubilees, describes the pre-Flood giants as cannibals. This book has been called “Little Genesis” because it describes portions of Genesis and then adds details. While expanding upon Genesis 6:1–4, the controversial passage about the sons of God and the giants, Jubilees says that lawlessness increased on the earth after the giants were born and that all flesh became so corrupted that “they began to devour each other” (Jubilees 5:1–2). Neither of these books belongs in the Bible because they were not inspired by God, although Jude 14–15 does quote from 1 Enoch.
Where do these ideas come from? Were they just invented to make giants seem more terrifying or might they have a basis in reality? As strange as it may seem, there may be biblical support for this notion. When the Israelite spies returned from searching out the land of Canaan, they said, “We went to the land where you sent us. It truly flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. Nevertheless the people who dwell in the land are strong; the cities are fortified and very large; moreover we saw the descendants of Anak there” (Numbers 13:27–28). As pointed out in the response to the previous question, the “descendants of Anak” (the Anakim) were described as giants. Notice that the spies had nothing negative to say about the land itself — they praised it as a land flowing with milk and honey. But then a few verses later, as they are trying to persuade the people against trying to conquer the land, the spies stated, “The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. There we saw the giants . . .” (Numbers 13:32–33). What happened in those few verses? Did the spies change their mind about the land itself? Did they say it was a great land and then immediately go back on their word and say that the land was undesirable? I doubt it. Look closely at what they said about the land in verse 32. They claimed that it was “a land that devours its inhabitants,” and then they immediately went on to talk about the giants in the land. By using land to refer to the land’s inhabitants, a figure of speech known as synecdoche, the spies may very well have meant that certain people of the land literally devoured its inhabitants. No wonder the Israelites were so afraid of trying to enter the Promised Land at that time, although they should have trusted that the God who freed them from Egypt through many signs and wonders could have safely brought them into the land (which He did 40 years later).
Commentators offer a variety of possible meanings to the statement about the land devouring its inhabitants, so I would refrain from claiming that the interpretation mentioned in the previous paragraph must be the correct one. Nevertheless, I do believe it makes the best sense of the context, it helps explain why the Israelites were terrified of trying to enter the land, and it offers some intriguing connections to other ancient literature about the location and behavior of these giants. For more details on this subject, please read Tim’s blog post “Giant Speculations” available at www.midwestapologetics.org/blog/?p=1139.
Where did you come up with the various people and place names in the books?
Coming up with unique names for the people and places was often a challenge. Obviously, there were some characters taken right from the Bible, such as Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Tubal-Cain, Naamah, Jubal, Jabal, Adah, and Zillah. However, many of our characters were simply made up, so how did we come up with their names?
Some people have suggested that we should have used names that are common in the Bible, as many other historical fiction novels about biblical people have done. But there were a couple of reasons we did not want to do this.
The first reason we avoided using names from the rest of the Bible is that most of the biblical names are post-Babel. Since God confused the languages of the people at that time, we can be rather confident that the pre-Flood tongue (and pre-Babel for that matter) would have been different in most cases. Most of the names in the Old Testament are Hebrew names, but it is quite unlikely that the Hebrew language existed prior to the Flood. Although some Christians believe it was the original language, I do not find the arguments for this view to be compelling.
When we borrowed a name from the Bible, we typically limited ourselves to names that are found prior to the Babel account in Genesis 11. For example, the names Elam and Ashur (Asshur) are found in Genesis 10:22, and some of the names we chose were slight variants to names in these chapters. Oban is similar to Obal (Genesis 10:28) and Ara is similar to Aram (Genesis 10:23). Some of the place names are right out of the Bible: Havilah (Genesis 2:11), Nod (Genesis 4:16), the Hiddekel River (Genesis 2:14), and Eden (Genesis 2:8).
At times, we simply made up the name based on what sounded like a good name for that character and others were based on names of real people. For example, two of the characters in this book have names that I discovered while watching rugby, so I adapted their names for our characters.
The second reason we often avoided borrowing names from later portions of Scripture has to do with the way many biblical characters are named. You may have noticed that many biblical characters have “el” somewhere in their name. Here are just a few: Israel, Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, Samuel, Michael, Gabriel, and Ezekiel. These two letters are one of the titles for God, so it was common for a person to have a name with “el” as a prefix or suffix. This existed in the pre-Flood world as well: Mehujael and Methushael (Genesis 4:18) and Mahalalel (Genesis 5:12). So we used “el” in some of our names: Parel, Akel, Jitzel, and Elnach (a combination of El and Nachash, an obvious sign that his parents did not fear the Creator). But there is another popular prefix and suffix found in much of the Old Testament that we were very careful to avoid using for our characters. Many biblical characters have part of God’s personal name in their own name. As a prefix, it frequently appears in names beginning with a “J” (Jehoshaphat and Jehoram), and as a suffix it typically takes on the “iah” ending (Isiaiah, Jeremiah, and Jedidiah). The reason we avoided this title will be explained in the response to the next question.
Why does Noah only use three titles for God?
You may have noticed throughout the first two books that Noah and others have only referred to God as the Most High, the Creator, and God. The Bible uses multiple titles for God, such as the Almighty (Genesis 49:25), Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:22), and Holy One of Israel (Isaiah 41:14). Another title that occurs frequently is Lord, but we intentionally avoided using it because most English Bibles use it to translate two very different terms. When it appears as “Lord,” it is typically a translation of the Hebrew word adonai, and it often means “master.” Many English Bibles use the word “Lord” to translate God’s name, YHWH (Yahweh).
When God spoke to Moses after the Israelites were commanded to make bricks without being given any straw by the Egyptians, He made a very interesting statement. He said, “I am the Lord [YHWH]. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name Lord [YHWH] I was not known to them” (Exodus 6:2–3).
What did God mean when He said that He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but He was not known to them by His name, Yahweh. The most straightforward way of understanding this sentence seems to be that God said the patriarchs did not know Him by His personal name. However, this would be a strange thing to say since the divine name is used 162 times in Genesis, and 34 of those occasions come from someone speaking God’s name. It is possible that when Moses wrote Genesis, he inserted God’s personal name in several places to replace adonai, elohim, or another title f
or God, but this cannot be proven. Consequently, some commentators conclude that God meant that the patriarchs did not really know God’s covenant-keeping nature, while others propose that God’s statement should be understood as a question. That is, perhaps God asked, “. . . but by My name, Yahweh, did I not make Myself known to them?”
We may not be able to know for certain how this verse is to be understood. However, there is one very interesting piece of information that I have not shared yet, which explains why we avoided using God’s name in the novel. We have seen that many people prior to Moses had “el” as part of their name, but there is not a single example of anyone being identified with part of God’s personal name prior to Exodus 6:3. In fact, the first time we see someone with part of God’s personal name in the Bible is found just 17 verses later, and it happens to be the mother of Moses, Jochebed. Prior to this passage, she was called “a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1) and “the child’s mother” (Exodus 2:8). Could it be that Moses called her by a new name after learning God’s personal name? We know that he changed his successor’s name to include the divine name when he changed “Hoshea” to “Joshua” (Numbers 13:16). And after the time of Moses, the Bible includes scores of people whose names reflect knowledge of the divine name.
Perhaps they really did not know God’s personal name prior to Moses. Since this is at least a possibility, we decided to refrain from naming anyone with part of the divine name, and we also kept people from calling Him by that name. We also did not have anyone call Him “Lord” because of how easily it can be confused with “Lord.” At the same time, we realize they may well have known God by His name, but we thought it would be interesting to explore this angle a bit in the story.
Why was Noah so confident that he would not die in the arena, or that if he did die, that God would bring him back to life?
During their brief conversation in the dungeon, Naamah told Noah that he would die that very day. Noah confidently replied that he was not going to die that day, but then he added that even if he were to be killed, the Creator would need to raise him from the dead. Two chapters later, Noah reiterated that he would not die that day.
The source of his confidence that he would survive the arena was his strong faith in what God had told him. He knew that God would preserve his life until he built the Ark and survived the Flood. But he also added one small caveat. If he did die, then God would raise him from the dead. Why did he mention this detail?
This idea actually comes from the life of Abraham, so this idea was borrowed from the Bible, but I wanted to address it here because of its length. Hebrews 11:17–19 states, “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called,’ concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.”
Have you ever wondered why Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac? This passage tells us that he concluded, or some translations say he reasoned that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead. What a marvelous picture of faith! Not a blind leap in the dark, biblical faith is a well-reasoned trust in the perfectly good character of the all-powerful Creator.
God called Abraham to do something that most of us would never carry out, yet this great man of faith knew that God had already promised him that the whole world would be blessed through Isaac. Obviously, since Isaac had no offspring at this point, there would be no way for God to keep His Word if Abraham sacrificed Isaac, unless something else happened. Abraham figured it out. He knew that God always keeps His promises, so he believed that even if he sacrificed Isaac, God would need to bring him back to life so that He could fulfill His promises.
We wanted Noah to have a faith similar to Abraham’s. Even though he faced a situation that seemed as if it would lead to certain death, he stood firm in his faith and demonstrated why he is called a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5).
Why did you make some of the characters, like Naamah and Tubal-Cain, so different than how many Christians have imagined them?
We have mentioned that one of our goals in writing this series is to encourage readers to take a closer look at Scripture because so many wrong or unsupportable ideas about Noah and the early chapters of Genesis have become popular in the Church. For example, in the first novel, we mentioned rain in a few chapters even though many have been led to believe that it had never rained before the Flood. This allowed us to discuss the issue in the back of the book. In the same way, by countering many of the stereotypes about the biblical characters, we are able to discuss them here and urge our readers to examine the Bible.
Tubal-Cain is often described as a wicked and violent man. The blasphemous 2015 film Noah depicted Tubal-Cain as a murderous villain. The late biblical scholar Meredith Kline also described Tubal-Cain’s father, Lamech, as a king, but then went far beyond the text in stating that Lamech’s “policy was one of tyranny, a tyranny that reckoned itself through the power of the sword of Tubal-Cain more competent for vengeance than God himself” (Meredith Kline, “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1–4,” Westminster Theological Journal, 1962).
We wanted to counter these ideas about Tubal-Cain by seeing him as a man who eventually comes to believe in the Creator through Noah’s influence. Although he was raised by a boastful murderer, there is no guarantee that he would have followed in his father’s footsteps. Some of Israel’s godly kings had wicked fathers. This truth shows us that there is always hope for people who were raised by ungodly parents.
With Naamah, we went the opposite direction. Many Christians believe that she was Noah’s wife. A fifth century a.d. writing called the Genesis Rabba identifies her as such. The rationale behind this is that there does not seem to be a reason to mention Naamah in the genealogy, particularly since the text says nothing else about her. While identifying her as Noah’s wife is within the realm of possibilities, it certainly is not the only way to understand the biblical text. An ancient Jewish tradition viewed Naamah as a pagan woman who sang songs to idols. Unlike her brother and half-brothers (Jubal and Jabal), no role is ascribed to Naamah. However, her name may come from the Hebrew root n‘m, which means “to be lovely,” or it may be derived from a different Hebrew root that is spelled identically and means “to sing.” This is why we made her a beautiful singer who is also an idolatress.
The book of Jubilees identifies Noah’s wife as Emzara. Of course, this name is likely just invented by an ancient writer, and it probably means something like “ancestor of Sarah.” Jubilees 4:33 states that she was the daughter of Rake’el. While we liked the name Emzara, we did not want to give the impression that we viewed Jubilees as being divinely inspired, so we named her father Ara instead. Finally, if we discover someday in heaven that Noah’s wife was Naamah, you can be sure that we will apologize to her for how we portrayed her in this series.
Did the pre-Flood world have large cities with massive buildings and temples?
By the time our story fast-forwards 450 years, Iri Geshem and many other cities are depicted as being heavily populated with huge buildings. But were the pre-Flood cities really like this? After all, these types of cities and megastructures do not seem to appear in historical records until well after the Flood. So why did we describe the cities this way?
There are a couple of points to consider when discussing this issue. First, we have no archaeological record of what the pre-Flood cities were like. These places were entirely devastated by the Flood, so it is highly unlikely that any trace of them will be found.
The second factor to consider is that the Flood would have caused what may be called a technological reset. Apart from what was on board the Ark, all of the world’s technology would have been wiped out. Noah’s family would essentially restart civilization, but within the next several generations, society would undergo another technological reset at Babel. As people scattered from that place in their various groups, th
ey would have taken what they knew with them. Consider what would happen to a group that had little to no knowledge of agriculture, or if another group knew very little about construction. This is the reason we see multiple civilizations spring up around Europe, Asia, and Africa all around the same time, yet some of these groups were hunter-gatherers and some planted crops. Some people lived in cities while others lived in caves.
With these two factors in mind, we see that we cannot look back to our earliest archaeological records to get a clear view on the pre-Flood society. Since the Bible does not really describe what the cities were like at that time, other than highlighting man’s excessive wickedness, we were left to imagine what they could have been like. At the Ark Encounter, we made the decision to portray the pre-Flood world as being somewhat like the classical Greek or Roman cultures, at least in terms of technological achievements. They had civil societies based on laws and were capable of amazing feats, but they were also extremely decadent. So our story will remain consistent with that decision. Since ancient Greece and Rome had massive buildings and temples, we will include similar structures in the pre-Flood world.
Encounter This
Since we worked on the Ark Encounter project, we had the unique opportunity to include details in our story that can be seen in various exhibits. We were also able to influence the design of certain elements so that they connected with our story. If you visit the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky, you will be able to see the following items that were included in the story.
Chapter 11: The chapter opens with Noah trying to figure out a way to pass the time while grieving over his tragic losses. He begins carving an animal out of a block of wood, and it is mentioned that the back of a large-eared tusker started to take shape before he put the project down. This carving based on an elephant-like creature modeled after paleomastodon can be seen on a shelf in Noah’s Library on the second deck.