Genesis 1 and a Babylonian Creation Story
"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is a former Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, archaeologists were digging in the library of King Ashurbanipal (668-627 B.C.) in the ancient city of Nineveh. They discovered thousands of clay tablets written in a language that came to be known as Akkadian (a distant and much older cousin to Hebrew).
These tablets contained things like laws, administrative matters, and literature. It was like unearthing a time capsule to see what life was like in the ancient Near East 3,000 to 4,000 years ago.
But it was the religious texts found there that got the most attention. One of those texts bore striking similarities to Genesis 1.
How people viewed Genesis would never be the same again.
Found among the ruins was a Babylonian creation story referred to today as Enuma Elish. It is a story about a highly dysfunctional divine family engaged in a major power struggle at the dawn of time. The heart of the story is where the god Marduk kills his nemesis Tiamat and then fillets her body in two, making the sky out of one half and the earth out of the other. Thus, Marduk claims the throne as the high god in the pantheon.
Scholars have termed Enuma Elish the “Babylonian Genesis.” The reason is that both stories share some concepts that were immediately apparent.
In both stories, matter exists when creation begins. Similar to Enuma Elish, Genesis 1 describes God ordering chaos, not creating something out of nothing.
Darkness precedes the creative acts.
In Enuma Elish the symbol of chaos is the goddess Tiamat who personifies the sea. Genesis refers to the “deep.” The Hebrew word is tehom, which is linguistically related to Tiamat.
In both stories, light exists before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
In both stories, there is a division of the waters above and below, with a barrier holding back the upper waters.
The sequence of creation is similar, including the division of waters, dry land, luminaries, and humanity, all followed by rest.
Scholars knew they were on to something and it led to some predictable questions in both academic and popular circles. Maybe Genesis isn’t history at all, they thought, but just another story like Enuma Elish. In fact, maybe Genesis is just a later Hebrew version of this older Babylonian story.
One can’t really blame people for asking these questions, given the bombshell that just fell on them. Up to this point, Genesis 1 was unique. Now, we have a previously unknown Babylonian myth that is strikingly similar to Scripture.
At the time, many scholars thought that the author of Genesis 1 borrowed material from Enuma Elish. This led to the “Bible and Babel” controversy (“Babel” is Hebrew for Babylon). In fact, scholars commonly thought that Babylonian culture was the source for all ancient religions, including Christianity (i.e., “pan-Babylonianism”).
But with subsequent discoveries from other cultures (Sumerian, Egyptian, Canaanite) and other time periods, scholars came to a more sober conclusion: Babylonian culture did not have such a widespread influence, and Genesis 1 was not directly dependent on Enuma Elish.
Instead, these texts are two examples of the kinds of theological themes that pervaded numerous cultures over many centuries. The stories are not directly connected, but they share common ways of thinking about beginnings. They “breathe the same air.”
Scholars also came to appreciate the differences between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish. A central difference is that Israel’s God creates on his own, with no divine melodrama or lengthy plot. Israel’s God works solo and in the space of a mere 31 verses (not 900 lines as in Enuma Elish). Genesis 1 is not just a lightly touched-up version of older creation stories. It is a unique piece of Israelite theology.
But this does not mean that the similarities can be minimized. Some scholars have gone to the other extreme saying there is no real value in comparing Genesis 1 to Enuma Elish.
Only a very small number of scholars think this way, however. It is very clear that these stories share a common, ancient, way of speaking about the beginning of the cosmos. They participate in a similar “conceptual world” where solid barriers keep the waters away, pre-existent chaotic material exists before order, and light before the sun, moon, and stars.
Those similarities should not be exaggerated or minimized. But they are telling us something: even though Genesis is unique, and even though Genesis is Scripture, it is an ancient story that reflects ancient ways of thinking.
Genesis 1 cries out to be understood in its ancient context, not separated from it. Stories like Enuma Elish give us a brief but important glimpse at how ancient Near Eastern people thought of beginnings. As I discussed in an earlier post, ancient texts like Enuma Elish help us calibrate the genre of Genesis. That way we can learn to ask the questions Genesis 1 was written to address rather than intruding with our own questions.
One of the main questions Israelites asked was how their God ranked among the dozens of gods in the ancient world—namely, what made him worthy of devotion rather than the gods of the superpowers like Babylon and Egypt. Reading Genesis as ancient literature highlights this polemical dimension.
Genesis 1 is a bold declaration that the God of a tiny nation with a troubled past is the one responsible for what you see. The gods of the superpowers didn’t do it, Yahweh did. In the ancient world, those are fighting words.
Genesis 1 is certainly not just a Hebrew version of Enuma Elish. But we cannot fully appreciate the distinct theology of Genesis 1 without first seeing what it shares with Enuma Elish and other ancient narratives.
Understanding the connections between Genesis 1 and other ancient texts like Enuma Elish is a reminder that we do a disservice to Genesis 1 when we view it only through a modern lens.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
May 24th 2010
Rich, I do personally believe that there was a literal snake, a literal ‘beast of the field,’ involved in the temptation of Eve, and that in some sinister, occultic way, Satan used this poor, dumb animal as his vehicle of communication with Eve—whether the communication was ‘audible’ or it it involved some type of ‘telepathic’ communication from Satan to Eve via the serpent, I do not know for sure. However, if Balaam’s donkey spoke to Balaam in an audible voice by the miraculous intervention of God, then I have no problem believing that Satan spoke in an audible voice to Eve through the serpent. The whole event smelled of sulfur—it was occultic, supernatural, and demonic to the core. Warning bells should have gone off in Eve’s head when she heard a voice emitting from this creature; for God created the beasts of the field to be in subjection to man’s dominion, not to be on level with man or to ‘dialgogue’ with him as an equal. So I believe that Genesis 3 is a record of actual events of a spiritual nature in physical life. Spiritual evil is represented as taking physical from to reach spiritual man through his physical being.”
Reply to this commentMay 24th 2010
Martin:
Thanks for this answer. Very clear. And the follow-up question was: Is it impossible to maintain “the Fall” and hence “the Redemption” if one regards the conversation with the snake as a free literary invention, representing the inner struggle within Eve as she decides whether or not to obey? If we found Moses’s “rough draft”, and it had a note in it like: “I’m thinking of representing the dark side of Eve’s mind with a talking snake”—must run the idea by Mrs. Moses this evening”, would such a discovery, for you, indicate that not only the talking snake, but the whole “Fall” was a human invention that could not be trusted, and would that have a domino effect, knocking out down the Redemption, too? Or could you easily reconfigure to keep “the Fall” and “the Redemption”, with a purely literary snake? And if you found a similar “author’s note” about the two trees, what would be the effect on the Fall and the Redemption then?
Reply to this commentMay 24th 2010
Rich, I believe any superficial similarities between the biblical narratives and Greek and Roman myths are just that—superficial. It is the differences that stand out. Even though Greek and Roman myths are written in past tense prose, they are clearly invented stories because every person knows that there is one and only one true God who created the heavens and the earth. According to Paul in Romans 1, God has revealed his eternal power and divine nature through the created order, so people are without excuse when they fail to acknowledge Him and give Him thanks. Therefore, polytheism in any form (even its Greek and Roman form) is a patent lie, and when people believe that lie, it is because they have first “supressed the truth in unrighteousness.” Second, the Scriptures are self-authenticating in their authority; that is, in many ways they bear witness to their character as a divinely inspired revelation from God; and if people to recognize them as such, the fault lies not in the Scriptures, but in people, as Jesus makes clear in Luke 16:31. So, once it is acknowledged that the Scriptures are divine (cont.)
Reply to this commentMay 24th 2010
the question then become how miracle stories in the Bible should be interpreted when they occur in the context of an historical narrative. Should they be taken at face value as having literally occurred, or should they be taken as fictitious and highly embellished legends set within the framework of an historical narrative—incredible events that occurred within the realm of human imagination only? I think, given the purportedly historical character of the narratives in which the miracle stories occur, the burden of proof would be on the person who would deny their historicity. For example, it cannot be doubted that the book of Exodus was written to tell Israel something about their history as a people—how they really were in bondage in Egypt during a period of four centuries, but were then liberated from that captivity through the intervention of God, who raised up Moses as their liberator. In that context, I can see no reason to doubt that such events as the burning bush, the ten plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the giving of the Law at Sinai, etc., all took place literally in the realm of history just like the birth of Moses itself. (cont.)
Reply to this commentMay 24th 2010
If the God of the Bible were like the gods of the Greeks and Romans—a limited and finite god, made in man’s image—then we might reasonably question the historicity of these miracles. But given the character and attributes of God as described in the Bible—as infinitely powerful and free to act outside the framework of those natural laws He established for the ordinary functioning of the universe—I see no reason to doubt that these miracles took place exactly as recorded in the Bible. Why doubt them? What is there in the text or in the character of God to cause us to doubt their historicity? I doubt the institutions you mention—Harvard, Yale, Chicago, etc.—would ever agree with me, since human rationalism has reigned supreme for a very long time at those institutions. In the secular university setting, what cannot be proven by human reason operating on its own light must be regarded as doubtful or uncertain. Nothing is accepted ‘on faith.’ But as one church father put it, what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?
Reply to this commentMay 24th 2010
Martin:
I find it interesting to hear that “every person knows” that there is one and only one true God. Last I heard, there were something like 500 million Hindus on the planet, many of whom acknowledge the existence of many gods, anywhere up to the traditional number or 33,000. And in fact, that was the normal belief for most of the history of the human race, as far as our historical records show, and as far as our encounters with non-literate peoples seem to indicate. Not that such sociological data settles the truth about the existence of gods; but it certainly casts doubt upon statements about “what every person knows”.
Wouldn’t a more balanced, fair, scientific, rational and scholarly way of approaching the issue be: let’s investigate the evidence for the story of Deucalion, and the evidence for the story of Noah, ruling out miraculous elements in *neither* case, and decide which story (if either) is likely to have preserved the most accurate record of the Flood?
Reply to this commentMay 24th 2010
Martin:
It isn’t at all necessary for the Greek or Roman deities to be omnipotent in order to be able to do things far beyond what human beings can do. A less than omnipotent being might be able to change form, stir up a thunderstorm, impregnate a woman in her sleep, etc. Thus, if such powerful but less than omnipotent beings exist, I see no reason why they could not perform what we normally call miracles. And I see no way of proving that they did not perform the miracles recorded in the ancient stories. Of course, one can adopt modern, rationalizing scientism, and say “miracles can’t happen”, but I don’t think you are going to find that option very palatable. So that leaves you with saying: “Miracles can happen, but they didn’t in the pagan cases, while they did in the Biblical cases.” But then, how would propose demonstrating that, to someone who did not already share your views about the Bible? Or do you admit that the rejection of pagan miracles is not demonstrable, but is simply a faith assertion?
Reply to this commentMay 24th 2010
Martin:
Sorry for sending you so many questions. Chalk it up to your being a fascinating conversationalist.
I think the second question about the snake (14758)—whether Fall and Redemption hinge on it, or hinge on other details of the Garden story—is the most important one to me, so if you have time to answer only one, let it be that one.
Reply to this commentMay 24th 2010
Rich, While I personally believe that the text of Genesis supports the view that there was a literal serpent involved in the temptation of Eve, I understand that there are people with a very high view of Scripture, who believe, for purportedly textual reasons, that the temptation narrative in Genesis 3 is describing a literal event in symbolic language. John Stott, an evangelical Anglican who has written some excellent books and commentaries on the Bible, takes this position. In his chapter on “Interpretation of the Bible” in his book Understanding the Bible, he writes the following concerning his views on Genesis 3: “My own position is to accept the historicity of Adam and Eve, while remaining uncertain about some of the details of the narrative, such as the precise nature of the tree of life and of the serpent. This is not to be arbitrary or inconsistent, however, for I have Biblical reasons for both. That Adam and Eve were literal people seems clear from Romans 5:12-21, where Paul draws a deliberate contrast between the disobedience of Adam through which sin and death entered the wordl and the obedience of Christ who secured salvation and life. (continued)
Reply to this commentMay 24th 2010
The analogy is meaningless if Adam’s act of disobedience were not an event as historical as Christ’s act of disobedience. As for the serpent and the tree of life, they both reappear in the Book of Revelation, where they are clearly symbolical, the serpent representing Satan and the tree eternal life. So I have a Biblical (New Testament) reason for believing that Adam and Eve were historical, and an equally Biblical reason for supposing that the serpent and the tres in the story may in some sense be figurative.” I disagree with Stott that the serpent and the tree must be interpretd as mere symbols of spiritual realities; as a I said above, I think that in Genesis 3, “Spiritual evil is represented as taking physical form to reach spiritual man through his physical being;” but if someone disagrees for biblical reasons, like Stott, but affirms that the fall of Adam and Eve occurred as a literal event of history, I don’t think that position threatens the entire system of Christian theology. It seems to me to be an ‘unnatural’ reading of the text, however, for if the fall itself took place as a literal event of history, then, why not a serpent? Why not a tree?
Reply to this commentMay 24th 2010
OK, Martin. So you are now saying that, while you interpret all the details of the fall story more or less literally, you can conceive of an interpretation of the serpent, and maybe of the trees, which does not understand them literally, yet does not undermine the notion of a Fall or a Redemption. Well, we are making progress.
An unnatural reading? I think you have in mind the inconsistency of asserting a literal Adam and Eve but not a literal serpent and trees. Yes, but the problem there is with Stott, not with the mythical reading. Stott understands “historical Fall” and “historical Adam and Eve” in a way which makes the rest of his reading awkward. He just doesn’t go far enough. One can affirm a real “fall”, i.e., a real decision of the human race to separate itself from God, while regarding *all* the story elements as mythical. Indeed, that is the “natural” reading, given the meaning of the Hebrew word “Adam”—the generic term for “mankind”. As for Paul’s “literal” use of the story, that’s a whole separate topic, and we’d disagree about that just as much as about Genesis. So I’ll leave it there. Thanks for clarifying.
Reply to this commentMay 24th 2010
I find the term epic or heroic epic better than myth as it seems a more useful description even though to the scholar the difference is somewhat marginal. The historicity of the details is up for grabs although I hold to the view that Adam and Eve were actual people who God made into his ikons or beings who possess the image of God. But in all cases I do not consider the matter “of the essence of Christianity”.
Reply to this commentDave W
May 25th 2010
John H. Walton has written a good book on this topic, The Lost World of Genesis One.
Reply to this commentMay 26th 2010
Its just as likely that the primary report of events reported by Genesis was the one from which all the other were vaguely based, as was the case with embellished and distorted variations told by almost all early civilizations in regard to the flood event recorded in Genesis, considering God would have ensured that the more authentic version was on offer, and preserved.
Reply to this commentMay 28th 2010
AIG has decided that the book of Genesis has been interpreted improperly, thereby allowing it to be disproved by modern science.
He has decided to form a “team” to reinterpret Genesis so that it may be the foundation for a new science that will uphold the literal meaning of the text.
Reply to this commentMay 28th 2010
From AIG:
“Why study the chronology of the flood.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/27/why-study-flood-chronology
I am totally amused that they think that rearainging the verbs in the story will validate it as a literal text. After all, the txt of Genesis has nothing to do with modern Geology which shows very clearly there is no evidence for a word wide flood.
Here is a basic refutation of the AIG article:
http://www.wearesmrt.com/blog/
Reply to this comment