As prospective products of the Ancient Near East, both the
Genesis accounts of creation, as well as the Enuma Elish epic, contain a plethora of commonalties attributed to
their cultural environment. At the same
time, significant dissonance between the various accounts renders each version
distinct in both cosmological and theological perspective. A close examination of these three accounts
exposes such areas of resonance and dissonance, revealing relationships between
various Ancient Near Eastern ideas and approaches to creation. Surprisingly, in many cases, areas of
resonance appear more clearly between the Enuma
Elish and the Genesis 1-2:4a account than they do between the two Genesis
accounts themselves. This may be seen as
evidence of a shared literary objective.
As an Akkadian hymn or poem composed to recount the deeds of the god
Marduk, the Enuma Elish is presented
on seven tablets, resonating with the poetic use of the number[1]. A similar incorporation of poetic tactics, as
well as strong resonance on a number of themes within the text, suggests that
the creation account of Genesis 1:2-4b is an attempt by the priestly author to
compose a hymn of his or her own; a hymn composed to the chief God of Israel.
It is commonly agreed amongst scholars that the Enuma Elish was not merely an attempt to
explain the origins of the cosmos, but a poem or hymn to honor the god
Marduk. Wordplay, poetic divisions, and
repetition are all characteristics of the Enuma
Elish and help classify this Akkadian myth as a hymn. Furthermore, it has been suggested that many
Ancient Near Eastern cities incorporated their own chief gods into this
creation story. Therefore, as the Enuma Elish would have championed Marduk
in Babylon, when read in other cities, an alternative local god could have been
substituted as hero. This notion of a
hymn to honor the chief god of the city is immensely important due to the
incorporation of this hymn into civil affairs.
As a text incorporated in Babylonian New Year’s festivals, the Enuma Elish not only contributed to the
honor of Marduk, but also to the city of which he was chief deity, namely
Babylon. Due to the poetic style of the
text and the incorporation of it into civic celebrations, the Enuma Elish must
be understood as a liturgical composition, which had both religious and civic potential.
The Enuma
Elish holds religious validity as a hymn to honor the god Marduk, but civic
and even political or national validity as a hymn to honor the chief god of
Babylon.[2]
The Priestly author incorporates a number of poetic and literary
devices to compose this first creation account found in Genesis 1-2:4b. While the number seven often holds poetic
connotations, it is presented in the Priestly account as more of a rhetorical
device to frame Sabbath observance.
However, repetition and parallelism are devices utilized by the Priestly
author, even within the Sabbath framework, which allow for a more fluid and
poetic reading of the text. Each day of
creation begins with the preface, “And God said”, and is concluded with the
phrase, “And there was evening and there was morning, the (sixth)[3]
day”, with the exception of day seven. Additionally,
the sequence of events occurring from day one to day three, and from day four
to day six, reveal a parallel arrangement by the author. On day one God creates light, and on day four
God creates the heavenly bodies.
Similarly, on day two God creates a dome to divide the heavens and the
earth, and on day five God fills this divide with birds and aquatic life. Days three and six recount the creation of
land and its vegetation, and the animals that survive therein. This parallelism, as well as the repetition
of the Divine voice and authorial response, is an example of the literary and
poetic devices, which help to form what author Michael Coogan terms, “a kind of
liturgical rhythm”[4],
characteristic of the Priestly account and paramount to the understanding of
this text as more than an ancient perspective on the creation of the cosmos.
Considering that both the Enuma Elisha and the Priestly account
of creation can be framed in poetic and liturgical terms, the resonating themes
between these two compositions suggests a dependent relationship. To begin, both the Priestly account of
Genesis and the Enuma Elish suggest a
world formed out of a watery chaos. In
Genesis, God moves over the face of the waters, then immediately moves into
creating the world. This chaos is
personified in the Enuma Elish as the
water goddess Tiamat from whose body Marduk creates the world. Furthermore, another personified water god,
Kingu, has his blood used as the ingredient for human life. In both cases, it is out of this watery chaos
that the world is created. Furthermore,
Genesis 1:26 suggests the idea of a Divine Council, with the character of God speaking
in the first person plural tense, “Then God said,
'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.” Throughout the Enuma Elish, this group of deities is
not only acknowledged, but also named and incorporated in the form of Apsu,
Tiamat, Marduk, and a plethora of other deities. Finally, both creation stories describe the
division of waters above and below the heavens.
In Genesis, the God of Israel makes this separation by the divine
command whereas the Enuma Elish
describes this division in more detail as Marduk separates the body of Tiamat. In both cases, a division is made between the
waters above and the waters below. It
should also be mentioned that these themes shared between the Priestly account
and the Enuma Elish are not shared
with the Yahwist Account of Genesis 2b-3:24.
This resonance, over and against the dissonance between Pentatuechal
accounts, suggests a relationship between the Priestly account and the Enuma Elish. Additionally, this relationship must be
understood using the appropriate dating of each text. Scholars generally agree to date the Enuma Elish during the eleventh century
BCE, while the Priestly account of Genesis is dated much later, likely during
the sixth century BCE. Using these
dates, and the resonance between these two texts, it can be surmised that the
dependency within this relationship must be recognized as the Priestly account
of Genesis relying on the Enuma Elish.
Acknowledging the poetic and liturgical tones of both
creation stories, and recognizing several significant themes resonating within
both texts suggests a dependent relationship, the reasons for such a
relationship being cultivated must also be explored. It seems as if the Priestly account incorporated
these themes of Akkadian mythology into their own story, and the question of
“why” is of paramount importance to understanding the Priestly creation
account. As a predecessor to the
Priestly account, and an Ancient Near Eastern composition, it is unlikely that
the Priestly author would not have been aware of the Enuma Elish and its
existence as an epic poem or hymn to the supreme Akkadian god Marduk. Therefore, it would be advantageous for the
final redactors of the Pentateuch to compose their own poem or hymn. By utilizing several themes of the Enuma Elish, the Priestly writers were
not only able to offer an obvious counter to the Akkadian epic, but one that
would have resonated well within the minds of contemporary Ancient Near Eastern
people groups. Thus it seems that the
Priestly authors intentionally framed their creation account in poetic and
liturgical tones, and at the same time incorporated a number of themes from
alternative creation epics, to construct the same type of composition.
This evidence suggests an epic poem or hymn to the God of Israel as the supreme deity of the Israelites and of the Pentateuch. In the same way that the Enuma Elish is recognized as a hymn or poem to Marduk, the framework of Genesis 1:2-4b suggests a similar motive. Additionally, by incorporating themes that were already recognized as epic components, the Priestly author was able to position the Priestly account as an alternative to the Enuma Elish. This would have been significant not only for religious purposes, but for national purposes as well. Furthermore, by borrowing these themes from the Enuma Elish, the Priestly author is allowing for a degree of resonance within contemporary communities. As the final redactor of the Pentateuch, writing in the sixth century BCE, it should not be at all surprising that the Priestly author chose to compose an alternative to the Enuma Elish. Not only did the Israelites attribute the creation of the universe to the God of Israel, but they were also experiencing the oppression of a nation, which claimed an alternative deity. The hymn to the God of Genesis 1-2:4a is a hymn that stands at opposition with the Enuma Elish for both religious and nationalistic reasons. Despite the resonance between the two texts, the chief aim of each composition is to honor the chief god of each people group. Subsequently, the primary objective for the Babylonians is to honor Marduk, and the primary objective for the Priestly author is to honor the God of Israel. Taking this into account, while strong areas of resonance exist between the two texts, they contain alternative and opposing purposes. In fact, due to this opposition, it can be observed that the resonance between the two was intentional, not as a reflection of common worldviews, but as the attribution of creation to alternative deities. In short, it can be concluded that the Priestly creation account capitalized on not only the composition of an epic poem or hymn to Marduk, but many of the themes within this composition as well, in an effort to compose Israel’s own hymn of praise to the God of Israel.
This evidence suggests an epic poem or hymn to the God of Israel as the supreme deity of the Israelites and of the Pentateuch. In the same way that the Enuma Elish is recognized as a hymn or poem to Marduk, the framework of Genesis 1:2-4b suggests a similar motive. Additionally, by incorporating themes that were already recognized as epic components, the Priestly author was able to position the Priestly account as an alternative to the Enuma Elish. This would have been significant not only for religious purposes, but for national purposes as well. Furthermore, by borrowing these themes from the Enuma Elish, the Priestly author is allowing for a degree of resonance within contemporary communities. As the final redactor of the Pentateuch, writing in the sixth century BCE, it should not be at all surprising that the Priestly author chose to compose an alternative to the Enuma Elish. Not only did the Israelites attribute the creation of the universe to the God of Israel, but they were also experiencing the oppression of a nation, which claimed an alternative deity. The hymn to the God of Genesis 1-2:4a is a hymn that stands at opposition with the Enuma Elish for both religious and nationalistic reasons. Despite the resonance between the two texts, the chief aim of each composition is to honor the chief god of each people group. Subsequently, the primary objective for the Babylonians is to honor Marduk, and the primary objective for the Priestly author is to honor the God of Israel. Taking this into account, while strong areas of resonance exist between the two texts, they contain alternative and opposing purposes. In fact, due to this opposition, it can be observed that the resonance between the two was intentional, not as a reflection of common worldviews, but as the attribution of creation to alternative deities. In short, it can be concluded that the Priestly creation account capitalized on not only the composition of an epic poem or hymn to Marduk, but many of the themes within this composition as well, in an effort to compose Israel’s own hymn of praise to the God of Israel.
[1]
James Hadley, “The Number Seven,” Essays Philological and
Critical (New York: Holt &
Williams, 1873), 325.
[3]
Substitute with day one, two, three, etc.
[4]
Michael D. Coogan, The Old
Testament: A Historical and Literary
Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures Second Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 32.
