Mythological Features and the Polemic Nature of Genesis 1:1 2:4a For the past
200 years, Old Testament scholars have had to deal with the problem of parallels
and similarities between the Hebrew Cosmogony of Genesis, and Cosmogonic
literature (or myths) of ancient pagan cultures. Important questions arise as to
the orig inality and theological significance of the biblical Cosmogony. To
fully grasp the purpose of the biblical Cosmogony, these questions must first be
answered. It is the purpose of this paper to investigate some of the
signifi cant similarities and differences and show that the author of Gen. 1:
1 2:4a had a specific intention in using them. It is important for all those who
attempt to relate science with Scripture to understand the fundamental goal in
studying Scripture: uncovering the author's intention. To apply authorial
irrelevance to Scripture, due to its divine inspiration, would result in an
endless number of possible meanings. To find God's meaning we must uncover what
the bib lical author intended. Through careful study of the text of Genesis and
that of Eneuma Elish the intention of the biblical author emerges, His goal was
to present a cosmogony unique to ancient Near Eastern thought so as to exhibit a
polemic nature. This we will see through a compari son of the texts and an
investigation into the concept of myth. In the early 1800's archeologists
uncovered certain ancient scripts containing cosmogonic writings from past
civilizations in Mesopo tamia and Egypt. These were of a flood story in ancient
Babylonian literature that had striking similarities to the flood story in
Genesis. Following this, a translation of the Babylonian creation account
commonly called Eneuma Elish was published. The most famous passage in the Old
Testament that contains parallels and similarities to other pagan myths is
Genesis 1: 1 2:4a. This section of the Old Testament is the subject of this
study. Gerhard Von Rad points out many characteristics that make the Gen. 1:
1 2:4a account of creation distinct. The language was meant to be precise rather
than artistic and differs greatly in this way from the creation narrative in
Genesis 2:4bff.1 The goal of the priestly account of creation was precision, as
E.A. Speiser describes: "It is the result of special cultivation, a process in
which each detail was refined through endless probing and each word subjected to
minutest scrutiny. By the same token, the end product cannot have been the work
of an individual, but must be attributed to a school with a continuous tradition
behind it. The ultimate objective was to set forth, in a man ner that must not
presume in any way to edit the achievement 52 of the Creator by the slightest
injection of sentiment or personality not a theory but a credo, a credo untinged
b~ the least hint of speculation."2 We can now go to the text and discover what
elements parallel myth and why. It is then possible to see what the function and
purpose was in the priestly account of creation. The opening lines of the Bible:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" (Gen. 1: 1) can be more
accurately translated "In the beginning of. . .," or, "When God began to create.
. ." E.A. Speiser presents many arguments favoring Gen. 1: 1 as a dependent
clause rather than a complete statement.3 It should be noted that the beginning
of all Akkadian cosmogonies start with eneuma or inumi, "in the day that," or,
"when." This does not challenge the originality of the biblical cosmogony nor
exclude the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. The opening structures are similar
due to similar traditions and mythopoeic thinking, Continuing in the text, a
primary verse in the entire Old Testa ment for possible mythological elements is
Genesis 1:2. In particu lar, the word, tehom, "deep, primeval ocean, sea," has
been con nected with Tiamat, the monster god of Eneuma Elish. This view has
recently come under strong attack. Gerhard Hasel points out that tehom and
Tiamat come from a common semitic root word that is found in many derived forms
in many sernitic languages and with various meanings. Throughout the Old
Testament the word is never a proper name, and is simply used as a descriptive
word common to cosmogonic writings.4 The author surely knew ot its mythical
connotations, but used the word in a different sense so as to purposely draw a
similarity. It is obvious that the word and the entire clause has been
reinterpreted from its traditional mythi cal meaning. No mythological overtones
are seen in the way it is used throughout the Old Testament. The connection
drawn between the two words is that of a primeval battle as shown earlier. In
this battle, the earth is formed out of the losing god, Tiamat, the foe of the
creator god, Marduk. This has no similarity to the Hebrew account of creation.
The tehom is no foe of God, and is depicted as inanimate, simply an element in
the creation process. The impli cations of the purpose in this are quite clear.
The use of tehorn was to describe the inanimate cosmos before creation. By using
a word with known mythical connotations, a polemic nature is displayed. The
antimythical purpose was to give the Hebrew God and the creation account a
distinctiveness. Other words and phrases that have a slight connection with
pagan mythology are treated similarly. In Genesis 1:3 we have a description of
the way in which the Hebrew God creates: by "Word." This is unparalleled in
pagan mythology, although Marduk creates by the use of magic words. The Genesis
description of creation by "Word" is radically different; the Hebrew God spoke
and it was so. This effortless creative power of God is unique to the Hebrew
thought. In Genesis 1: 14 19, the strongest indication ofthe radical polemic
nature in the account of creation is found. This section begins in verse 14 of
Chapter 1. Through God's spoken word it reads, "Let there be lights in the
firmament." There is a clearly anti mythical nature in the Genesis description
of the creation ot the luminaries when it is compared to the same account in
Eneuma Efish. In Genesis 1: 14 ff. the sun, moon, and stars were created to
separate day from night, and control seasons and time as in days and years.
Eneuma Elish depicts the luminaries as having the same purpose but refers to
them as gods themselves. They put great em phasis on the stars due to the
Babylonian astral worship. This in dication of overt polytheism found in Eneuma
Elish and related cosmogonies is strongly reacted to in the Genesis account. In
Genesis 1: 14ff. the sun and moon are strictly referred to as the greater and
lesser lights (vs. 16). This is an obvious avoidance of any possible reference
to a Babylonian god, especially their highest deity, the sun god, Marduk. The
text of Eneuma Elish also implies that there was no definite creation of the
sun, moon, and stars, JOURNAL OFTHE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION
COMMUNICATIONS rather, they have been fixed in their stations by the creator
god. It should also be said that the order of reference to the astral bodies in
Eneuma Elish is stars, sun, moon. This is also due to their astro logical
beliefs. This obvious polemic against the circulating pagan cosmologies was
meant to distinguish the Hebrew monotheism from the pagan polytheism. Also, in
its polemic against paganism, the Genesis account specifically refers to the
sun, moon and stars as "luminaries." Gerhard Hasel points out that this term is
used to give them a "degrading" status. Hasel concludes this section of Genesis
in this way: "The form in which this Hebrew creation account has come down to us
attempts to portray the creatureliness and limi tations of the heavenly
luminaries as is consonant with the world view of Gen. I and its understanding
of reality."' The final significant point is the seven day creation scheme. It
has been argued that this is a reworking of an earlier eight period scheme. The
significance of this is not its antimythical purpose, rather its importance in
instilling distinctiveness in the Hebrew religion at a time when it was badly
needed. Arvid S. Kapelrud explains the importance of the Sabbath day to the
Hebrews in the following way: "The exiles needed that day, which plays such an
important role in P's creation story, to devote to worship and to mark
themselves out as a special religious and national group which must not be mixed
up with the many other groups in the mighty Babylonian realru. 6 One view holds
that two creation periods were pressed into the third and sixth days
respectively. This was done in order to present the creation week and the
distinctiveness and holiness of the He brew sabbath as a day of rest. It is
evident in this view that a "Search for identity" by the Hebrew people is seen
as the reason for the polemic nature of Genesis 1:1 2:4a. The Hebrew people
needed a distinct identity and to remain a unity among the Babylonians and other
pagan influences. A refined definition of myth is required to fullv understand
the interpretive process of the traditions which formed the Genesis Cosmogony.
Brevard Childs' phenomenological approach allows well for this. Before defining
this approach, one other view must be critiqued that deviates greatly from all
the others. It is an an thropological approach that began in the early 1900's,
called struc turalism. This view, developed by Claude Levi Strauss, holds that
myths consistently exhibit a binary structure (heaven and earth, male and
female, etc.). These binary oppositions appear because they are intrinsic in the
mind of a human. Myths are an attempt to overcome these innate oppositions by
setting up a category of mediation between the natural and supernatural.7
Structuralism is a valid approach to studying the mythopoeic mind. However, it
also fails to distinguish the functions of myths in different cul tures, and
therefore, is not helpful in finding what the author of Genesis 1: 1 2:4a
intended in his editing of the traditions. The phenomenological view differs
greatly from this and works well in the study of myth in relation to the Old
Testament. Brevard Childs explains that his approach views myth as representing
a culture's understanding of reality. To fully understand the phenom enological
conception of myth and how it can be used to study certain passages in the Old
Testament, we must grasp his basic definition of myth: "Myth is a form by which
the existing structure ot reality is understood and maintained. It concerns
itself with show ing how an action of a deity, conceived of as occurring in the
primeval age, determines a phase of contemporary world order. Existing world
order is maintained through the actualization of the myth in the cult,"' MARCH
1980 Thus, the phenomenological approach sees function in myth and views it from
that perspective. Scholars, such as Gunkel and Heidel, have pointed out a number
of Old Testament passages rich in ele ments and fragments found in pagan
mythology. This approach holds the view that the author of these Old Testament
traditions used the mythical elements in a way so as to better express their
view of reality. This foreign material was included intentionally, but not
without much tension. The Hebrew writers meant to make it clear that their
cosmogony was unique theologically. Purpose is found in myth, a purpose for
explaining unknown phenomena in a way that gives the culture a theological
distinctiveness. First, we must consider what is meant by a "view of reality."
One aspect of a culture's view of reality can be seen in their annual fes tivals
involving cultic repetition of primordial events from their myth. This is done
in hope that this cultic repetition will secure a supernatural intervention and
blessing from the gods. The main function of myth within its culture is not
purely aetiological, but to maintain existing world order through its annual
cultic ritual.9 Eneuma Elish displays examples of purpose within these cultic
rituals. The following is a brief section of Eneuma Elish: "Then joined issue
Tiamat and Marduk, wisest of gods. They strove in single combat, locked in
battle. The lord spread out his net to enfold her, The Evil Wind, which followed
behind, he let loose in her face."10 Through early Babylonian history during
their yearly coronation festivals, this battle and Marduk's subsequent victory
is reenacted in order to assure supernatural blessing and maintain present world
order for the coming year. This supports the view that the common pagan
worldview of time is cyclical. Another part of the yearly ritual in Babylonia
calls forth Marduk, the sun god, from the land of the dead. Marduk, being the
sun god, is seasonal, He dies during fall and winter and then rises by way of
this cultic ritual to usher in spring, thus allowing for a fertile ground and
much agricultural productivity. This is another function of the myth within its
culture by way of cultic repetition. To main tain world order and productivity,
annual rituals of returning to past events are necessary. Time is viewed as
cyclical, not linear. The Old Testament cosmogony contrasts with this by looking
forward to the coming of a new creation. Time is viewed as a linear succession
of events. Their primordial events are viewed as a part of Israel's past
history. This difference between the Hebrew and Babylonian culture's view of
reality shows a great difference in the function of myth within the two
cultures. The Genesis author had many traditions to compile and rework. This
reworking was based on how God revealed himself to him and the Hebrew people in
general. He also saw a need for an iden tity among the Hebrew people. This
cosmogony represents their understanding of reality as God has revealed it
through his dealings with them. Through theological reinterpreting and precise
literary style, the author successfully fulfilled his purpose in Genesis
1:1 2:4a. 'Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis, Trans. by John W. Marks (Phila delphia: The
Westminster Press, 1961), p 27f. 2E.A. Speiser, Genesis (The Anchor Bible), (New
York: 1964). 31bid. p 10f. 4Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Significance of the Cosmology
in Genesis I in Relation to Ancient Near East Parallels," Andrews University
Seminary Studies, 10 (Ja. 72):1 20. Ubid~ p 89. 6A.S. Kapelrud, "The
Mythological Features in Genesis I and the Author's Intentions," Vetus Testamum,
24 (April 1974), p. 181. 53 I COMMUNICATIONS 'Edmund R. Leach, "Genesis as
Myth," Discovery (May, 1962). Brevard S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old
Testament (Naper ville: Alec R. Allenson Inc., 1960), p 29. 91bid. p 26. 10James
B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East, Volume I (Princeton University Press,
1958), p 34. Reid J. Turner Bethel College St. Paul, Minnesota