The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions

7/29/2019 The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions

1/10

T H E M Y T H O L O G I C A L F E A T U R E S I N G E N E S I S

C H A P T E R I A N D T H E A U T H O R ' S I N T E N T I O N S

BY

ARVID S. KAPELRUD

Oslo

There is no need any longer to discuss the fact that "the biblicalapproach to creation as reflected in is closely related to traditional

Mesopotamian beliefs" (SPEISER)X) . There may be some differences

in the opinions of scholars on the question of how and when the

biblical tradit ion absorbed these foreign beliefs, but the texts indicate

clearly that they were known, probably well-known. They were not,

however, absorbed in the form they were received. On the contrary,

it is important to emphasize "the ultimate setting into which biblical

tradition incorporated the received account" 2 ). It is obvious thatwhile the Babylonian creation story describes the intrigues and

struggles between rival deities, before and after the creation of the

earth, the biblical version "is dominated by the monotheistic concept

in the absolute sense of the term"3) .

In order to avoid misunderstandings it is necessary to state already

here that what is said above is considered to be relevant in the case

of Genesis chapter I. We shall not take up the quest ion of the relation

ship between different versions of Assyrian and Babylonian creation

stories4) , nor the vexed question of how and from where the ancient

traditions reached the Jahwistic narrative, from Ugarit5), from

Canaan6) or from Babylonia. The object of our investigation is the

creation story of the Priestly Code in Genesis I and the tendencies

expressed in that narrative.

SPEISER is of the opinion that in the case of the creation story in

*) E. A. SPEISER, Genesis (The Anchor Bible), New York 1964, p. 11.2) SPEIS ER, p. 11.


2/10

GENESIS I 179

the question of date is a relatively minor one). He supposes that

Babylonian creation accounts could have entered the stream of

biblical tradition in the latter half of the second millennium, withouttaking final shape until a number of centuries later. The same opinion

is held by W. G. LAMBERT: "While the borrowing may have been

something altogether more involved and complex than we have

suggested, all the kn own facts favour the idea that the traditions

moved westwards during the Amarna period and reached the

Hebrews in oral form"2).

There can thus be no doubt that the background of the creation

story in is a certain knowledge among the Judaeans of Babylonianand other creation accounts. This knowledge was present through

centuries and was surely renewed in periods when the Eastern

influence was stronger than usually. The reactions of the people and

especially of the dominating circles to different kinds of influence

were varying and highly complex. They could change from bitter

opposition to resigned or willing acceptance and to all degrees

between. This is a part of the picture which has been discussed less

than what might be expected. It certainlyplays a role in the formationof the creation stories and also in that of the Priestly Code.

It is therefore necessary to put the right questions to the text of

P's creation story, questions which can reveal the historical circum

stances under which the story was formed, what tendencies were

probable or necessary at that time and what audience the story was

wri tten or told for.

The first question touches the vexed problem of the dating of

P, a problem which we have discussed elsewhere3

) . It was pointedout that it was in the time of the Exile that the Sabbath became really

important. The exiles needed that day, which plays such an important

role in P's creation story, to devote to worship and to mark them

selves out as a special religious and national group which must not

be mixed up with the many other groups in the mighty Babylonian

realm4) .

It was also shown that the view of God in Second Isaiah has many

affinities to that in P, further that identical words of a special character


3/10

180 A. S. KAPELRUD

(e.g. th and bry) and certain ways of expression are found in

and Second Isaiah. The latter also knew the special combination of

covenant, Noah and flood waters which was only found in (Gen.viii 20-22, Is. liv 9-10). These facts indicate that Second Isaiah knew

the creation story and probably the whole Genesis as had formed

them. The way he alluded to them indicates also that he supposed

that his audience knew them. That gives a date for about 550

B.C.1) or possibly even earlier.

This dating leaves no room for doubt about the historical situation.

It was the time of the Exile. It was necessary to take care of all ancient

traditions and to carry them further to the coming generations. Theauthor of the Priestly Code was very conscious on that point and

conscientious too, keeping and giving on also traditions which he

may have disliked.

That takes us to our next question: what tendencies were probable

or necessary at that time? That certain tendencies can be observed

in the work of is well known, and we shall here have a look at

those which are perceivable in the creation story.

First we have the story itself. The ancient traditions possessedalready one creation story: Gen. ii 4 ff., which could not be deleted,

well known as it probably was. But the author of did not find it

satisfying. He knew the Babylonian traditions about the creation,

possibly also other ones from the Mediterranean world. In his eyes

the ancient Jahwistic narrative about the creation of the world was

not sufficiently scientific"2). As is well known, and pointed out

also by SPEISER, religion and science were often blended in the ancient

world and could not easily be separated. In such issues as cosmogonyand the origin of man, about which so little is known even to day,

this was specially so. Both in Mesopotamia and in Israel-Judah the

solution of these problems were sought along religious lines. There

was simply no other way, and the necessary knowledge was lacking

then, as it is still.

It is no wonder, then, that the creation stories both in Mesopotamia

and in Israel-Judah are not only coloured by religious beliefs, but

are directly determined by characteristic features in the respective

religions. That does not mean that they have been composed quite


4/10

GENESIS I 181

influence went only one way. As the stories are now found in their

wri tten versions that is no doubt right. SPEISER has expressed it in

this way: "The two are bo th genetically related and yet poles apart.In common with other portions ofthe Primeval History, the biblical

account ofcreation displays at one and the same time a recognition

of pertinent Babylonian sources as well as a critical position toward

them" i).

It is not necessary here to repeat the practically identical lists of

the order of events which can be made from Enuma elish and Gen. i2) .

These lists are, however, more interesting than what is usually

assumed. They show clearly that at least the author ofGen. i wascapable ofreading out ofthe rather wild mythological narratives in

Enuma elish certain basic events, possibly one might dare say

principles. He saw the features which were essential and he picked

them out with instinctive certainty and made them the basic pillars

in his own account.

In both accounts some kind of a primordial being is found when

the narrative starts. There is no beginning with absolute naught, a

phenomenon which was unknown and probably unthinkable forancient thinkers and poets in the Middle Eastern world. In Enuma

elish the primordial monsters Apsu and Tiamat are present and there

is no philosophizing about how they could be there and from where

they came. The gods had not been brought into being, "uncalled by

name, their destinies undetermined"3). Then it was that the gods

were formed within the waters of the sea monsters Apsu and Tiamat.

Who formed them orwhat principle was active in their formation

is not told. They only grew out of the chaos waters, and it demanded

some generations before they were able to get in command. It was

Marduk who defeated Tiamat and created the world from her body.

As pointed out byseveral scholars, e.g. SPEISER4) , the structure

of the introductory verses shows identical constructions in Enuma

elish and Gen. i: dependent temporal clause, parenthetic clauses,

main clause. Probably this arrangement was normative, and in using

it the author of shows that he knew the ancient Babylonian creation

accounts.


5/10

182 A. S. KAPELRUD

It is also obvious why his introductory verses are constructed in

this way. There were strong rules in the ancient world, and a creation

story had to be written in the form used for such narratives. Theauthor of Gen. i knew that and acted accordingly. He had no choice

in that respect. But to this cause a couple of others may have been

added. The author knew that his readers, living as deported in

Babylonia, knew the Babylonian creation stories and were fully

aware of how the form of a creation narrative should be. He could

by no means ignore these readers, for whose help his own story was

writ ten. Secondly (or right: thirdly) he had to reckon with the

possibility that also Babylonian readers might get hold of his accountand read it, and he could easily guess how their irony would be

stoved upon him if his form was not proper. His cause would then

be lost with the first words.

But he knew better. He also understood that he had to introduce

the central being at once, and he had to mention the chaos which

was there before creation. That would be completely in line with

the narrative in the introductoryverses of Enuma elish.

The author was strictly bound by the form rules, but he did not

allow them to rule his theology. We shall not discuss here where and

how his theological ideas had their origin. They had their background

in the central ideas of the Jahwistic work, where Jahweh was also

pictured as the creator of the world, and the story told according to

same form principles which were in use in the time of P. But the chaos

situation which the Jahwist described in Gen. ii 4 if. was another

than that found in Babylonia. The world was dry, and water was

needed, quite contrary to the situation as the Babylonians and

described it. That was one of the points where wanted to give a

"better" account than the Jahwist had given. The Jahwistic narrator

had his traditions from Canaan, where the ancient narratives from

Mesopotamia had got a new nature background. wanted to go

back to the Mesopotamian background, because that was relevant

to him, who was probably living in Babylonia himself. What he kept

from his predecessor were the grammatical construction, the

mentioning of God at once and the fact that God made the world.

The changes are interesting P who wrote for international readers


6/10

GENESIS 183

changed the order in which heaven and earth were mentioned. The

old narratorquite naturallymentioned the earth first, but preferred

heaven, the abode of God.This is all part of the theology which was characteristic in P's

work. He played out this theology also against Babylonian creation

views. It was not so that chaos monsters were the first beings in the

universe, nor was it so that generations of gods followed until the

creator and saviour was born. From the very first beginning, brst,

God was there, being in command of all that happened. There was

no power sufficiently mighty to threaten him, and he alone was god.

There were no divine generations before him, nor after him, norbeside him.

When God began his creation x), the earth was first thu wbhu^

empty and disordered. It was God who changed this condition.

There was darkness over the endless deep, tehm. In using this word

obviously alludes to Tiamat in the Babylonian narrative, thereby

expressly indicating again that he knew this narrative, but changed

it consciously. His intention was not to use the Babylonian myth,

but to indicate th rough his allusions that he knew it, and disregardedits content.

Also the much discussed sentence: werh *lhm mrahfcetcal-pn hammaym may be such an allusion, to the Spirit of God as the

active, fertilizing principle. In Enuma elish it is only told that the

gods were formed within the waters. Who formed them and how

it happened is not told. In the creation story of there is never any

doubt about who was acting: it was God. That is emphasized again

and again.God's action in is of a decidedly positive character. It was no t

so in Enuma elish, where the talking and the restless activity of the

gods highly disturbed Apsu and Tiamat, so they had "no relief by

day and no rest by night". Apsu wanted to kill the gods, but was

killed himself by the wise god Ea, who created the strong god

Marduk from the remnants of the monster. Marduk later fought his

hard battle with Tiamat, killed her and created the world of her body.

These events have got no place in P's narrative. Actually, they aresubstituted by the sentence mentioned above: God's spirit hovered


7/10

184 A. S. KAPELRUD

his spirit take command over the unruly waters. The chaos powers

had no possibility here to break in and be victorious, a point of view

which was possibly not shared by all psalmists, even if they preferredto picture Jahweh as victorious in the fierce battle with the sea monsters,

Ps. lxxiv 12 ff., civ 5 if.

At this part of the narrative plays out the most important point

in his account : God speaks not in order to disturb the chaos waters,

but with creative words. Into the darkness rang his words: Let there

be light! And there was light. God had no difficulty in his creation,

there was no trouble, no opposition of any kind. He spoke and

creation took place.If we compare the narratives of Enuma elish and it can be seen

that the order of creation was mainly the same in them both, which

indicates clearly that knew the Babylonian storyx) . He has, however,

emphasized that the whole creation was done by God's words. He

repeats that again and again, in order to show: this was how it

happened.

When it comes to the creation ofman, he states that it was not done

of the blood of Kingu, as in Enuma elish, nor of the earth, as it is

told in the Jahwistic narrative. knew better: man was made in the

image of God, Gen. i 26 ff.2). The implications of the expressions

used we shall not discuss here. It is sufficient to point out the difference

between P's view and the older ones which he disregards. His story

about how man was created, reveals clearly that he knew the older

ones, but did not accept them as worthy of being told anew. The

creation did not happen that way. Man also sprang directly from the

word of God.

P's use of ancient Babylonian ideas and his silent criticism of them

does not end with the creation of man. After Marduk's victory over

Tiamat and creation of the world and of man, the gods of Enuma

elish built a mighty temple for Marduk, the Esagila3) . They then

rested and had a great banquet: "Let us build a shrine whose name

shall be called "Lo, a chamber for our nightly rest"; let us repose in

it! Let us build a shrine, a recess for his abode! On the day that we

arrive we shall repose in it" 4 ) .

x) S 2 181


8/10

GENESIS I 185

As can be seen also in the Ugarit ic texts great victories were crowned

with the building of a temple for the victorious god and a great

banquet

x

) . In Enuma elish it is obvious that the gods rested afterhaving fulfilled their creation and building tasks. This rest after the

work was completed became a chief idea in the story of P. His use

of the Babylonian story was here another than according to his

previous methods. This time he did not reject an idea or substitute

another. He simply took out a minor and unimportant feature and

made it one of the chief poin ts : Go d's resting after fulfilled task.

That was no operation at random. The author had here an oppor

tunity to bind together a feature from the Babylonian story and acentral idea from leading circles among the exiles. That idea was

expressed in a verb frequently used by in Gen. i, hibdl, to divide 2).

The verb expressed a necessity for the exiles : if they should be able

to survive they had to adhere to their own faith, their own traditions

and to divide themselves from their Babylonian surroundings.

In his account, then, tried to show how this was of divine origin.

Already from the very beginning God had divided: light from

darkness (v. 4), waters above the vault from waters under the vault(v. 6-7), day from night (vv. 14, 18). Fo r the people there were two

ways to divide themselves from the surrounding peoples: through

rest on the seventh day, as God had done in his creation, as told in

Gen. i, and through circumcision, also ordered by God himself to

Abraham, his servant, Gen. xvii.

These two features, the Sabbath and the Circumcision, play a great

role in the story of P. He emphasizes their importance in making it

clear that they both had their origin in God. The institution of theSabbath was even part of the creation order.

The time when it was necessary to underline the importance of

these features, which divided the Judaean people from their surround

ings, could be the time of the Exile as well as the period immediately

following. There are, however, several traits which indicate that the

story with its very special details most probably had its origin in

Babylonia during the Exile. They are first and foremost the many

allusions to the Babylonian creation stories, which were neithernecessary nor wanted in after-exilic time, when all that reminded of


9/10

186 KAPELRUD , GENESIS I

Babylon was swept away. In P's creation story the whole frame is

of Babylonian origin, but the main ideas are markedly of another

kind, consciously set up against the polytheistic account in Enumaelish. His ideas sprang from the Judaean congregation, from ideas

formed there during the exile time, but their precise form may have

been born within the author himself.

Who was then? We have here a possibility to come closer to the

identity of this author than what has been usual. His name will

probably always be hidden in darkness, but it may be supposed that

he lived among the exiles in Babylonia and had a certain position

in the Judaean community. He has been supposed to be a priest, butthere is more reason to believe that he was a learned scribe

1)

9who

knew the ancient Babylonian traditions as well as the Judaean.

Possibly he had to take part in negotiations with the Babylonians and

knew some of their scribes or leaders. Whether he was a lone figure

or one of a circle is a question which can also be raised. He was

most probably alone in making his formulations, but he was surely

living and working in a circle where the ideas, touched upon above,

were formed and discussed.Only our last question remains: for what audience was the story

written or told? The answer to that question is already given in what

is said above. wrote for the Judaean community in Babylonia, in

order to give them a clear, systematic and right picture of their own

traditions, which also gave him an opportunity to emphasize the

features he wanted and to strengthen the defence where he found

it necessary. He wrote for a community which stood in constant

danger of being penetrated by Babylonian ideas and religion. In this

situation his fellow countrymen needed a creation story which could

not only compete with the Babylonian one, but which was superior

intellectually and ideologically. wrote that creation story.

*) Cf. also I. ENGNELL, Svenskt bibliskt nppslagsverk2, 1963, II , col. 159.


10/10

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions