Atheists, sceptics and other critics of Christianity like to make the claim that the biblical account of creation is simply stolen from earlier pagan myths found in the Ancient Near East. For example, they claim that the Babylonian creation account Enuma Elish serves as a basis for the Genesis account.
They claim there are plenty of similarities between the ANE accounts and that found in Genesis, so there is nothing unique about the Bible and it certainly is not God’s inerrant word. How might we respond to such charges? While the discussion can be rather complex, let me try to offer a brief, introductory discussion on all this.
Genesis 1-2 and its polemical intent
The opening chapters of Genesis give us an account of how God created the world out of nothing. It sets the stage for the rest of the biblical story line. Part of its purpose is to serve as a polemic against the rival gods and creation accounts. Let me define three crucial terms here.
A polemic is a refutation or attack on the opinions or ideas of another. The biblical writers would likely have been aware of some of these other creation accounts, so what we find in Genesis is, in part, an assault on some of these myths that were around at the time.
All this is about conflicting cosmologies and cosmogonies. A cosmology is the way we look at the universe; our understanding of the universe. A cosmogeny is the theory of the origin or creation of the universe or cosmos.
Standing against the cosmology and creation accounts of the ANE is the Genesis account. The biblical account of creation challenges the rival cosmologies, such as that of the Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Canaanites and the Egyptians.
The polytheism of the surrounding cultures is especially targeted in the biblical narratives. What we find in the opening chapters of Genesis is a real put down of other gods and other worldviews. It directly challenges the prevailing accounts of the gods and creation.
There are both similarities and differences in the biblical account of creation as compared to other ANE accounts. The critics like to emphasize possible similarities and play down any differences. But in truth the differences are very greater and much more significant.
Let me begin with some similarities, at least some superficial ones.
One. The gods are involved in the task of creating the world. They are involved in the creation account. There is divine activity taking place with creation.
Two. There often is a theme of order coming out of chaos (especially a watery chaos). There is a primeval watery mass which is personified in the ANE. It is a foreboding and fearful place. Out of this comes order and calm. The biblical account of course lacks this personification, but does speak elsewhere of this as well. See for example Psalm 74:13-14 and 89:9-10.
Three. Creation is associated with naming.
Four. Man is said to be made out of clay in some of the ANE accounts (Egyptian and Mesopotamian)
Five. There are many similarities in the flood account. The Babylonian flood epic, Gilgamesh, for example, offers many parallels with the Genesis account.
Six. Some ANE traditions, like the Sumerian, speak of people before the flood having long life spans.
What do we make of these similarities? While we still need to look at the major differences between these accounts, how are we to understand the cases of apparent parallel accounts? There are three major options here:
One. The pagan accounts copied from the Biblical account. This is possible.
Two. The biblical account copied from the pagan mythologies. This is somewhat possible to the extent that some of the ancient cosmologies may antedate the biblical account.
Three. Both draw upon common antecedent traditions and common shared memories. A series of events have a shared experience and memory, and the various accounts may well independently draw upon them. Thus in the historical accounts of Gen. 1-2 there are some mythical motifs which may have been incorporated, but only as they serve the purposes of the biblical authors. This seems to be the most likely case.
But the differences are very pronounced and cannot be underestimated or ignored.
One. All the ANE accounts are polytheistic. There are many gods involved in the process of creation, not just one. Often there are divine rivalries and conflicts going on between the gods which explain the creation accounts, and the rhythms of nature. Often there is negotiation and bargaining among the gods to bring about creation. In the biblical account God is unique, God is one, and God is not in rivalry with other gods.
For example, in Enuma Elish, you read of the birth of the gods, the battle between Maarduk and Tiamat, and the creation of man. Both the gods and the world came from the same womb. A god is killed, thrown down from heaven, and his dead body becomes earth.
Such ideas are totally foreign to the biblical account. There is no hint of such a battle in the Genesis account. Also, unlike the ANE accounts, God has no father. And there are no female deities or consorts for Yahweh in the biblical account.
Two. Nothing in creation is divine, and therefore no created thing should be worshipped. Only the creator God should be worshipped. For example, in Egyptian cosmology, worship is directed to the sun god Shamash and the moon-god, Yarih. But the biblical account shows that the sun and moon are just other created items, created by the one true God.
The normal Hebrew words are not even used there, just “the larger” and “smaller light”. As can be seen, the Hebrew words (semes = sun, yareah = moon) are similar in other Semitic languages. In the ANE those words are the names of deities, so they are avoided here.
Often the stars were said to control human destiny in ANE cosmologies. But the biblical account sees them as just another part of creation, not as a god or having divine significance. Thus the biblical account not only condemns the ancient Babylonian superstitions, but any such concepts we still use today, including horoscopes, etc.
The same with the seasons, the productivity of the crops, etc. In the ANE, the harvest and the necessary climate to produce it is the result of magic or the whim of the gods. For example, the seasons are said to be the result of the gods, as in Autumn when the fertility god dies, and needs to be appeased by festivals and sacrifices, etc.
For example, in Canaan, the fertility god Baal is said to die at the end of the year, thus the crops die as well. The death god Mot takes him to the sea prince. But Baal’s consort Anat, the goddess, fights the sea prince and rescues Baal. Thus the new round of crops begins again.
But in the biblical account, the seasons and the productivity of the land are all due to the good hand of God. He is in control of the sun, the rain, the harvest, the seasons, of crop productivity and healthy flocks. This is all God’s doing, not our own. Consider just one passage, Deuteronomy 8:7-11, 17-18:
For the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land – a land with streams and pools of water, with springs flowing in the valleys and hills; a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills. When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the LORD your God for the good land he has given you. Be careful that you do not forget the LORD your God, failing to observe his commands, his laws and his decrees that I am giving you this day. . . . You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today.
Three. The sea monsters and astral bodies are not gods that rival Yahweh. They are just his creatures who display his power and glory. See some of the passages above. For example the huge sea creatures (tanninim) are not fierce monsters that war against the gods, but are in fact creations of God. See Psalm 104 and Job 40-41.
And God is able to control and defeat them as well. As we read in Isaiah 27:1: “In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword, his fierce, great and powerful sword, Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea.” Moreover, these creatures can even praise God: “Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all ocean depths” (Psalm 148:7).
Four. Creation comes from pre-existing (eternal) matter in the ANE accounts. In the non-biblical accounts, divine spirit and cosmic matter exist side by side from eternity. But the biblical account affirms that everything was made by God, and there is no eternal matter which he simply just fashions. The idea of creation ex nihilo, as we already mentioned, sets the biblical account apart from most other creation accounts.
Five. The gods need creation. For example, they need humans as labor-saving devices, to provide them with food, etc. But the biblical account says that God freely and sovereignly created. He did not need to. There was no deficiency in God that meant he needed man.
And in the ANE accounts, the creation of man is almost incidental, an afterthought, and no big deal. Humans are said to be made from a dead god, along with clay and divine spit. But in the Bible, man is the centerpiece and crowning achievement of creation. We are his representatives and rulers on earth, not just the slaves or lackeys of the gods.
Six. The seventh day is not an ill omen or unlucky day, as in the Mesopotamian accounts. It is the crowning day of God’s creation week, a day of rest and blessing.
Seven. The biblical account of the creation of woman is unique to the cosmogonies of the ANE. It shows the high view of women given by the Hebrew religion.
Eight. There is no fall or sense of sin in the ANE creation accounts. In fact there is no parallel to the garden narrative in the ANE accounts (although there is a garden of God motif).
Nine. There is no Babel episode to be found in the ANE accounts. And the account of Babel in Gen. 11:1-9 can well be seen as an attack on Babylon and its idea of being the center of civilisation, including its claim that its temple tower was the gate of heaven (as it says in Enuma Elish).
Ten. The flood account does find many parallels elsewhere, but there are many differences. Just one: once started, the flood got out of the gods’ control, and they were quite terrified by it. This of course is not how the biblical account sees things.
In sum, the biblical writers were likely aware of some of the other creation accounts in circulation at the time, but that does not mean they heavily relied on them or simply copied them. Instead it seems the biblical writers went out of their way to repudiate and refute these pagan cosmologies.
So even if they did do some borrowing, it was more the imagery of the myths. The theology and worldview of them were clearly denounced and shown to be deficient.