Creation, Fall & Flood: Plagiarism or Theological Differentiation in the Ancient Near East?

Lee Hopkins

An examination of the similarities and differences between the creation, fall and flood stories of the Bible and other Ancient Near East counterparts, and a look at how an investigation into this issue helps us interpret these stories for today.

Creation

Isolated elements in the biblical creation account are paralleled by elements of ancient Near East (hereafter ' ane ') accounts (Dockery, n.d.). Apart from the Hebraic account, the most well-known creation account arising out of the ane is the Enuma Elish ("When on High", Butler, n.d.) from Babylonia.

The parallels are striking. Both stories reflect a creation from or involving large and chaotic bodies of water; both divide the sky from the earth; both provide a basic order of creation ( firmament, dry land, luminaries, man; Wilmington; a, n.d.); and both indicate a period of rest at the end of the creative process.

Whilst similar in many respects, there are fundamental differences in Theology and Anthropology (McGregor, 2005). Dealing with Theological differences first, there are six main ways that the Hebraic God differs from the polytheism of the Enuma Elish .

Firstly, unlike the Babylonian-Sumerian epic, there is no theo-biography present; God is presented 'as is', existing from the outset with no need for explanation of his lineage or exploits.

Secondly, God is monotheistic; there is no other (greater or lesser) god than God. He is also non-pantheistic: he is set apart from his creation; (Wilmington, b, n.d.).

Thirdly, no cosmic battle is required for God to win. Unlike Marduk needing to defeat the sea goddess Tiamat, and Ea requiring the blood of slain god to create mankind, the Hebraic God does not require a battle or struggle to bring forth his creation.

Fourthly, the Hebraic God shows a purpose and design to his creations, whereas the Enuma Elish tells of humankind, for example, being an afterthought, a lazy god's whim created to serve. Equally, there is a fundamental design difference between humankind as created by the Israelite God and humankind as created by other ane cultures. As LaSor et al point out (1996:23), the Hebrew word that we translate as "image" and as used in the bible (for example, Gen 1:27) means "according to a similar but not identical representation", separating it from the ane tradition in which deity formed humanity in divine shape.

Fifthly, the Hebraic God repeatedly displays sovereignty and control: "And God said.", "And God saw.", "And God divided.", "And God called." The biblical text has God in control of the three fears in the ancient world - sea, desert, and darkness. The biblical text speaks of a God for whom his word is inviolate and purposeful of outcome.

Finally, in an ancient world where the gods are mean, nasty, selfish, self-opinionated, vengeful, lustful and pride-ridden, the biblical God 'blesses' his creation. That is, he promises and delivers to them abundance, fertility of soil, human reproductive fertility, and security. He even goes further to be abundant and over-generous in his blessings (Gen 1:29 ".every.").

Considering the anthropological construction, an examination reveals three differences between the bible and other ane accounts, and some overlaps from those discussed just above.

Firstly, other ane accounts position humanity as an afterthought and of little significance. This contrasts with the biblical perspective, which finds humankind the climax of God's creative efforts. As Henry (2000) points out, the biblical text suggests God honours and favours humankind by making them the last creation in his procession of created beings-an honour, because the path of creation was from least sophisticated and least perfect to more so; a favour because it was not fit that humankind be lodged in the palace designed for them until it was completely finished and suitably furnished.

Secondly, the bible shows humankind as rulers of the earth, charged with carrying out their duties faithful to the style of God, which is with love and care, whilst ane accounts show humankind as mere slaves.

Thirdly, the Enuma Elish presents a humanity derived from the blood of an evil god, therefore with the underlying conception that humankind is itself evil and its genealogy is the reason why. Compare this with the biblical account, which shows humankind as created in the image of God, a representative of God on earth, recipients of his blessing (Gen 1:28) and, depending upon how you read the text, the beneficiaries of an accolade from God which no other creature earned: "very good" (Gen 1:31).

Thus it can be shown that although there are similarities between the biblical and other ane creation accounts, the bible differs fundamentally in theological and anthropological perspective from its contemporaries. This is as equally true for the Creation as it is for mankind's Fall.

Fall

Genesis 3 is concerned solely with man's fall into a sinful state and the judgement a disappointed yet still loving YHWH passes on them and as such is alone in the ane -there are no direct parallels with other ane cultures for this aspect of the Bible.

Whilst the Gilgamesh Epic features a snake, the story explains why snakes shed their skin. Gooder (2000:30) notes that serpents in Canaanite texts represented fertility, whilst in Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts serpents represented either wisdom or magic.

But Genesis 3 introduces a new concept: the idea that a living entity can be 'overpowered, entered into and manipulated' by a power greater than itself.

Until Gen 3, any interaction between YHWH and man, or equivalently between the ane gods and mankind in other cultures, were 'entity-e-mano'. In Genesis 3 we witness the serpent, a common creature within Palestine (anywhere from 25-40 varieties; Day, 1998), be 'used' by the Satan for his own purposes. The Satan was not permitted to have any contact with man, except through the senses and in the way of speech (Barnes, 1999). So he 'invades' a low-ranking creature, the serpent, and uses it to create a rift between the creator and his creation.

This poor creature now unwittingly becomes the focus for man's hatred and a symbol of poisonous evil throughout the rest of the Bible (1).

Unlike other ane cultures, the Fall and its consequences shows a God still willing to be in a positive relationship with his creation, a God still desiring closeness with humans.

Because the Israelite God gave mankind free will, he also introduced the concept of consequences. The consequence of obedience was a delightful life. The consequence of disobedience (showing God that man's love for him was not absolute nor unconditional, that man was desirous of 'playing God' too) was pain and suffering.

Yet even in the pain and suffering God showed an incredible blessing.

For Eve, she was to find intense, almost unbearable pain in childbirth. Additionally, she was to be subservient to her husband Adam. For Adam, he was to find great pain in his work, work that would yield meagre result. And instead of a (possible) eternal life with God in his garden, both Adam and Eve would now have a finite lifetime.

How does one find blessings in this? Eve was blessed because through childbirth she would become the mother of all humankind. In eschatological hope (Todd, 1998), through Eve God's salvation story builds towards Jesus-He who would crush the serpent's head just as the serpent bites His heel. Similarly, for Adam (2) his blessing is that he would become the father of all humankind. Additionally, he and Eve were not to remain in their fallen state forever, but would eventually be released from the burden of existence in an earthly fallen world.

But God doesn't stop there. Even after his judgement he shows compassion on Adam and Eve by clothing them.

So it must have been intensely painful for God when he decided to wipe the canvas clean and start again by flooding the earth.

Flood

With over 250 recorded examples of flood narratives, myths and legends (Isaak, 1992), the Bible is not alone in indicating that a major, catastrophic flood of some description occurred. However, as Young (1995:84) asks, did God give us Scripture as a source of scientific and historical 'truth', or as a book of redemption, theology and morality?

Certainly commentators have, over the centuries, shifted in their opinions as to the historicity of the Biblical flood text (Young, ibid. ). However, one could argue that the entire Old Testament is not a historical or scientific document, a description of exactly how God 'did it', but more an insight into God and his relationship to and with humanity.

If one looks at one of the sources document many advocates of the 'Bible as evidence of plagiarism' position hold up-tablet XI of the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh Epic (Untangle Inc.,2002)-there are indeed similarities. Both present isolated individual humans protected and saved from a catastrophic flood by divine agency; both require animals to be taken along; both show the entire population destroyed; both describe the boats ending up grounding themselves on a high mountain; both exhibit three birds used to ascertain if land has emerged and then, finally, both offer a sacrifice (LaSor et al. :19-20). And, post-flood, a sign is given to show that the Divine won't destroy the earth in a flood again: a necklace in the Gilgamesh Epic ; a rainbow in Genesis.

However, the Gilgamesh Epic is not the only Ancient Near Eastern story/myth held up as a possible source of plagiarism; Babylonian priest Berossus' Babyloniaka , the Grecian Pindar's ninth Olympian ode mentioned 'Deucalion's Flood' (and Plato in Timaeus recounted how Solon travelled to Egypt and discoursed on the earliest events known to the Greeks, including how Deucalion and Pyrrha survived the flood and a description of their descendants) (Young, op cit .:6).

An oft-used early source of corroborative evidence for the existence of a flood, first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c.37-c.101) noted that Nicholas of Damascus spoke of

a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote (Whiston, cited in Young, ibid .:10).

The various flood stories show a contagious, geographically disperse memetic propagation (Lynch, 1996) of a scientifically proven localised event (Young, op. cit., p.225); memetic, in that the 'idea' or 'concept' of a divinely-inspired flood with a 'single or small number of survivors' has spread throughout the Mesopotamian region (indeed, all over the world). A scientifically proven local flood, in that archeological and geographical evidence strongly suggests a localised flood (Young, op. cit., p.266).

So if there are similarities in plot and character, which there appear to be, can the Bible be discounted as a poor copy of more ancient legends? There is little doubt that the Bible does indeed take the Babylonian legend, picked up during the Babylonian exile, and 'colour' it with Judaic paint. But for what purpose?

It could be argued that such appropriation served two purposes. Firstly, by taking the Babylonian epic and changing the names of the characters, Israel was able to have an ancestral 'story' of its own. However, more importantly, by changing the motivations of the characters, Israel was able to reposition the focus of the narrative away from weak polytheistic characters and towards a strong, omnipotent monotheistic God.

Chafing against the exile and domination by Babylonian masters, the early Israelites found a powerful way of re-asserting their own unique identity of 'God's chosen people' by seeking to highlight the differences between a covenantal God who directly impacts upon and interacts with the Israelites and a polytheistic collection of gods who make less impact on humans than the rhythms of natural forces (Pun, n.d., 5.3.htm).

For example, in the Babylonian tradition the gods are separate from 'Nature'; in the Hebrew tradition God is the creator of 'Nature'. In the Babylonian tradition the gods are near-mortal: they lie, they steal, they are adulterous, they are full of lust, pride and hedonism. In contrast, the Hebrew God is pure, holy and without sin.

In other ane accounts the gods are easily manipulated by objects and symbols of superstition; the Hebrew God is constant, consistent and cannot be bought.

In the Babylonian tradition humans are the mere servants of the gods, there to appease them and to serve them food, drink and offerings. In the Hebrew tradition humans are the ultimate creative act of a loving, purposeful God, situated above all other creatures and made in the very image of God. Through Hebraic tradition we become dignified, yet marred materially by sin (LaSor et al., p.22).

In the Babylonian tradition the gods are full of failings; in the Hebrew tradition God is omnipotent, omniscient and we are his inamorato.

But how can stories of an all powerful, relationship-centric God of the ane have any meaning for us in the Information Age?

The 'So What?' Factor

What relevance does the Old Testament have to us in the 21 st Century? How can the trials and tribulations of an ancient agrarian, nomadic and violent world bear any relevancy in today's Australia?

The cultures of the ane drew their stories from an understandably similar palette. However, whilst prima facie the characters looked similar, the characters' motivations in the Israelite stories were radically different. The God of the Israelites was a God that spoke to them and lived directly in amongst them; not housed in some Olympian idyll, but right there in amongst the tents. The God of the Israelites was a God that controlled the three biggest fears of the ancient world: the sea, the desert, and the darkness; he created the sea, he walked with them through the desert and provided manna, quail and water out of rocks, he burned as fire to light their nights. The God of the Israelites was a generous God, given to blessing his creation with abundance, fertility and security. The God of the Israelites was the only God, not one of a hierarchical pantheon, and all came from him.

In all these aspects and more, the God of the Israelites was radically different from the other gods of the ane . He was consistent in his behaviour and could not be 'bought' with superstitious ritual or object.

The third world setting might have changed, but the fundamental questions that the Old Testament answered for the ancient Israelites remain fundamental questions for us today:

Who is God?
Why is he important?
Why do I keep 'stuffing up'?
Will God love me if I keep 'stuffing up'?
What can I do to keep God on my side?
Why doesn't God solve all my problems for me?
If God loves us, why are there still wars, brutality, rape, injustice, starvation, and suffering?
How do I know he exists?

Who is God? God is the Creator of all livings things; he created the heavens and the earth. As such we owe him our very lives.

Why is he important? He is important because he created us and our world. Unlike us, he is not bound by the rules of this earth; he can move events and people around like a jigsaw, so that his own divine purposes are met. He can punish us for our sins and reward us for our hearts, if he so chooses. He is not beholden to other gods, nor does he take orders from them. He is the one and only God, with absolute power to remake his creation. That he has promised us he won't destroy his creation again-and has thus far kept his promise-is a sign of his faithfulness to us, even when we don't deserve such love.

Why do I keep 'stuffing up'? We continue to 'stuff up' because we are fallen humans. Before we allowed Satan to tempt our egos, we had a great future mapped out for us. We had named all the animals, we had only to live in the most wondrous garden and manage and maintain these creatures. But we allowed Satan to twist our sense of perspective, to allow us the indulgence of thinking we could be as powerful as God, and we got found out and punished as a result. Having opened our minds to pride, greed, envy and conceit, the genie wouldn't go back in the bottle and these same traits cause us to 'stuff up' today.

Will God love me if I keep 'stuffing up'? The entire Old Testament is a testimony to God's forgiving love. Yes, he still loves us, even when we repeatedly 'stuff up'. Sure, we get punishment meted out-and deservedly so-but we always get his mercy thrown in for free, with a seemingly endless supply of 'Fresh Chance' cards to prove it.

What can I do to keep God on my side? Absolutely nothing. God's love for us is not dependent upon our acts, but our hearts. But even someone whose heart is against God is still loved by him. It is just unfortunate that the heart's owner will likely never know, nor feel his love.

Why doesn't God solve all my problems for me? The Old Testament makes clear that we are responsible for the choices we make concerning how we live out our lives. God can and does move the big pieces around, he can and does attend to the little details to smooth our paths, but we are responsible for whether we work in harmony with him or not. Therefore, the Old Testament shows a pattern of maturation: the more mature the person is, the more they incline their hearts and lives to God. But the process of maturation is not based solely on the passage of time; our wise decisions are based on our experiences, our experiences based on our failures, our failures based on our decisions. We need to fail many times, to find out what is right and wrong for ourselves, before we can accumulate enough experiences to begin making wise choices. God doesn't want us to rely lazily on him for providence; he wants us to 'figure it out for ourselves' and come to love him through realising the anguish and heartache that comes from not loving him first.

If God loves us, why are there still wars, brutality, rape, injustice, starvation, and suffering? Because of the same reason that God doesn't solve our problems for us, he also doesn't take away our need to collectively realise that pride, greed, envy and conceit undermine our own life happiness. It is painful for the victims, yes, but perhaps through their pain they will be able to glimpse a God that has promised them a happier, brighter future in eternity than their pained existence here on earth, and while they are here, suffering, they may be an example to someone else of how to live with dignity and grace. Or they may cause one hard heart to become softer through the witnessing of their sorrow. It may also be that God wants us to have a worthy comparison between this life and the next, or to help us make better decisions about the people with whom we share our lives here on earth.

How do I know he exists? You don't, at least not until you open your heart and offer him the opportunity to begin a relationship with you. He may no longer choose to come to you as a burning bush or a pillar of fire, he may choose not to send a glowing angelic vision in white, but he can still speak directly into your head. His is the voice of your conscience; he is the 'small quiet voice within' that sometimes answers your thoughts of anguished 'why me?' He is the sense of wonder and astonishment as you watch a spectacular sunrise or sunset. He is 'the muse' that spills words and ideas out from under your fingers as you type on a blank page. He is the shiver that runs up your spine as you listen to a piece of music. He is the shiver that runs down your spine when you are playing something-music, sport, a game-and you realise you are 'in the zone'. He is the agony of guilt when realising that you have forgotten to say 'thank you' to him. He is the ecstasy that comes to you in a crowded room when he whispers in your head that, yes, he does love you. He is the tear that runs silently down your cheek as you realise that you love him too and you are so, so sorry for all of your millions of sins that you can't stop repeating.

These questions and answers are just as valid today as they were several millennia ago. Our post-modern sensibilities would perhaps ask the same questions in different ways from our ancient agrarian, nomadic ancestors; the answers for the ancients formed their songs, and for us the song remains the same.

Bibliography

Bailey, L.R. 'The Past: The Text We Must Interpret' in The Pentateuch. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1981), 13-60.

Barnes, A. 'Genesis 3: 8-21, Verse 17-19' in Barnes' Notes on the Old Testament . (Iowa: Findex, 1999 - electronic edition).

Butler, T.C. (Ed.). 'Enuma Elish'. In Holman Bible Dictionary . (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, n.d. - electronic edition)

Clarke, A. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Old Testament. (Iowa: Parsons Technology, 1999 - electronic edition).

Day, A.E. 'Serpent' in Orr, J. (ed.). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia . (Iowa: Parsons Technology, 1998 - electronic edition).

Dillard, R.B. & Longman, T. III . An Introduction to the Old Testament . (Michigan: Zondervan, 1993).

Dockery, D.S. (Ed.). 'Creation and flood stories'. In Holman Bible Handbook. (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, n.d. - electronic edition).

Drane, J. 'The Pentateuch'. In Introducing The Old Testament . ( Oxford : Lion, 2000), 182-187.

Garrett, D.A. 'The Documentary Hypothesis' in Rethinking Genesis . (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991), 13-29.

Gooder, P. The Pentateuch: A Story of Beginnings . (London: Continuum, 2000).

Hamilton, V.P. Handbook on the Pentateuch . (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982).

Henry, M. 'Genesis. Verse 31'. In Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Old Testament . ( Omaha : Parsons; 2000 - electronic edition)

Keil, C.F. & Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Old Testament; Vol. 1:Pentateuch . ( Nebraska : Findex, 2000 - electronic edition).

LaSor, W.S., Hubbard, D.A., & Bush, F.W. Old Testament Survey . (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996).

Lynch, A. Thought Contagion: how belief spreads through society . (Basic Books: New York, 1996 )

McGregor, D. Lecture notes . 2005.

Orr, J. (ed.). 'Creation' in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia . (Iowa: Parsons Technology, 1998 - electronic edition).

Pun. 5.3 Four Exegetical Principles, n.d. (accessed 13 March 2005), http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter5/5.3htm

Taylor, C. Rewriting Bible History . (Adelaide: The House of Tabor, 1983).

Todd, C. The Genesis Flood Narratives , 1998 (accessed 13 March 2005), http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5993/flood_1.html

Untangle Incorporated, Tablet XI: The Flood, Trial of Sleeplessness, Foiled by the Serpent, Triumphant Return From the Dead, 2002 (accessed 8 Mar 2005), http://www.mythome.org/gilgamesh11.html

Walton, J.H. The NIV Application Commentary - Genesis . ( Michigan : Zondervan, 2001).

Willmington, H.L. (a). 'Historical Study Summaries, The Bible and Archeology, 1. Creation (Gen. 1:1)'. In Wilmington's Guide to the Bible . (Wheaton, Tyndale House, n.d. - electronic edition)

Wilmington, H.L. (b). 'The Creation Stage, 1. The Creation of All Things, Table "In the Beginning God Created Heaven and Earth". In Wilmington's Guide to the Bible . (Wheaton, Tyndale House, n.d. - electronic edition)

Young, D.A. The Biblical Flood: a Case Study of the Church's response to Extrabiblical Evidenc e. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

Notes

Day ( ibid. ) points out the following ways the serpent is portrayed in the bible: "The wicked (Ps 58:4), the persecutor (Ps 140:3), and the enemy (Jer 8:17) are likened to venomous serpents. The effects of wine are compared to the bites of serpents (Prov 23:32). Satan is a serpent (Gen 3; Rev 12:9; 20:2). The term "offspring of vipers" is applied by John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt 3:7) or to the multitudes (Luke 3:7) who came to hear him; and by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 12:34; 23:33). Dan is a "serpent in the way . that biteth the horse's heels" (Gen 49:17). Serpents are among the terrors of the wilderness (Deut 8:15; Isa 30:6). Among the signs accompanying believers is that "they shall take up serpents" (Mark 16:18; compare Acts 28:5). It is said of he that trusts in Yahweh: "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: The young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under foot" (Ps 91:13).

"In the millennium, "the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den" (Isa 11:8). The serpent is subtle (Gen 3:1; 2 Cor 11:3); wise (Matt 10:16); accursed (Gen 3:14); eats dust (Gen 3:14; Isa 65:25; Mic 7:17). The adder is deaf (Ps 58:4). The serpent lurks in unexpected places (Gen 49:17; Eccl 10:8; Am 5:19). Serpents may be charmed (Ps 58:5; Eccl 10:11; Jer 8:17). Only once does the Bible find something remotely positive to say about the serpent; among four wonderful things is "the way of a serpent upon a rock" (Prov 30:19)."

whose name, as Keil & Delitzch (n.d.:'Genesis 2:7') point out, is a derivative of 'earth'; Adam , from ???? ( adamah ), earth