of 10
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.
7/29/2019 The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions
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
7/29/2019 The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions
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
7/29/2019 The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions
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.
7/29/2019 The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions
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
7/29/2019 The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions
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
7/29/2019 The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions
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
7/29/2019 The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions
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
7/29/2019 The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions
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.
7/29/2019 The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter i and the Author's Intentions
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.