7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel

1/13

I

fiu

'\ J r r u ~ @ ~ D ~ ~ ~

Q J

~ r 1 1

[?

rr

Vol.

XLVI

No.2 . April-June 1974 Price 40p net

THE POLElvIIC NATURE

of

THE

GENESIS

COSMOLOGY

by

Gerhard F Hasel

an

Internat ional

Quarterly

of

Christian

Thought

' ,

7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel

2/13

i

I

The

Polemic ature of the

enesis Oosnlology

by Gerhard

F

Hasel

81

This paper, emphasizing thaI Ihe creation narrative

of

Genesis I

f r from

being dependent Oil the creation stories of Babylollia

and other ancient Near Eastern comogonies, designedly polemicizes

against them, was originally presented [ the Uppsala Congress of

the International Organization

for

Old Testament Studies in August,

1971. We are glad to publish it in this revised form. Dr. Hasel

is

Associate Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology

in

ndrews

University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

LMOST one hundred years ago a new phase

of OT

study was

inaugurated

with

the publications

of

the Babylonian versions

of

the flood and the creation account,1 Soon a school

of

thOUght

arose

which attempted to show

that

there \\las nothing

in

the Old

Testament that

w s

not

but

a pale reflection

of

Babylonian ideas,)

This "pan-Babylonian" school led to

the

well-known

Bible

versus

Babel" controversy which was started in the first decade

of

our

century

by

Friedrich Delitzsch, ' who claimed

that

the Old T e ~ t a m e t

was lacking almost completely in originality. Today the situation

has

changed radically. We can no longer talk

glibly

about Baby

lonian civilization because We

now

know

that it

was composed of

three

main

strands and that even before the end of the third mill

ennium

B.C.

as W. G. Lambert and

o t h r s ~

remind us. The cultural

and

religious situation

is not

only multi-layered

but

also extremely

complex and diverse with its own long history of traditions The

finds at Ugarit have made it apparent that Canaarute mythology

does

not

need

to

agree with

that of

Mesopotamia.

We are aware

more than ever before

that

the question

of

religio-historical parallels

is

much more complex and intertwined than was ever expected.

This is true also with regard to parallels between Israelite motifs,

concepts, and thoughts and those of her neighbors.

lars in the lives of the astronomically and astrolOgically mmded

B:Joylonians . I07 .

Against

the

b a ~ g r o u n d of t h ~ w ~ d e s p r e a d astral worshIp

the

creation

and

function of the

lummanes

m Gen. 1: 14-18

~ p p e a r s

in 3 new light. (1) In

the

Biblical presentation

the

creatureliness of

3\ creation, also that of sun,

moon, and

stars, remains the f ~ n -

d3mental

and

determining characteristic. Conversely,

Enuma eflsh

depicts a ~ d u k as t h ~

~ n e

who fixes t ~ e astral likenesses of the

gods in theIr charactenstJcs

as

constellatlOns.

I

Ot

(2) In place of an

expressly

m y L ~ i c a l

and pnmary ruIership of the star Jupiter

ove,

other stars or astral deities,1

09

Genesis

has

the sun and moon to rule

day and night respectively.IIO (3) The

sun

as

0.

luminary is in Genesis

not from

eternity, namely

without

beginning, as is

the

sun-god

SarnaS in the Karatepe texts.

ll

In Genesis the sun and the moon

have a definite beginning

in

relation

to the

earth. (4) Gen. I avoids

lhe n:l.mes

sun

and

moon

undoubtedly because these Common

Semitic terms are

at

the same time names for deities.1l2 An inherent

opposition to astral worship is thus apparent. (5)

The

heave':lly

bodies

appear

in Genesis in tbe degrading 113 status of lumlO

aries whose function it is to rule . As carriers of light they have

the serving

function

to

give light (vss. 15-18). (6)

The enigmatic

Hebrew phrase and the stars in

vs. 16

appears to be a parenthetic:u

addition, whose

purpose it

is, in view of the prevalent

star

worshIp

in Mesopotamia,u. to empbasize that the stars themselves are

created things and

nothing more

. They share in the creatureliness

of all

creation

and

have no

autonomous divine quality.

We can readily agree

with

the conclusion of G. von Rad who has

~ l a t e J that the entire passage vs. 14-19 breathes a strongly anti

mythical patbos lIS or polemic. W.

H

Schmidt has pointed .out

similarly

that there

comes to expression here [Gen.

I: 14-18]

m a

number

1

ways a polemic against astral r e l i g i o n . " l l ~ Others could

be

added.lI7 The Hebrew account of the creation, function,

and

limitation

of

the luminaries is another unequivocal link in the

hain

stressing

that

in

Gen.

1

there

is

a direct

and

conscious anti

mythical polemic. 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.

1 and its

understandiog

of

reality.

The Purpose of the Creation of Mal

The similarities and

d i f f e ~ c e s . b e t w ~ n

tJle _pJlrpose of

man's

creation in Sumero-AlliQian

mythology

n Gen

. 1: 26-28 affords

another

point

which requires our attention. Sumerian

mythology

I

I

7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel

7/13

90 The Evangelical Quarter

is in complete accord with the Babylonian .Atrahasis Epic -

Enuma elish in depicting the need of the creatIon.

of man

to.

from the attempt to relieve the gods from

labonng

for theIr

tenance.

l t

This mythological picture. which .views the creati

man as

an

afterthought to provide the gods with food and to

their physical needs,

is

contradicted in Gen. 1. The first 'U' .nCl ,

ot the Bible depicts

man

as the pinnacle 01 creation."JJ9

not made as a kind of afterthought in order to take care

needs 01 the gods. He appears as . the only one " b l e s s ~ d " by

(I:

28); he is the ruler of the. arumal and

~ e g e t a b l e

All seed-bearing plants and fruit trees are JIIS for food (1: 29).

the divine concern

and

the divine

care for man's

physical

come to expression in a n t i t ~ e s i s to

man's

purpose to care

for

. '

physical needs of t h ~ gods m S u m e r o - ~ k k a d l a n mythology. It s

obvious that when It comes to definmg

the purpose

of

man

5

creation, Gen. ) combats pagan mythological notions while. at

the same

time the man-centered orientat ion of Gen.

I and

man's

glory and freedom to rule the earth for his

own

needs is conveyed.

l2 l

We may suggest that the different idea with regard to the purpose

of the creation of

man

in Gen.

1

rests

upon

tbe Hebrew

anthro-

pology

and

understanding

of

reality.11l

Creation by

Word

One

of

the most striking characteristics of the creation account

in Gen. t

is

the role

of

the motif of creation by God's spoken word.

The idea of the creative power of tbe divine w o r ~ is, also ~ o y m

outs ide Israel.l2.3 With regard to the

power

embodIed 10

the

dIVme

word in Mesopotamian speculations. W. H, Schmidt has shown

that

in Mesopotamia:J. creat ion of the

world

by

word

is not known.

The

Memphite theology of the Egyptian Old Kingdom knows that

god Atum creates by the speech P t a h . I ~ 5 , S. G.

p .

Brando;'l's

investigation

of

the notion

of

crea J?n by

d l ~ n e

w.ord 10 Egyptian

thOUght has led him to the conc.luSlon

that

c ~ e a t l 0 n ~ a s

e f f e c ~ e d

by

magical utterance,"126

Thus

It seern.s certam.

that

m

~ P b a n

speculation the pronouncement. of the ~ g h t maglc.at word,

llk:e

the

performance of the right magical action, actualIZeS the arumate

p o t e n t i a l i t i ~

inherent in matter. In G.en.

I.

on t ~ e .

~ t h e . r

hand,

the notions of a magical word and of anImate p o ~ e n t l a l i t l e s mherent

in

matter are absent, The first chapter of

the

BIble knows o ~ y . of

creation by

an

effortless, omnipotent,

and

unchallengeable dlVlne

word

127

which renders the so-called similarity between the Egyptian

mantic-magic word and the Hebrew effortless word of Gee. 1. as

"wholly superficial."l14 Gen. 1 shows in its view of God's creative

word

its

distance to pagan mythology.

In

Gen, 1 G O ~ ' 5

e f f o r t 1 ~

creation by the spoken word, in the words of H. Ringgren,

5

given a fundamental significance that is without parallel."U9 May

The poll mic Nature of he Genesis Cosmology

91

it

nOl indeed be the purpose

of

Gen, 1 to attack the idea

of

creation

throu ?h magical

utterance

with a concept of a

God

who creates

l \ the spoken word, bringing about

what

is desired b e c ~ u s e of t ~ e

One who speaks and not because

of

any magical power I l h e ~ e D t . n

I \\'ord spoken?

It

appears that this is a distinct way

of d l c a t l ~ g

th.ll Israelite faith

is

liberated from the banefUl in.fl.uence of magic.

Gen.

I

wishes

to

stress

thereby the

essentlal

d l f f e r ~ n c e

between

crc;l(ed being and divine Being in order to exclude any Idea of eman

:Irionism, pantheism, and primeval dualism.

This investigation

of

crucial terms and

m o t i f ~

in the creati.on

:H:count of G ~ n . I in

conjunction

with a c o m p a r l s o ~ of

r ~ s p e c h v e

:.lncient Near Eastem analogues has repeatedly pOlO ted Into o ~ e

tlircction. The cosmology of Gen. 1 exhibits in a

number

of crUCIal

i n ~ t a n c e s

a sharply antimythica1 polemic.

llo

With a great many

~ J . f e g u a r d s Gen . I employs certain terms and motifs, partly taken

from ide.olQgic i Y .'Htd .theplogica)lyjllcompatible

p r e d e c ~ s s o r s

and

pJrtlycboseo

10

deliberate contrast to c o m p ~ b l e _ancient

Nell:l

Eastern cODceiRs,' ana' uses them with a meanmg and

emph

.

am

not only consonant with but expressive

of

the purpose, )Vorld-vlew,_

an d

understanding

of reality

as

expressed

in

this

Hebrew account

I?f

creation. Due to our laying

bare

of main aspects of the. p o l e ~ c

nalure of the Genesis cosmology with

its

consistent antI mythical

thread running through Gen. I, one does

not

d

7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel

8/13

92 The

Evangelical Quarterly

3

This theo ry was started by HUgo Winckler.

G ~ s c h i c h f e luaels

(Berlin, 1895,

19(0), 2 vols.;

Das

aIle

Wesrasien

(Leipzig, 1 9 9 ) ~

"Himmels-

und Wcltbild

cler Babylonie:r als Grundlage der Weltanschauung und MythoJogie alter

Volker,"

Der

alu

Orient. m

(1901).

2 fT. On

Winckler, see

Otto Weber,

"Hugo

Winckler a's Forscher," /l-fVAG, XX (1915),13-24. \Vmckler's

most

faithful disciple in the relatively short lived "pan-Babylorum"

school

was

Alfred Jeremias whose chief works are

Das Aile Testament im Lichte des

allen Orients

(L:ipzig, 1904; 3d ed. 1916);

Handbuch dtr altorienlallschen

Geislcskullur (L:pizig, 1913). Critiques

of the "pan-Babylorum" approach

were presented

by

W.

L.

Wardle, Isrcul

and Babylon

(London.

1925),

pp.

302330;

L.

w.

King,

Hllfl. Jry of

Babylon

(l.ondon. 1915), pp. 291-313.

{ His famous book Babel un.d Bibcl (Leipzig, 1902) brousht liltle that was new.

But the

particubr

emphasis

it

gave broul',ht

about

a storm

of

those objecting

to

the

theories thut Babylonian

religion

was superior to Israelite religion

and that the latter was but a paJe refie.::tion

of the

former.

S

W.

G. Llmocrt, "A New Look

at the Babylonian

Background

of

Genesis,"

JThS.

N.

S.

XVI

(965), 288 tr.; A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia.

Portrait

of

a Dead Civilization (2d ed.;

Chicago,

1963),

pp.

171 If.,

stresses

strongly that a "Mesopotamian religion" should not be \vritten: S.

N.

Kr3mer, History Begins at Sumer (2d

cd.;

Garden

City,

N.

Y ,

1959), pp.

76

ff.

6 Among many examples we may refer

10

the Babylonian lr.l.ditions which

seem to go back to a Sumerian prototype.

sa

the writer's "Review

of

Alrahasis: The Babylonian

Story

o Ihe Flood

(1969) by

W.

G. Lambert md

A. R. Millard,"

in AUSS vm

(1970), 182-183.

1

C.

Westermann.

"Sinn und

Grenu

religionsgeschichtIicher Parallel

en,"

ThLZ.

XL (1965), cols. 489-496.

8 For

instance the Babyloni an epic

Enuma dish

contains a mythical

account of

Cfc.ltion, which has Clused

it to

called "The

Creation Epic" (ANET3,

p.

60). But

it

is incorrect to

choose

this

as a

proper

designation

for

the

entire

epic, since the unique goal of

Enuma dish

is to

praise

Marduk, As a matter of

(act the part which

d d s

with creation

is

relatively short (Tables

IV:

1 35-YI:

44).

The

proclamation

of

the

fifty names of Marduk

is longer

than the

whole

section

on

creation (Tablet VI: 111Vll: 136). It is

good

to be reminded

by

Oppenheim,

op,

cit., p.

233. that

Enuma

ellsh "was

intended to

be used

solely as a vehicle

of

the

priestgod

relationship. The

story was not read to

the

b e l i e v e ~

as a testimonial of the deity's achievements

but was

rc.ld 10 the

god

h i m ~ d f . It

is a hymn

in

praise of Marduk

by

which

t h ~

priest extols his

god." Note the

correct

attempts to come

to grips with

the

total

phenom

enolosical conceptiom of

both Emu/Ul

dish and Gen. 1 by

C, Westermann.

"Das Vcrhiltnis des Jahweglauhens

Xu

den ausserisraelitischen Religionen,"

in

ForschulIg

am

Allen Testaml'nt

(Munchen, 1964),

pp.

206

f.; N, M. Sarna,

Understanding

Genesis

(New York,

1970).

pp.

4

fT.

9

A number of decades ago

J.

Hempel,

"Chronik." ZA

IV,

xm

(1936),

193 f.,

has argued

that it is part of

the

nature

of

Old

Testament faith "io

carry

a polemic .utd usurping: character, that it does not rest in itsel.f, but lives in

constant controversy, that

it

draws to itself

thoughts,

concepts, and terms

from othe r religiom which

it can

assimilate

and

incorporate

in

a transformed

fashton." E. Wurlhwein, Worr

und Existenz (Gottingen, 1970),

p.

198,

adds

io

Hempel's argument the point

that

Israelite faith

"does

not hesitate to

reject that which end3l1gers

it

or

"which

is irn:concUable

with it.

10

Sarna,

Dp. cit.,

p. xxvii, warns tbat one must not tear "a motif

right out of

its cultural or living conteK

md

so have distorted

the

total picture.

In other

words, 10 ignore subtle d i f f e ~ n c e s is to present an unbalanced and untrue

p e ~ p c c t i v c and to

pervert the &cientlfic

method."

11

Westermann,

ThLZ. XI

(1965). 490 f.:

"En dem

Verstehen biblischer

Texte

diencndes Vergleichen muss

Von

philnomenologisch fassbarcn Gan.zheiten

The Polemic Nature of he Genesis Cosmology

93

h;rkommcn

qnd

auf

sic

zldcn

Das

nur puuktuelle Vergleichen

iSl

dann

m:ht.

mehr s u m v o l ~

(undJ

fGttrt

rucrr:als 'Xu Parallelen; die sind

nUT

moghch. ,wo

lluf belden

Selten

LUllen gezelgt

werden

konnen

die einander

parallel smd Damit wird :luch einer cinIinig c n t w i c k l u n g s g ~ h i c h t l i c : h e n

F e s t \ e g ~ n g

vorgebeu.gt.

In.dem

vom Einulphanomen nach dec zugehOrigcn

Gan.zhell .gefraj:t w rd.,

und

zwar

nach

heiden Seiten

hin. wi

rd erst die

Parallel.:.

1m SlIID des

p.araUelen Verlaufs (und

d ~ e n

Grenzen ) ernst

genor;lrnen.

an.

Stelle

el11er

oberfliichllchen entwickltmgsge$('hichtJichen

Herleltung

des eroen nus dem

anderen."

11

H.

Gunkel Schop/ung IIJId Chaos

in

Undr

und

Endzeit (Gottingen 1&95)

pp. 29

fT.;

Idem, G ~ n e s i s (Gollingen, 1901), pp. 109.112.

.

3

B. :V. Andernon, Creatfon .I er.flls

Chaos

(New York, 1967), p. 39 B. S.

C h i l ~ . }.f):lh

an:

Re4lily In the Old Testament (2d ed.; london. 1962),

P. 37: , ~ 1 : 1 . I 1 o l o ~ I ~ ~ l J y Il'hfm IS

the

Hebrew

equivalent

of Tiamat":

S. H.

Hooke,

GenesIS,

Peake s

Commmtary

an the

Bible,

ed. by H. H.

Rowley

and

M.

Black

~ o n d o n , 1962). P.

179;

R. Kilian, "Gen.

1:< und

die Urgotter

von

Hermopohs,"

VT XVI (1966) 420.

14

C . e s t e r m ~

Genesis

( N e u k i r c h ~ n - V l l l y n ,

1967

If. ,

p.

149: W. Zimmer/i,

?Ie Urgescnlchle. 1. Mose

1-11

Od e d . ~ Zurich,

1967),

p. 42; K. Galling,

Der ;:harakter.der C h a o ~ h i l d e r - 1 n g in

Gen.

1,2," ZTnk. XLVII

(1950),

150

f.

K. -:--.

Kitchen,

AnCIent

O':lcnl

and Old Testament

(Chicago, 1968),

pp. 89, 90, D,

F.

Payne,

GenesIs

One

Recomddered (London

1968) pp

10, 11.

IS

A. Hei1cl,

TIM Babylonian Genesis

(3d ed.; ChiClgo, 1963),

pp.

90, 100,

has pOl11ted ou.t

that the

so::pnd radical

of

the

Hebrew term tehom,

i.e.,

the

letter

He,

In

corresponding

loan

words

from

Akkadim

would

have

to

be

an Alepl,.

If "Tiamat"

had been

taken

over into Hebrew

it would

have been left as

it

was

or

it

would

have been changed

10 ti e'a';'a.

16

l . a . m b ~ r t , J T ~ S ,

N.

S. XVI (I9?5), 293; O. Kaiser,

Die m y t h i s c h ~ BedeutUIIg

des Meeres In A YPllm,

UJ[arr/

und l ~ r a ~ 1 ( 2 ~

ed. Berlin. 1962),

p.

115:

P.

,Reymond,

L eau. sa

v u ~ ,

rl sa N;nijiconofl dans l Ancim Tesramenr

(Lelden,

1953), p.

187 and 187 n.

2:

W.

H.

Schmidt

Die Schopfun1 sgesdlichle

der

p d e s l e r s c h r i f ~ (2d ed.; Ncukirchen-Vluyn, 1967), p. 80 n.

5;

KitChen,

op. Cit:, p. &9; HeIdel op.

cit.,

p. 99: Westermann, Genesis, p.

146;

D.

Kidner,

Gel

7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel

9/13

The El'angelical QUQ"eri},

p

94

'

.

The Polemic Nature

of

he Genesis Cosmology

95

I Aqht 42-43

W . ~ n l .

Wakeman,

God's Ballf,.,

p. 143. Note

ha

detailed discussion of t ~ h 6 m with

y ~ r k . b U m n , r k b .

reference to lhe question whether it ",'as once considered to be a person in

'rpt.bL\I.bl.rd.

:..

the

Hebrew

Bible (pp. 143-49).

b l . ~ r ' . t h r n l m . b l . l b l . q . b'l

lS

Exceptions are Is. 63: 13; Ps. 106:

9.

For seven yean Baal failed, for eight years the rider

16

It

is more often found in poetry where the article would not necessarily

on the clouds without dew, without showers, without

be expected. In this connection it is si llificant that whenever )'am, "s.ea,"

the upsurginl;s of the deeps, without

the

&weet

isfound parallel

to

'thOm (Job 28: 14; 38: 16; Is. S I: 10; Ps. 33:

7:

107: 23;

sound of Baal' s voice. ,

135: 6), then the former refers to tho sea lIS

art

of the cosmos and not to

The drought comes lIS the waters from above

and

Ihe waters from below

the

personification "Sea" as when yam is

ound

parallel

10 Rahab

(Job

26: 1 2 ~ Ps. 89 10; Is. 51: 9l,l.eviatlmn (Job 3: 8; Ps. 74: 13), Tanrun (Job

(thm)

are cut off (cf. 2 Sa. I 21).

7: r2). This appears te point into the direction that II?h6m

in

the Hebrew

UT,

5J:

iv:

20

idk.lttn.pnm

Bible

is

depersonalized.

'm.eLmbk.nhrm

n

M.

K.

Wakeman, The Biblical Earth Monster in the Cosmogonic u,mbat

qrb.apq,thmtm

MyUl,"

JEL, LXXXVm

(1969), 317, suggests

tMt

in Ex. IS: 8

lenam

is

Then surely [Anatl set her face

associated with

the

ancient image of the

earth

demon which is distinguisha

b1c

tow:ud EI

at

the source

of

the rivers

from, though controlling, the primeval waters." This, howc\'cr, does

not

in Ihe midst of the channels 0

the

deep.

need to imply'that it has mythological, personalized overtones.

In this statement the upper (heavenly)

and

lower (earthly)

0C

7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel

10/13

96 The Evangelical Quarterly

)1 So still W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Gard

7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel

11/13

98

&6 This

is

the translation of 'Anat: i l l : 34-39 by John Gray in 1 J t J l ~ W ' t 1 " , . .

from

Old T

.

stamcnl

Times,

cd.

by

D. W.

Thomas (New York,

129,103. Slightly varying translations arefound in ANETl p. 137,

wa,I; :Cm:tn '

God's

BalT/e,

p.

102; Dahood.

op. cit./ p.

333

on

UT,

'Anal:

Indeed 1 muzzled Tannin, I silenced hIm; I smale

the

winding

61 On this difficult term,

see

T. H. Gas(er,

Tltcspis (New

York,

1

n.

49; M. Held, A

Study

in Compar

7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel

12/13

100

The Evangelical Quarterly

See the

cssa.y of

the pr=nt writer,

infra,

n. 123, and Schmidt,

op. cil.,

PI'. 117,

118,

with addilionaiHterature.

Kramer, Sumerian MyfltolofY, pp. 41

If ;

:E;f Schmokel. Das Land Sumer

Od ed.; Stuttgart. 1962), pp. 129 If.

96 Frankfort.

OPt

cit., p,

28.

97

A.

Goetze, KJeimuien.

Hlll1dbuch

der

Altertumswissensc/w/t, III. (ld

ed.;

.Milnchen,

1957), pp. 89,

136

If.

98 A.

S.

Kapdrud, Tlte Ras Shamr.a D i s c o y e r i ~ s and

rhe

Old Testament

(London.

1965), p. 45.

99 Ibid.,

PI'.

41

IT

100

A

hymn celebrates the marriage

of

moongod Yarih, the One lighting

Ull

Heaven," with the goddC5s Nikkal,

UT, 77.

101 S. Kirst, "Sin. Ycrnh und Jahwe,"

Forscnungen lind rorfscliri/ft ,

XXXII

(1958). 213-219; A. Caquot, La d i v i n i t ~ solaire oucarilique." Syria,

)",'XXVI (1959), 90-101: T.

H.

Gaster,

Moon, InfcrpNUr s Dictionary

of the Bible

(Nashville, 1962), m

436.

102 B. Meissner,

Babylonien und

As .yrjen (Heidelberg, 1925), n 13-21, 25 ff.

398 ff.; Ch. Virolleaud, uLe dieu Sham3Sh dans I'ancienue Mesopotamie,"

EranosJanrbuch, X (1943), 51-79; J. Lewy, The

Late

AssYToBabylonian

Cult

of

the

Moon,

HUCA, XIX (1945{46), 405-489; E. Dhorme,

Les

rc/igions de Babylonie n d'Assyrie (Paris, 1949), pp. 5394.

10) Heidel, OPt dr., p.

116

104

ANEn, p. 68.

105 Ibid.

106 Not as

Heidel,

op. cir., p. 117, says,

"stal'S,

moon, and SUll.

101

Ibid.

lOS

Tablet

V:

2. In Babylonian thought the gods cannot be separated from the

stars

and constellatkms which

represent them.

11)9

Tablet V: 5-7.

110

00. this

point, see

Westermann,

GeMsis, p. ISS.

111

Schmidt.

op. cit.,

p. 1 S n. 9.

m

Staddmann, cpo cit., pp. 57 fr

I I I Sclunidt.

op. cil.,

p. 119.

II

Meissner.

op. cir.,

n

25 tr . 398

If ;

Dhorme

OPt

cit.,

p.

82; Gas(ef,

Thespis,

pp. 320

If.

lU Von Rad, Genesis, p. 53.

116

Schmidt, op

cit.,

p. 119.

117 J. Albertson, "Genesis 1

and

the Babylonian Creation Myth," Though/,

XXXVU (962). 231; H. Junker. "10 Principio Creavit Deus Coelum et

Terram. Eine Untersuchung zum Thema Mythos

und

Theologle,"

Bib,

XLV (\965), 483; Payne OPt dl.,

p.

32; Sarna. cp. cit.,

pp.

9 f.; Stadelmann,

OPt

Cil.,

p. 17:

David

Neiman', unpublished paper,

The

Polemfc Language

or the Genesis CDsmolo&y," whlch stressed the antimytbical polemic of

certain terms in Gen. I: 2

and

I: 14-16, was

read

Oct. 25, 1970, at the

SBL meeting in New York,

The Polemic Nature

of he

Genesis Cosmology

1 1

118 Kramer, Sumerian

Mythology,

pp. 69, 70, quotes lhe Sumerian myth

Enid

and

Ninman,

which shows. that the purpose of man's creation

was

the

same as in Ba.byJonlan mythology.

The

newly recovered ;lod published

Tablet I of

the

Atrahasis Epic states,

Let man carry

the toil [for physical

support] of the gods." W. G. l.arnbert and A. R. Millard,

Arraha.ris. The

Babylonian Story o

the

Rood (Oxford. 1969), p. 57.

Erlllma

..

ish.

Tablet

JV: I07-12l, 127; V:

147,148;

VI: 152, 153; VII: 27-29;

ANETl,

pp. 66-70,

contains the

same tradition. For a critical discussion of the problem on

the origin

and

nature of man in

the Atr

.

h l.sis

Epic, which is now the most

important single witness to the Babylonian sJlulation on

man's

origin

and

nature, see William L.

Moran, The

Creation

of Man

in Am.hasis T

192-248," BASOR,

100

(Dec. 1910), 4856, who quo(es many relevant

studies.

119 Sarna,

op.

cit., p. 14.

120

Gaster, "Cosmology,"

Interpreter's Dktlonary of rh.. Bib/e, J,

704.

111 See also the chapter Man as

Ruler of

the World in O. L o r ~ t l Schiip/ung

und Mythos (Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 92-98.

lU Chlld1i, op.

cit.,

pp.

31

If

discusses a number of

a.sp

7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel

13/13

1P".21"1BS. C ~ ~ I M . 7 5 7 ~ . r

102

The Evangelical Quarterly

J. ) J. Hempel, Glaube. Mythos und Ge:schichtc 1m AJten Testament, ZA W,

LXV (1953), 126-128. has shown

that

it was the conscious intent of

the author of Gen.

1

to destroy the myth's theogony by his statement that

it was Israel's

God

who created heaven

and

earth. So also McKenzie,

op.

cit.,

p.

195.

W.

Eichrodt, Theology

oj

Old Testament (Phillldelphia.

1961),1,'186, 187, sees in the usc of the name Elohim in Gen. I a

tool

to

assist Israel in clarifying her concepts of

God

againsf pagan polytheistic

theogony. Wilrthweln. op.

cit.,

p. 35, notes that the

cyclic: .

and repetitious

MtUrc of creation mythology is contradicted by the placing of

the

creation

accounts of Gen,

1-3

at the beginning

of

a linear historY with a

non

repeatable period of creative. time that closed with the seventh

day.

He

indicates that this should be understood as a polemic which marks off.

defends, and delimits against the ever-repeating reenactment

of

creation .

in

extrabibllC':; .\

mythology.

m W. H. Schmidt, Mythos rm Allen Testament, EvTh,

x, XVlI

(1967).

237.254, discusses the new underslanding of myth nd argues that

for

the

hermeneutical method, which attempts

to

come to grips with the

under-

sUndins

of

existence, the term demytholog ization (EnfmYlhologiiilerung)

should be reserved. whereas the designation demytholo gizing (entmy-

Ilwlogisiuel )

should be reserved ror

the

control'ersy

of OT and

NT with

mythology. Of the new,underslanding of myth in contemporary scholarship,

also

G.

H.

Davies. An Approach to the. Problem

of

Old Testament

Mythology, PEQ LXXXVIII (1956), 8391; McKenzie, op. cit pp.

182200; Childs,

op cit.,

pp. ]330.

m Gunkel,

G ~ / I ~ s i . p. 104.

m G. Fahrer, Gesch;chle du israclilisdren Rtligion (Berlin. 1969). p. 177.

IH Childs.

op.

cit., p. 43. He also speaks

of 3

reshaping and assimilating

of myth.

Il5 McKenzie. op.

cil.

p. 195.

36

Cr. M. Noth,

Die

Hisiorisierung des Mythus im

AJlen Testament,

C h r i l l ~ l f l u m

t nd

WilulUcna J.'

V1II 192S). 26S-272

3 0 1 3 0 9 ~ E. Jacob ':;'

T h ~ o I O K Y oj tht Old Testament (London. 1958), pp. 197200.

m So Sarna, op.

cil

p.

9.

Payne. op. cit . p. 29. says Ihat the biblical aceount

[of creation] is theologically not only rar differel1 from, but totally opposed,

to, the ancient Near Eastern myths.

,