Babylonian Genesis: The Story of the Creation (Phoenix Books) by Alexander Heidel

Author:Alexander Heidel
Language: eng
Format: mobi
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Published: 2009-06-24T06:00:00+00:00

“ENÛMA ELISH” AND GEN. 1:1—2:3 DOUBTLESS RELATED: THREE EXPLANATIONS

Our examination of the various points of comparison between Enûma elish and Gen. 1:1—2:3 shows quite plainly that the similarities are really not so striking as we might expect, considering how closely the Hebrews and the Babylonians were related. In fact, the divergences are much more far-reaching and significant than are the resemblances, most of which are not any closer than what we should expect to find in any two more or less complete creation versions (since both would have to account for the same phenomena and since human minds think along much the same lines) which might come from entirely different parts of the world and which might be utterly unrelated to each other. But the identical sequence of events as far as the points of contact are concerned is indeed remarkable. This can hardly be accidental, since the order could have been different; thus the luminary bodies could have been created immediately after the formation of the sky. There no doubt is a genetic relation between the two stories. But, if so, what is the degree of relationship? Three main possibilities have been suggested: first, the Babylonians borrowed from the Hebrew account; second, the Hebrews borrowed from the Babylonian; third, the two stories revert to a common fountainhead.

THE FIRST EXPLANATION

The first explanation is not very likely, for the Babylonian version antedates the Hebrew account. We cannot determine with certainty to what period Enûma elish dates back, but, as we have seen, there are good reasons for placing the date of its composition somewhere between 1894 and 1595 B.C.; moreover, certain strands of this myth undoubtedly go back far into Sumerian times. Since we cannot tell definitely when Enûma elish was composed, however, and since priority of publication does not imply priority of existence, this argument must be used with a certain amount of caution. The Hebrew story may have been current in some form or other many centuries before it assumed its present form.

A closely allied theory, designed to account for the similarities between Enûma elish and Gen. 1:1—2:3, was developed by Clay.120 He contended that Enûma elish was an amalgamation of a Semitic myth coming from a region called Amurru (i.e., northwestern Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine) and a Sumerian myth presumably from the city of Eridu and that the elements which Enûma elish and Gen. 1:1—2:3 have in common were importations from Amurru, which, he concluded, were carried to Babylonia by Western Semites emigrating to that land.121 It is generally recognized, however, that Clay’s arguments, resting chiefly on his interpretation of proper names occurring in Enûma elish, on migrations (again relying on proper names to carry his point), and on climatic conditions,122 are based on premises too meager to be conclusive. Clay’s idea would, of course, have much more to recommend it if it were possible to prove his thesis that Amurru was the home of the Northern Semites. But, as Poebel123 and Ungnad124 have observed, the only way

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.