By James M. Rochford

Several ancient Near Eastern mythologies predate the Hebrew Scriptures by several centuries, containing similarities with Genesis. Consequently, critical scholars argue that Genesis copied from these creation and flood mythologies—being just one among many ancient myths. Hermann Gunkel held that Genesis 1-11 was legendary,^[1] and that Genesis borrowed its creation narratives from the Babylonians.^[2] Recently, Peter Enns wrote that, “The opening chapters of Genesis participate in a worldview that the earliest Israelites shared with their Mesopotamian neighbors… The stories of Genesis had a context… and that context was not a modern scientific one but an ancient mythic one.”^[3]

Did Genesis steal the creation account from the Enuma Elish?

The Enuma Elish predates the book of Genesis by a few hundred years (1,750 BC),^[4] and both the Babylonians and Assyrians held the Enuma Elish as their creation account. Archaeologists discovered this ancient Mesopotamian creation account in Nineveh in Ashurbanipal’s library—an Assyrian king. Pieces and parts of the Enuma Elish were also found in Ashur (Assyria) and Uruk. They consist of seven Akkadian cuneiform tablets.[5] George Smith published the text of the Enuma Elish in his book The Chaldean Genesis (1876).

Summary of the Enuma Elish

The Enuma Elish begins with a watery chaos. The water divides into the fresh water god Apsu, and the salt water goddess Tiamat. These two deities copulate, giving birth to lesser deities. These gods loudly keep the god Apsu awake at night and harass him in his work during the day. Consequently, Apsu finally decides to wipe them out. In a moment of concern, their mother—the goddess Tiamat—warns her oldest son Ea (also called Enki or Enlil), and Ea kills Apsu before Apsu can kill him.

The death of Apsu sends Tiamat into a bloodthirsty rage, and she creates monsters to kill her children. One of the gods—the champion Marduk—kills the goddess Tiamat and her champion Quingu. Marduk splits Tiamat in half with an arrow, creating the waters below on the earth and the waters above in the sky. Afterward, Ea uses Quingu’s blood to create the first man: Lullu.

Assessment: Downplaying the Differences

Similarities surely exist between Genesis and the Enuma Elish, but unfortunately, critics have exaggerated these superficial similarities, simultaneously downplaying the differences. Even a cursory reading of both texts reveals the stark dissimilarities between these two accounts.

First, Genesis teaches monotheism, while the Enuma Elish teaches polytheism. The Mesopotamian myths describe a pantheon of deities, who act like corrupt and merciless humans. By contrast, Genesis depicts only one Creator of the universe, whose creation is “very good” (Gen. 1:31).

Second, Genesis depicts God as self-existent, while the Enuma Elish states that the gods themselves were contingent. After the Mesopotamian gods emerge, the universe springs from the war or the sex (or in some cases, the warlike sex!) of the Mesopotamian gods and goddesses. The beginning stages of creation are “ascribed to sexual congress.”^[6] To put this simply, the Genesis account explains cosmogony (the birth of the universe), whereas the Babylonian account deals with theogony (the birth of the gods).

Third, Genesis pictures humans as the crown of creation, while the Enuma Elish considers humans as slave labor. Genesis 1 climbs to a literary crescendo with the capstone of creation: human beings. These humans bear the very image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:27), and God gives them sovereign leadership over the earth as a gift (Gen. 1:28). Meanwhile, the Mesopotamian myths depict humans as divine slaves. According to the Enuma Elish, “Man’s purpose in life was to be the service of the gods.”^[7] Instead of being made in the image of the gods, Ea creates the first humans from the bloody corpse of the gods (Quingu).

Fourth, Genesis describes a creation from nothing, but the Enuma Elish considers matter as eternal. Assyriologist Alexander Heidel writes, “[Apsu and Ti’amat] represented… the living, uncreated world-matter… They were matter and divine spirit united and coexistent, like body and soul.”^[8] Later he writes, “It is apparent that for the Babylonians matter was eternal.”^[9] The Hebrew Scriptures teach that God simply spoke the material universe existence. The psalmist wrote, “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made… He spoke, and it was done” (Ps. 33:6, 9). The Mesopotamian deities had no such power. As Heidel writes, the “word of the Babylonian deities was not almighty.”^[10]

Fifth, Genesis describes the sun, moon, and stars as mere creations, whereas the Enuma Elish considered these to be gods. Heidel notes that “the luminary bodies and their purposes in astronomical terms [were] interwoven with mythology.”^[11] This is diametrically opposed to the Hebrew worldview, which forbid the worship of “the sun and the moon and the stars” (Deut. 4:19).

Sixth, Genesis gives no description of a cosmic conflict, whereas the Enuma Elish begins with the gruesome conflict of the gods. The first four tablets of the Enuma Elish “deal almost exclusively with the contest between Marduk and Ti’amat and the events leading up to it, while the creation story proper occupies less than two tablets.”^[12] Meanwhile, Genesis 1-2 contain no conflict whatsoever—only God’s peaceful and purposeful creation. Even critical scholar Gerhard Von Rad comments that “not even a trace of one hostile to God can be detected!”[13] Admittedly, we do read about Satan (“the Serpent”) in Genesis 3; yet the text depicts him as “made” by God (Gen. 3:1), one who passively accepts God’s judgment (Gen. 3:14-15).

Seventh, Genesis describes the fall of humans—not the gods. Heidel writes, “If it is at all permissible to speak of a fall, it was a fall of the gods, not of man. It was the gods who first disturbed the peace.”^[14] Of course, this is in stark contrast with the biblical account which describes God’s creation as “very good” (Gen. 1:31).

Eighth, Genesis offers an elegant simplicity to the creation account, while the Enuma Elish is far more complex, cruel, and convoluted. Myths typically become more elaborate over time, even as they become less grounded in history. Ancient Near Eastern historian K.A. Kitchen writes, “The common view that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplified version of the Babylonian legend (applied also to the flood stories) is fallacious on methodological grounds. In the Ancient Near East the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa.”^[15] Thus Kitchen argues the distinct possibility that the Enuma Elish actually borrowed from the Hebrew account—not vice versa.

So, let’s recap the stark differences between the two accounts:

Does “the deep” in Genesis 1:2 refer to the goddess Tiamat?

Critics contend that the Hebrew word for “deep” (tĕhôm) is similar to the Akkadian Tiamat—the watery goddess in the Enuma Elish. Since Genesis uses a similar word to refer to the watery darkness of the primitive Planet Earth, critics claim that this is an example of the Bible plagiarizing the Mesopotamian myth.

But like a zombie in a George A. Romero film, this old argument simply refuses to die! It has become a staple of critical scholarship on Genesis, but without any adequate basis. K.A. Kitchen calls any such literary connection a “complete fallacy.”^[16] For one, he notes that the Hebrew noun is “unaugmented,” making it a common noun, while the Akkadian word is a “derived form,” making it a proper name. Second, the context of the Akkadian word implies a goddess, whereas the context for the Hebrew word again implies a common noun. Third, the Ugaritic language also used the word (thm) to refer to the “deep,” even as early as the second millennium BC. But there is “no conceivable link with the Babylonian epic.”^[17] Fourth, the text later states that God brought water from the “deep” (t^ehôm) to flood the Earth (Gen. 7:11), but clearly this doesn’t refer to a water goddess. Finally, we might add that the greater context of Genesis 1 shows no struggle between rival gods—unlike the other ancient Near Eastern accounts. This is why Alexander Heidel—an expert in Assyriology—sees no connection between Genesis’ description of the “deep” (tĕhôm) and the goddess Tiamat.^[18]

Did Genesis steal the account of the Flood from Mesopotamian Myths?

Mesopotamian myths also contain accounts of a catastrophic flood, and again, these myths predate the book of Genesis. One such account is The Atrahasis Epic (1,600 BC) was a Babylonian saga written in Akkadian. The story begins after the creation of the world. In the beginning of the account, we read,

When the gods, instead of man did the work, bore the loads, the god’s load was too great, the work too hard, the trouble too much (Tablet 1).

Accordingly, these lesser gods go on strike, and the god Ea creates seven men and seven women to work the land. After a human population explosion, the chief god Enlil becomes irritated by the loud clamor of the human race, sending droughts and famines to shut them up. Finally, Enlil decides to annihilate the human race with a massive flood.

The god Ea warns Atrahasis (similar to Noah) to build a boat for his family, and bring two of every animal on board to survive the great flood. Afterward, this man Atrahasis offers a sacrifice to placate the gods, who eat the food prepared for them. As a reward for his sacrifice, Atrahasis receives eternal life in paradise, and the gods limit human fertility as well as human lifespans. In fact, according to this epic, the pre-flood kings each reigned for 43,200 years, whereas the post-flood people only reigned for hundreds of years.

Another legend is The Epic of Gilgamesh (2,600 BC), which was discovered in the 1950’s in Megiddo. Since then, various fragments have been found in Ashurbanipal’s library in Nineveh. We find the flood story in Tablet 11, and it is strikingly similar to the Atrahasis Epic. While the text is mythological Sumerian literature, many scholars believe that the text represents a legendary embellishment of an actual king named Gilgamesh, who ruled the Sumerian city of Uruk (or Erech).

The Epic of Gilgamesh recounts the story of the god Ea, who warns Utnapishtim (similar to Noah) to build a square ship and fill it with animals before a great flood. Consequently, Utnapishtim and his wife are taken to paradise. Gilgamesh seeks out Utnapishtim to discover immortality, but he is denied eternal life.

The Eridu Genesis (2,000 BC) is considered to be one of the oldest of the flood accounts, which was named by Thorkild Jacobsen—a renowned historian Assyrian and Sumerian literature. The legend was discovered in the ancient city of Nippur in 1893, and was translated in 1912. It is a fragmentary Sumerian flood story, but also gives a similar account to the Atrahasis Epic and the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The account opens with the creation of the world, the Sumerians, and the animals. Soon, the gods create cities for the humans, and each city has a patron deity. One of these cities was Eridu—considered by the Sumerians to be the most ancient city in the world.

The hero of this tale is Ziudsura (similar to Noah), who is a priest and the king of the city Suruppak. Ea (Enki) speaks indirectly through a wall to Ziudsura, because he has taken an oath with the gods to not directly warn the humans of a great flood. Ziudsura escapes the flood and makes an offering to the sun-god Utu. Once again, the gods grant Ziudsura eternal life. And, once again, The Eridu Genesis depicts kings who reign for eons. Just eight of the pre-flood kings rule for 241,000 years!

Assessment: Downplaying the Differences

Gordon Wenham^[19] and James Hoffmeier^[20] see stark differences between the Genesis Flood and these Mesopotamian myths. We can articulate these differences below:

Did the Jewish people adopt the Babylonian myths during the Exile?

Some critics late-date the book of Genesis to the 6^th century BC, during the Exile in Babylon. They argue that the author (or authors) of Genesis borrowed the contents of Genesis 1-11 from Babylonian mythology at this time.[21] For instance, critical scholar Joseph Blenkinsopp argues that the story of creation was written after 586 BC to explain the Exile.^[22] Just as Israel lived in a wonderful land but was expelled for disobedience, Adam and Eve were also expelled from Eden for the same reason. Moreover, just as Israel was seduced by Canaanite idolatry, so too Adam and Eve were seduced by “the Serpent” to disobey God.

But this view is an untenable as it is unreasonable. Are we really to believe that the Hebrew exiles adopted Babylonian beliefs immediately after the Exile? One of the exiled psalmists writes, “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion… How can we sing the LORD’S song in a foreign land?” (Ps. 137:1, 4). Hoffmeier writes, “It is hard to believe that Jewish priests and prophets in Babylon who longed for Zion and felt the shame of being in a foreign land would quickly embrace pagan foreign myths encountered in Babylon and integrate them into their Torah!”^[23]

Moreover, are we to believe that Daniel and his three friends would reject the Babylonian food, only to accept their mythological belief-system?^[24] Would Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego risk face the fires of incineration for their beliefs, rather than simply bowing to the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar? (Dan. 3:16ff) Of course, to explain this, critics need to deny the historicity of Daniel as well.

Those who hold to this view note that we have no known Egyptian flood story.[25] This demonstrates to a large degree that the sharing and acceptance of mythology across cultures was not as popular as we might assume. Hoffmeier writes, “This is a cautionary note for those who insist that literary borrowing was the normal practice between ancient Near Eastern cultures, especially between Israel and her neighbors.”^[26]

How do we explain the similarities?

Christian scholars often give two explanations for the similarities between the Genesis account and the earlier Mesopotamian accounts.^[27]

Explanation #1. Genesis is a polemic against polytheism. Under this view, Moses knew about these other accounts. However, he crafted an elegant account in Genesis to refute the polytheistic religions. Since Moses was well-read in polytheistic writing (Ex. 1-4; Acts 7:22), he may have been familiar with these ancient Near Eastern accounts. And the book of Genesis could be his outright repudiation of them. Under this view, Genesis 1 is “providing for the Israelites an alternative to the myths within their environment. It is natural that it should address at least some of the same subjects.”^[28] In fact, we should be surprised that we do not find “more similarities”^[29] between Genesis 1 and the ANE mythologies.

Explanation #2. Genesis gives an accurate account of the events, whereas the other ancient Near Eastern accounts give a garbled transmission of what happened. If a massive, life-ending flood really occurred, this would be seared into the memory of those who survived it. Perhaps the Mesopotamian accounts muddled this memory through oral tradition. Meanwhile, Genesis gives a simple, straightforward historical account of the events in question. Since Abraham came from Mesopotamia in ~2,000 BC (Gen. 10; 11:10-32), it should not “surprise us that the flood story should be part of the shared memory of the Israelites and the Babylonians.”^[30]

Conclusion

As we have seen, Genesis contains similarities between the surrounding ancient Near Eastern mythologies regarding the creation and the Flood. However, these could be due to Moses attacking these ancient accounts, or it could be evidence of a shared memory (or perhaps both). The idea that the Hebrews would wholesale adopt Babylonian beliefs is simply untenable, and a critical examination of these texts shows a forceful clash of worldviews—not a fusion of them.

[1] Hermann Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit un Endzeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1895), and further developed by Gunkel in Genesis (trans. Mark Biddle; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997).

[2] Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos = translation in Creation in the Old Testament (ed. B.W. Anderson; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p.49.

[3] Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005), 55.

[4] The existing tablets date anywhere from 1,200 to 700 BC, but these copies a much earlier account that dates to ~1,750 BC. James Hoffmeier, The Archaeology of the Bible (Oxford: Lion, 2008), p.33.

[5] The title for the Enuma Elish comes from its opening line (“When on High…”). It is also called “The Seven Tablets of Creation.”

[6] Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: the Story of Creation (2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), p.96.

[7] Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: the Story of Creation (2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), p.120.

[8] Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: the Story of Creation (2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), p.88-89.

[9] Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: the Story of Creation (2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), p.89.

[10] Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: the Story of Creation (2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), p.126.

[11] Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: the Story of Creation (2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), p.117.

[12] Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: the Story of Creation (2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), p.102.

[13] Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), p.65.

[14] Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: the Story of Creation (2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), p.125.

[15] K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1966), p.89.

[16] K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago IL: InterVarsity Press, 1966), pp.89-90.

[17] K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago IL: InterVarsity Press, 1966), pp.89-90.

[18] Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1963), pp. 98-101).

^[19] Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.92.

^[20] James Hoffmeier, “Response to Kenton L. Sparks.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.141.

[21] Irving Finkel, The Ark Before Noah (New York: Doubleday, 2014), pp.224-260.

[22] Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

^[23] James Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1-11 as History and Theology.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.54.

^[24] James Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1-11 as History and Theology.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.54.

[25] Some scholars claim that the Egyptian book called The Book of the Heavenly Cow offers a flood story. But this text simply contains no mention of a flood. Instead, the goddess Hathor (“The Eye of Ra”) slaughters many humans, drinks beer, falls asleep, and wakes up a friend of humans.

^[26] James Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1-11 as History and Theology.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), pp. 42-43.

^[27] Hoffmeier holds that both views are possible. James Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1-11 as History and Theology.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.52.

[28] Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p.166.

[29] Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p.167.

^[30] James Hoffmeier, “Genesis 1-11 as History and Theology.” In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), p.55.