fiu@

rru~@~D~~~
! Q!J ~!r11 [?, rr ~ ~
'\!J )

Vol. XLVI. No.2.

April-June 1974. Price 40p net

THE POLElvIIC NATURE of THE GENESIS COSMOLOGY

by
Gerhard F. Hasel

. an

International
Quarterly
of Christian
Thought

'I

I
'",

,-

 'i

81

The Polemic Nature of the

Genesis Oosnlology
by Gerhard F. Hasel
This paper, emphasizing thaI Ihe creation narrative of Genesis I,
far from being dependent Oil the "creation" stories of Babylollia
and other ancient Near Eastern comogonies, designedly polemicizes
against them, was originally presented [0 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
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

one hundred years ago a new phase of OT study was

A LMOST
inaugurated with the publications of the Babylonian versions

I:

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 was 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 Te~tameDt
was lacking almost completely in originality. Today the situation
has changed radically. We can no longer talk glibly about Babylonian 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 others~ 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.
:< C. Westermann has pointed out that it is a metbodologicalnece-ssity
to consider religio-hlstorical parallels against the totality of the
phenomenological conception of the works in which such parallels
.,. appear.1 This means that single parallel terms and motifs must
not be torn out of their religio-cultural moorings and treated in.
isolation from the total conception of the context in which they are
found.' To treat them in isolation from their larger context and
phenomenological conception is to run the danger of misreading
clements of one culture in terms of another and vice versa, which is

82

The Evangelical Quarterly

bound to lead to gross distortion. On the basis of these brief methodological considerations one may venture to study certain extemal
influences to which Israel has undoubtedly opened itself and at
the same time one appears to be in a position to recognize ever
more clearly where Israel has forcefully rejected and fought off
that which it felt irreconcilable with its faith and understanding
of reaIity.~ The purpose of this paper is to investigate a number of
the traditional rcligio-historicaL parallels between the Hebrew
creation account of Gen. 1: J -2: 4a and cosmogonies of the ancient
Ncar East. It is our aim to bring to bear on representative terms
and motifs, traditionally considered to have religio-historical
parallels, their living cultural and religious context lO in order to
take seriously the meaning and limitation of parallel phenomena
and to shield and control oneself against the reading of elements
of one religio-cultural setting in terms of another. 11 It is hoped
that this procedure WIll reveal certain aspects of the nature of
the Genesi~ cosmology which have not at all been noted or received
less than adequate attention.

TehOm
Since H. GunkeJi2 in 1895 argued that the term leham, "deep,
primeval ocean, sea," in Gen. 1: 2 contains vestiges of Babylonian
mythology, many Old Testament scholars have followed his supposition that there is a direct relationship between tehOm and Tiamat,
the female monster of the Babylonian national epic Elluma dish.
On this question there is_ today a marked diversity of scholarly
opinion. Some scholars of high reputation maintain that tehOm
in GCD. 1: 2 contains an "echo of the old cosmogonic myth" ;1)other scholars of equal erudition argue against jt.l~
A. Heidel has shown on philological grounds that the Hebrew
term tehOm does not derive from the Babylonian Tiama/ ls as
Gunkel and others had claimed. There is a growing consensus of
scholarly opinion maintaining that leh6m derives from a Common
Semitic raotl o from which also cognate Akkadian, Ugaritic, and
Arabic terms derive. The Babyloruan terms tian/Ju, iaJllfU "ocean
sea," as welt as Tiiimat stem from this Common Semitic root.
Thls is true also of the Ugaritic Ihm/lhmt, "deep(s),"17 whose
semantic and morphological relationship to the Hebrew lehOm
precludes that the latter is borrowed from Akkadian u or Hurrian. 19
The Arabic ahlimatu is also a derivative of this Common SemItic
root.10
j

The position that lehOm is philologically and morphologically

not dependent on Tjamal causes us to ask a number of crucial
questions. Does teh6m contain an echo of an old cosmo gonic
myth? Did the author of Gen. I "demythologize" the semantic
meaning of the term tehOm? In a more fundam~~tal way we raise
~

" -,

The Polemic Nature oJ 'he Genesis Cosmology

83

thc question: what actually does come to expression through the

term tehOm as used in Gen. 1: 2? To find an answer we must first
of all survey briefly the usage of tehOm in the Old Testament.
TebOrn and derivative forms appears thirty-five times in the Old
Testament. It is treated both as a masculine21 and feminine ll noun
and also without indication of gender.:n TehDm appears in connection
with the subject of creation aside from the passage under discussion
in Pss. 33: 7; 1M: 6; Job'38: 16; Prov, 3: 20; 8: 24, 27; in each
case, however, without any mythological overtones. In general
tehQm is "a poetic term for a large body of water."H Invariably it
:,!-ppcars without the article,l~ which must not be construed to indicate
that it is a proper name or a' person. 26 The semantic usages of
rehOm in the Old Testament indicate that it is used in a depersonalized
and inanimate sensc.:n
.
OUf attention must now turn to the ancient Near Eastem para1lels. In this connection it is significant that tehOm is a term derived
from a Common Semitic root whose cognates in other Semitic
Jang)Jages are often used in texts which deal with creation in terms
of a cosmogonic battle myth. Furthermore, the notion of the "deep"
or "primeval ocean" is an idea by no means exclusive to the Hebrew
creation account.

Whereas no specific Sumerian myth of creation has been reo

covered j 2t Sumerian cosmogony can be put together from various
fragmentary myths of origin. One teXt describes the goddess Nammu,
written with the ideogram for primeval "sea," as "the mother, who
gave birth to heaven and earth."l9 S. N. Kramer deduces from
this that "heaven and earth were therefore conceived by the Sumerians as the created product of the primeval sea."30 The Babylonian
national epic EnUina dish, which was not composed to tell the story
of creation, but to glorify the god Marduk and the city of BabyloD,lI
opens by stating that at first nothing existed except the two personified principles, Apsu and Tiiimat,n the primeval sweet-water and
salt-water oceans resp~tively. The Babylonians could thus conceive
of a time when there was neither heaven nOf earth, only primordial
waters, but "apparently they -could not conceive of a time when
there was nothing whatever except a transcendental deity."3}
After an elaborate theogony in which the gods evolve from these
two personified principles, and after Apsu has been subdued by.&1,
we find Tiiimat reigning unsubdued, opposed by and suppressing
the gods she has begotten. At last one of them, Marduk, becomes (
their champion, engages Tilimat in combat, and slays her.:H The
concept of the personified Tiamat, the mythical antagorust of the
creator god Marduk, is completely absent in the notion of tehOm
in the Hebrew creation account. In Gen. 1 tehOm is clearly inanimate,
a part of the cosmos, not the foc of God, but simp]y one section of

84

The Evangelical Quarterly

the created world. l5 It does not offer any resistance to God's creative
activity.l6 It is therefore unsustainable to speak of a "demythologizing" of a Babylonian mythical concept or the use of a
mythical name in Gen. I: 2)1 To suggest that there is in Gen. I: 2
the remnant of:l latent conflict between a chaos monster and a
creator god is to read into it from mythology.38 To the contrary, the
author of the Hebrew creation account uses the term tehOm in a
"depersonalized"l9 and "non-mytbical"~o sense. TehOm is nothing
else but a passive, powerless, inanimate element in God's creation.
Egyptian mythology has many competing views of creation. 41 In
Heliopolitan theology Nun, the pre-cxistent primeval ocean, "came
into being by himself."4,2 In one of the Egyptian cosmogonic speculations Atum,~l who arose out of the pre-existent Nun,44 threatened that the "land will return into Nun, into the floodwaters, as
(in) its first state ... ., Thus it is to be noted that in Heliopolitan
cosmogonic mythology the "watery chaos or waste"46 was preexistent and was personified as Nun, "the mother of gods," or
"she who bears Re [the sun god, identified with Atum] each day."~1
In the rival Memphite theolog}"'. Ptah, the chief god of Memphis,
is equated with Nun and is the creative principle itself out of which
Atum 49 and all other gods were created. lO Ptah is both Nun, the
primeval ocean, and Ta-tenen, the primeval land, which nrose out
of Nun and is equated with the land of Egypt. SI In Hermopolitan
cosmogony there existed prior to creation an infinite, dark, watery
chaos, whose characteristic are incorporated into the four pairs of
gods of the Ogdoad. H As the water begins to stir, the primeval
hillock emerges from the deep, bringing up the "cosmic egg" out
of which Re, the sun god, will appear (0 proceed with the creation
of all other things. The new creative events OCcur in cyclical fashion,
with the daily rebirth of the sun 2nd the annual receding of the

Nile.

In recent years a number of the leading Egyptologists point to

decisive differences between the Egyptian cosmogonies and Genesis
creation,'J so that one can reaUy no longer say that "the Egyptian
view of creation was very similar to that of Israel. "54 Gen. I does
not know the threat of the created world's return to a chaotic
state as is expressed in the Heliopolitan cosmogony.ss It does not
know the cyclical nature of creative events. The creative events
occur in linear succession, dated by days which end with the seventh
day. This linear view, which inaugurates history, is opposed to the
mythical concept of a primordial event which is constantly repeated
in the pre.sent. 16 Contrariwise, Egyptian cosmogony does not know
a once-for-all creation which took place "in the beginning" as is
expressed in Gen. I; 1. It does know of a creation "in the first time"
(sp tpy), Which, however, is ever repeated in cyclical fashion, in

The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology

85

such a way that man himself experiences it.~7 Further more, the
in Gen. 1: 2 does not have "features reminiscent of
idea of tell
the Hennopolitan cosmogony."Si No god rises out of tehOm to
proceed with creation nor is tr:hOm a pre-existent, personified Ocean
as Nun in Heliopolitan theology. The concept of tehOm in Gen. I is
devoid of any kind of mythical quality or connotation. With T. H.
Gaster it is to be observed that Gen. 1: 2 "nowhere implies ... that
all things actually issued out of waler. "59 Is it not a fact that there
is in Gen. I a complete absence of any suggestion that God accomplished the creation of the world after the conquest of hostile
forces though this is part of one version of the primeval establishment
of order in Egyptian cosmogony?60 The way in which the author
of Gen. 1: 2 speaks of tehom, "deep," and mayim, "waters," indicates that both are subordinated to the "earth" which is the center
of description as the emphatic position of this term in the Hebrew
text indicates. 61 We must also note that the phrase "over the face
of the waters" is parallel to the phrase "over the face of the deep"
which is an additional support for rehOm being a Don-mythical
. term. 61 The conclusioD seems inescapable that tehOm in Gen. 1: 2 is
devoid of mythical features reminiscent of Egyptian creation
speculations. 63
In short, th~ term /eh6m in Gen. 1: 2 lacks any mythological
connotations which are part of the concept of "primeval ocean"
in ancient Near Eastern (Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Ugaritic)
creation mythology. TehOm is used in a non-mythical context.
namely a "historical" context with its different meaning and
emphasis. The description of the depersonalized, undifferentiated,
unorganized, and lifeless state of the "deep" in Gen. I; 2 cannot
be motivated from mythology. To the contrary, it is motivated from
the Hebrew conception of the world and understanding of reality.
In stating the conditions in which the cosmos existed before God
commanded that light should spring forth, the author of Gen. 1
rejected explicitly contemporary mythological notions by using
the term tehOm, whose cognates are deeply mythological in their
usage in ancient Near Eastem creation speculations, in such a
way that it is not only non-mythical in content but antimythical
in purpose. Thus there comes to expression with tcham an antimythical polemic which can be observed also in other parts of
the creation account of Gen. 1 as we shall see in the following
discussion.

om

i :
~
" ~

Tannin
The divine creative act on the fifth day (Gen. 1: 20 ff.) was deemed
to comprise living creatures that have their habitat in the water
or in the air and are thus distinguisbed 'from the creation of the
land creatures on the following day. Gen. 1: 21 speaks of the

86

The Polemic Nature ofthe Genesis Cosmology

The Evangelical Qua

Against tbis threefold grouping of texts with their particular emphases, the nonmythological context of tannin in Gen. I: 21 comes
into much clearer focus. In order to recognize even more clearly
the special purpose of the singling out of the tannin in Gen. I: 21,
a number of points require our attention. (I) The tanninrm of vs.
21 are mere creatures in the water. They lack any mythical power;
they do not possess qualities different from the other created water
c.reatu~es. (2) In vs. 21 the term Mra is employed for the first
tIme smce the opening in vs. I. It is hardly accidental that this tenn
appears in connection with the creation of the lanninim. 80 Since
bora' is not used in connection with the creation of the land animals
.(vs. 25), it appears that this verb has been chosen at this juncture in
order to emphasize that the tanninlm creatures were created by God
in an effortless creative act. A polemic emphasis becomes transparent: the tanninrm are aquatic creatures which were "created"
by God; they are not pre-existent rivals of the Creator which needed
to be conquered as in CanaAnite mythology. (3) The juxtaposition
of the tanninTm in vs. 21 y,'it.h the swarming aquatic creatures suggests
~hat tannin is a generic designation8 ! for large water creatures 81
JO contrast to the small water creatures mentioned next. The distinction between Jarge and small water creatures in Gen. 1: 21 a
finds its support in Ps. 104: 25, 26 which knows "living things {in
the sea} both great and small."Bl In short, the choice of the torm
fannin in connection with the tenn bara' emphasizing God's effortless
creation of the large aquatic creatures appears as a deliberate
attempt ~o co?-tradict the notion of creation in terms of a struggle
as con~med In the pagan battle myth. 84 It appears inescapable to
recognu:e here again a conscious polemic against the battle myth. as

creation of the cryptic haftanninim haggedolim, "the great sea

monsters. "64 Certain Ugaritic texts contain the cognate term tnn
,sod allow a better understanding of the Hebrew term and its
emphasis in the Hebrew creation account of Gen. 1. It is significant
that Inn plays a special role in the Baal-Anath cycle.65 Anath, the
'Sister of Baal, speaks in one text about the primordial enemies of
Baal:
What enemy rises up acainst Baal,
What adversary agairul Him who Mountclh the Clouds '!
Have I not slain Sea {YamJ. beloved of El ?
Have I not annihilated Rivc:r {Naharl, che great god?
Have I nol muzzled the Dragon [Tannin]. holding her in a muzzle?
I have slain the Crooked Serpent {Lotan-Leviathan).
The foul-fanged wilh Seven Heads.6 6

In this Canaanite battle myth, Anatb, beiog aogry at the arrival of

Mot's messengers, boasts that to her triumphs over the enemies of
Baal belongs the "muzzling"67 of rnn. Here rnn is a personified
antagon.istic monster, a Dragon, parallel to the opponents Yam.
Nahar, aod Lotan, which were all overcome by Anath or the
creator god. 6S
We cannot review in detail the Old Testament passages in which
tannin appears. 69 H. Gunkel distinguished two layers of meaning,
namely an older one in which tannin is a mythical chaos monster
and a younger one in which it is a creature among other creatures. 70
It is no longer possible to follow this twofold distinction. It should
be noted tbat tannin appears only once parallel to Rahab (Is. 51: 9),
~nd only twice parallel t.o Leviathap (Ps. 74: l3; Is. 27: 1). Its
I~requent appearance WIth the artlcie 71 and in plural form 72 is
nghtly taken by M. Wakeman to suggest that in poetic passages,
where the absence of the at tide cannot guide us, tannin can be read
(alone, parallel or in opposition to Rahab or Leviathan) as a
"generic term. "n From an examination of the relevant passages
one is led to conclude that there is no case in which tannin must
be read as a proper noun. Thus tannin in the Old Testament unlike
Rahab and Leviathan, "is more properly a generic term . ~ . than
a personal ~ame. "" V(e need to note als~ that in the 1.a.rgest group
of t~ts, ,which coml?nses seven ?f the thIrteen lannin passages, this
term 1S sImply refemog to an arumal, a serpent, a crocodile or a big
water animal, without any mythological overtones. 7S It does not
seem likely that the usages of tannin in this dominant group of
texts presuppose the second group of four tex.ts in which scholars
have r:ecogn.ized mythical overtones. 77 The third group of texts
compnses the two passages in which tannin is employed in clearly
"nonmythologica1 contexts"7! with reference to created creatures.
In. Ps. 148: 6 the tannillim are called to praise Yahweh as are other
things created by God. The second passage is the one underdiscussioD.

87

The Separation of Heaven and Earth

The idea of the creation of heaven and earth by division is common

to all ancient Near Eastern cosmogon.ies. The Sumerians present the

p.rocess of s~paration as the sundering of heaven from earth by the
a1r-god Enlil.l6 The Babylonian epic Enuma elish reports that
Marduk forms heaven out of the upper part of slain Tiiimat and
e~~ out o.f the lower p~rt and the deep from her blood,, 7 The
H~tttte vemon of a H.uman myth visualizes the process of separaung hea!,~n and earth as being. pertormed with a cutting toot u
In PhoeruClan mythology separatIOn tS described as the splitting of
t~e world egg. 89 In Egyptian cosmogony one finds that Shu, the
al: god, pushed up Nut, the sky goddess, from Geb, the earth-god.
WIth whom she was embraced.9o This forced separation brings about
heaven and earth.
. The I!icture in Gt;n. 1: 6 ff. bas its analogy to pagan mythology
ID that It also descnbes the creation of heaven and earth to be an
act of separation.. 91 However, notable distinctions appear as soon as

89

uu

Tht! polemic Nature a/the Genesis Cosmology

one inquires into the "how" of the act of separation. In __ ~,~ .......
to Babylonian and Egyptian mytbology, the firmament,
raised simplY by the fiat of God without any struggle vru':lLC"r:T,~
The waters io. Gen. 1 are completely powerless, inanimate,
inert. Tbe firmament (sky) is fashioned by separating the
on a horizontal level with waters above and below the firm
(vss. 6-8). In a second step the waters below the firmament
separated on a vertical level to let the dry land appear, """,.r""...
from the waters (vss. 9, 10). Any notion of a combat, struggle,
force is absent in both of these creative acts.
These significant differences have been explained by
that the Biblical writer "suppressed or expurgated older
mythological fancies."92 .But with C. Westermann one needs
maintain that the Biblical writer "does not reflect in this act
creation tbe contemporary world-view, rather he overcomes
Inherent in the Biblical presentation of the separation of
and earth is an antimythical polemic. Separation takes place Wlfhn,,,'
struggle whatever. It is achieved by divine fiat in two
than one. In this instance Gen. 1 is again opposed to pagan

bodies in Enuma dish is stars-sun-moonl06 whereas Genesis follows

lhe well-known order sun-moan-stars. The stars ~re. likely referred
to first in Enuma elish, "because of the great Slgll1~caoce ~f the
>lars in the lives of the astronomically and astrolOgically mmded
B:Joylonians." I07
.
Against the ba~ground of th~ w~despread astral worshIp the
creation and function of the lummanes m Gen. 1: 14-18 ~ppears
in 3 new light. (1) In the Biblical presentation the creatureliness of
3\1 creation, also that of sun, moon, and stars, remains the f~n
d3mental and determining characteristic. Conversely, Enuma eflsh
depicts Ma~duk as th~ ~ne who fixes t~e astral likenesses of the
gods in theIr charactenstJcs as constellatlOns. IOt (2) In place of an
expressly myL~ical and pnmary ruIership of the star Jupiter ove,
other stars or astral deities,109 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. llI 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 "lumlOaries" 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
~lateJ that "the entire passage vs. 14-19 breathes a strongly antimythical patbos"lIS or polemic. W. H. Schmidt has pointed .out
similarly that "there comes to expression here [Gen. I: 14-18] m a
number 01 ways a polemic against astral religion."ll~ 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 antimythical polemic. The form in which this Hebrew creation account
has come down to US attempts to portray the creatureliness and limitations of the heavenly luminaries as is consonant with the worldview of Gen. 1 and its understandiog of reality.

The Creation and Function of the Luminaries

It goes far beyond the limitations of this paper to discuss in
ancient Near Eastern astral worship.94 The Sumerians
h',.".....,4~
as the major astral deity the moon-god Nanna and to a
degree tbe sun-god VtU.95 In Egypt the sun in its varied appearances
was the highest deity,96 whereas the moon had an inferior role.
In the Hittite pantheon the chief deity and first goddess of the
country was the sun-goddess Arinna. 91 Ugaritic texts speak of the
sun-goddess SapaS as "the luminary of the gods."98 She plays a
role also in tbe Baal myth. ~9 Sacrifices are prepared for SapaS and
also the moon-god Yarib loo as well as the stars.IOI The Akkadians
venerated the moon-god Sin in particular at Ur where he was the
chief god of the city and also in the city of Harran, Syria, which
had close religious links with Ur. The sun-god SamaS, the goddess
of Venus, Ishtar, and other starry deities had high even though .
changing rank in Mesopotamia. IOl
Parenthetically we should note that it has been claimed that
Enwna dish places its "attention to the creation of the celestial
bodies . . . "10) after Marduk had formed the sky and the earth
from slain Tiama!. But such a claim is a misconception. Enuma
elish knows nothing about the creation of SUD, moon, and stars.
There is no reference to the creation of the sun; the moon is not
created unless one follows the strained interpretat.ion that the
phrase "caused to shille"ICl-l means creation; the stars are Dot
reported to have been created either. Marduk simply fixes stations .
the heavenly _
for the "great gods . . . the stars."IOS The order

.of

The Purpose of the Creation of Mal!

The similarities and diffe!~ces.. betw~n tJle _pJlrpose of man's
creation in Sumero-AlliQian mythology
Gen. 1: 26-28 affords
another point which requires our attention. Sumerian mythology

ana

. II

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. lIt 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 "bless~d" by
(I: 28); he is "the ruler of the. arumal and ~egetable
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 antit~esis to man's purpose to care for . '
physical needs of th~ gods m Sumero-~kkadlan 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 orientation of Gen. I and man's
glory and freedom to rule the earth for his own needs is conveyed. l2l
We may suggest that the different idea with regard to the purpose
of the creation of man in Gen. 1 rests upon tbe Hebrew anthropology 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 wor~ is, also ~oym
outside 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. creation of the world by word is not known."
The Memphite theology of the Egyptian Old Kingdom knows that
god Atum creates by the speech ~f Ptah.I~5, S. G. p'. Brando;'l's
investigation of the notion of crea!J?n by dl~!ne w.ord 10 Egyptian
thOUght has led him to the conc.luSlon that c~eatl0n ~as effec~ed
by magical utterance,"126 Thus It seern.s certam. that m E~Pban
speculation the pronouncement. of the ~ght maglc.at word, llk:e the
performance of the right magical action, actualIZeS the arumate
potentialiti~ inherent in matter. In G.en. I. on t~e. ~the.r hand,
the notions of a magical word and of anImate po~entlalitles 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 GO~'5 effort1~
creation by the spoken word, in the words of H. Ringgren, 15
given a fundamental significance that is without parallel."U9 May

The poll!mic Nature ofthe 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 bec~use of t~e
One who speaks and not because of any magical power Il!he~eDt. In
I h~ \\'ord spoken? It appears that this is a distinct way of mdlcatl~g
th.ll Israelite faith is liberated from the banefUl in.fl.uence of magic.
Gen. I wishes to stress thereby the essentlal dlffer~nce 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 motif~ in the creati.on
:H:count of G~n. I in conjunction with a comparlso~ of r~spechve
:.lncient Near Eastem analogues has repeatedly pOlO ted Into o~e
tlircction. The cosmology of Gen. 1 exhibits in a number of crUCIal
in~tances a sharply antimythica1 polemic. llo With a great many
~J.feguards Gen. I employs certain terms and motifs, partly taken
from ide.olQgic!i!Y .'Htd .theplogica)lyjllcompatible predec~ssors and
pJrtlycboseo 10 deliberate contrast to comp~ble _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. pole~c
nalure of the Genesis cosmology with its consistent antI mythical
thread running through Gen. I, one does not d<? justi~ to this
r:lrticular emphasis in Gen, 1 when one speaks. In the ,lnstan~
considered of a "demytbologizing"llI of mythologlcal motIfs, which
arc said to be "reshaped and assimi1ated,"m "defused,"lJl "broken "1l4 "removed "us or whatever description one may use. It
,doe~ also not do justice to the anti~ythical'polemic of Gen. 1 t.o
speak of the historicization of riiytli)16 It appears tba.t the Geo7Sls
cosmology represents not only a "complete break"1J7 WJth the anCl~nt
Near Eastern mythological cosmologies but r~presents a I?artmg
of the spiritual ways brought about by a co~s<?,ous aDd deh~~te
antimythica[ polemic which meant an undermlOlDg of the prevailing
mythological cosmologies.

Andrews Ulli~ersity,
Berriell Springs. Michigan
NOTES
In 1872 George Smith of the British M~um conveyed throuJh the co!~
of The Timu and a paper he read at a meeting of the Society of fl,bllca1
An:hacology on Dec. 3, 1872, printed in the Society's Transa.ctJ.ODS, II
(1873), 213-234, lhat he discovered a flood ao:ount which is part of the
Gilgamcsh Epic.
1 On March 4, 1875, George Smith described in a letter to the Dai~y TeJqrqph
the discnve[y of about twenty fragments of the so<:a1.Ied ~byJo= acaUon
story, EnJi.mJ e/ish ao::ording to its incipit. In the (oUOWlll8.ycar ap~
Smith's book 1M Chaltkan A.ccOun/ of Gnusls, which contamed the PIeces
of Enuma elilh which had been identified.
I

The Evangelical Quarterly

92
3

This theory was started by HUgo Winckler. G~schichfe luaels (Berlin, 1895,
19(0), 2 vols.; Das aIle Wesrasien (Leipzig, 1g99)~ "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.
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.
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 of Ihe Flood (1969) by W. G. Lambert md
A. R. Millard," in A USS,
(1970), 182-183.
C. Westermann. "Sinn und Grenu religionsgeschichtIicher Parallel en,"
ThLZ. XL (1965), cols. 489-496.
For instance the Babylonian epic Enuma dish contains a mythical account of
Cfc.ltion, which has Clused it to b~ 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 dds with creation is relatively short (Tables IV: 135-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 believe~ as a testimonial of the deity's achievements but was rc.ld 10 the
god him~df. It is a hymn in praise of Marduk by which th~ priest extols his
god." Note the correct attempts to come to grips with the total phenomenolosical 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.
A number of decades ago J. Hempel, "Chronik." ZA IV,
(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 other 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."
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 diffe~nces is to present an unbalanced and untrue
pe~pcctivc and to pervert the &cientlfic method."
Westermann, ThLZ. XI (1965). 490 f.: "En dem Verstehen biblischer Texte
diencndes Vergleichen muss Von philnomenologisch fassbarcn Gan.zheiten

vm

10

11

xm

The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology

93

h;rkommcn qnd auf sic zldcn . Das nur puuktuelle Vergleichen iSl dann
m:ht. mehr sumvol~ (undJ
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 cntwicklungsg~hichtlic:hen
Fest\eg~ng 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~en 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~nesis (Gollingen, 1901), pp. 109.112.
.,
13 B. :V. Andernon, Creatfon .I'er.flls Chaos (New York, 1967), p. 39 B. S.
Chil~. }.f):lh
Re4lily In. the Old Testament (2d ed.; london. 1962),
P. 37: ,~1:1.I1olo~I~~lJy 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 (~ondon, 1962). P. 179; R. Kilian, "Gen. 1:< und die Urgotter
von Hermopohs," VT, XVI (1966) 420.
14 C .. Westerm~ Genesis (Neukirch~n-Vlllyn, 1967 If.), p. 149: W. Zimmer/i,
Urgescnlchle. 1. Mose 1-11 Od ed.~ Zurich, 1967), p. 42; K. Galling,
Der ;:harakter.der Chao~hilder!-1ng 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.mb~rt, JT~S, N. S. XVI (I9?5), 293; O. Kaiser, Die mythisch~ BedeutUIIg
des Meeres In A!YPllm, UJ[arr/ und l~ra~1 (2~ ed. ~ Berlin. 1962), p. 115:
P. ,Reymond, L eau. sa vu~, rl sa N;nijiconofl dans l'Ancim Tesramenr
(Lelden, 1953), p. 187 and 187 n. 2: W. H. Schmidt Die Schopfun1!sgesdlichle
der p'deslerschrif~ (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!<':sls (London, 1967). p. 45; M. K. Wakeham "God's Bailie with the
Monste.r: A .Stu4y in Biblical Image!')''' (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
BrandeIS UlllvcfSlty. 1.969). pp. 143, 144; L. I. J, Stadel mann The Hebrew
Concept!?n of the . World (Rome, 1970), p, 13; M. Dahood, Psalms II,
51100. Anchor Bible" (Garden City, N. Y., 1963), p. 231.
17 For Ibm, dua~ rhtft!m, pI. thmt, in Ugaritic texts, see G. D. Young, Concordwyce of w:Cf:lrJtIC (Rome, 1~56), p. 68 No. 1925. Reprcs~nlatiye s.amples
of thIS UgDJ1I!C term accordmg to C. H. Gordon's Ugaritic Textbook
(Rome, 1965) may be the follOWing:
UT, 53: 30
[el.ynlbh.gp ym.\\'y~gt.gp.thm[t yd]lp rMt !tm .
hIm Ispl hlh.tIm.
EI thinks of the shore of the sea and advances to the
shore of the ocean; he lets it trickle by two handfuls . One [woman} reaches down, the other
reaches up;
Here fIrm is found parallel to ym (cf. Job 28: 14; 38: 16), referring to th~
se.afo~n
a ,Part of the .cosmos and not to a mythical momter. Thm is
here m antllhellca\ paralle;hsm as the lower oce3n to the upper ocean (ef.
Ps. 33: 7).
'Ant lIT: 2.2-2.3 tanUlmm. 'Ill.ar~.thml. 'mn.kkbm
The murmuring of the hc.lven to the earth,
.

of the deeps to the stars.

In this chiasm earth and Ihmr, "deeps," are contrasted.

fGttrt

an:'

/?Ie

::s

The El'angelical QUQ"eri},

94
I Aqht 42-43

'

:~

W.~nl.

The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology

2~

y~rk.bUmn,rkb.

:..

'rpt.bL\I.bl.rd.

bl.~r'.thrnlm.bl.lb!l.q!. b'l

For seven yean. Baal failed, for eight years the rider
on the clouds without dew, without showers, without
the upsurginl;s of the deeps, without the &weet
sound of Baal's voice.
,
The drought comes lIS the waters from above and Ihe waters from below
(thm) are cut off (cf. 2 Sa. I ~ 21).
UT, 5J: iv: 20
idk.lttn.pnm
'm.eLmbk.nhrm
qrb.apq,thmtm
Then surely [Anatl set her face
tow:ud EI at the source of the rivers
in Ihe midst of the channels 0 f the deep.
In this statement the upper (heavenly) and lower (earthly) 0C<1.D.S are
not neo::ss.arily distingUished. Wakemm, God's Baule. pp. 159-161, eondudes her swdy of the Ygaritic term thm by poiJ}ti~ ou~ th!!-t the form.9 f
this term varies as tcMm 10 Hebrew and that there IS nothing In the Ugantlc
material to indicate animate nature."
.
11 This was claimed by Gunkel. For thc history of research on the motif of
the battle with the dragon, see L:unbert, JTIIS, N. S: XVI (965), 285. Note
also the studies of the battle with the dragon. motif by D. F. McCarthy,
.. 'Creation' Motifs in Andc:nt Hebrew P~trY;' CBq
(l96?~,
87-100: Westermann. Genesis, pp. 39 If;; and !n great detaIl In alilts multIplidty and variety in Wakeman's dissertation, God s Batt!e, who bas
exposed the crucial points of disagreement among scholars With regard to
the battle with the dragon monster in Canaan and Israel on pp. 234-255.
19 J. Lc"''Y "Influence hurrites sur Israel," Revue Ju eludeJ semit/qlJes, V P9~8),
63-65 ~g.:lrded teh6m from a li.ngUisti~ point of view as it Human adJective,
dcriv~d from the root rhm with an ap~ded suffix (mh> )m. cr. Stadelmann.
op. cit., 1'. 13. In support of the view that the Heb!ew term teh6m CO.mes
from a u,rnmon Semitic root and is not a BabylonIan loan word, Heidel,
op. cir_, p. 101. p;plains that in. ArabIc Tllrtimll/JI or TiMma. a name for ~~e
lOW-lying Arabian coastal land, deI1ves from Ihe same Common SemitIC
root. Cf. Dahood, op. cit., p. 231.
20 Dahood. op. cit., pp. 231, 240. In Ps. 78: 15.leMmat is us~d par~el to
midbar In Arabic J{hrimatu denoles "s.andy dcscrt," a mcafllng whieh fits
the pa;-tllelism of Ps. 78: 15. Dahood points out that one need n?t rely
solely on Arabic to establish the !.ellSC of "wasteland" as a mC~llllng for

lS

16

II

28

19

30
31

..cr).

1)

n
H

3~

IeMmJr l;:aU$C io Ugaritic according to UT, 2001: 35: Ilk bmdbr

IMttl '.II' hi .... tlt thml, one finds that mabT, "wl1derness," is balanced
with thmr, "wasteland."
TeliOm is four limos rnase. sing: Job 28: 14; Hab. 3: Iq: Jon. 2~ 6; ~s.
42= 8; teMmet is twice mase. pl.: Ex. 15: 5,8: Deut. 8: ? IS not ne:crss.anl~
a plural; f(Mm61 is once mase. :pl.: Ps. 77:17; khDmot tS once rnase. 1'1 ..
Pro\,. 3: 20.
T~h6m h nine times fern. sing: Gen. 7: 11; Am. 7: 4; Is. 5}: lq; Ps! 36: 7;
Gen. 49: 15; Duet. 33: 13; E.xe. 31: 4, 15; J.ob 41 : 24; tehom61 IS once fern.
sing.: Ps. 7S: 15 (\l.1th PhoJioian .ing. ending
Tdwm has in eight p:mages no indie<.ttion of gender: Gen. I: 2; 8: 2: Eze.
26: 19; Ps. 104: 6; Job 38: 16, 30; ~o~. 8: 27, 28; lehOmot or leMmal
appc:l.l> in eight passages without indIcation (other than form) of number
or.gender: Ps. 33: 7; 71: 20; 106: 9; 107: 26; 135: 6; 148: 7; Prov. 8: 24!
Is. 63: 13.

Wakeman, God's Ballf,., p. 143. Note ha detailed discussion of t~h6m with

reference to lhe question whether it ",'as once considered to be a person in
the Hebrew Bible (pp. 143-49).
Exceptions are Is. 63: 13; Ps. 106: 9.
It is more often found in poetry where the article would not necessarily
be expected. In this connection it is si!llificant that whenever )'am, "s.ea,"
isfound parallel to 'thOm (Job 28: 14; 38: 16; Is. SI: 10; Ps. 33: 7: 107: 23;
135: 6), then the former refers to tho sea lIS
of the cosmos and not to
the personification "Sea" as when yam is ound parallel 10 Rahab (Job
26: 12~ Ps. 89! 10; Is. 51: 9l,l.eviatlmn (Job 3: 8; Ps. 74: 13), Tanrun (Job
7: r2). This appears te point into the direction that II?h6m in the Hebrew
Bible is depersonalized.
M. K. Wakeman, "The Biblical Earth Monster in the Cosmogonic u,mbat
MyUl," JEL, LXXXVm (1969), 317, suggests tMt in Ex. IS: 8 lenam "is
associated with the ancient image of the earth demon which is distinguisha b1c
from, though controlling, the primeval waters." This, howc\'cr, does not
need to imply'that it has mythological, personalized overtones.
S. N. Kramer, ed., Mythologies of the Ancient World (Garden City, N. Y.,
1961), p. 95.
S. N. Kramer, Sumerian My/ll%gy (New York, 1961), p. 39; cf. T. H.
Gaster, My/h. Legend and CUSiom inlhe aid Testamen! (NewYork,1969),p.3.
S. N. Kramer, History Begins at Sumer (Garden City, N. Y., 1959), p. SJ.
Kr:u-F.er, Mt;,lIlOlogies, p. 120; Sarna, op. cit p. 7, says that the function
of Enuma I! ish was "to validate Marduk's assumption of the divine government of the universe by explaining: his ascendancy from relative obscurity
as the city-god of Babylon to a supreme position in the Babylonian pantheon
" Oppenheim, op. elt., p. 233, reminds us that Enuma ,dish "was not read
by the oclievers .. but to the god [Mardukl himself."
ANETJ, pp. 60, 61.
Heidel, op. 'it., p. 89; F. G. Bratton, Myths and Legends of the Ancient
Near Easr (New York, 1970). p. 37: "In the beginning [in Babylonian
cosmogony) there was DO heaven and earth. There was nothing but water;. ,"
Parenthetically we should be reminded tlut the idea of the priority in
time of water figUres in cosmogonies from all over the world among Plples
living in most diverse gcographieal areas. cr. Gaster, My/h, ugt!/ld and
Cuslom in Ihl! OT, pp. J, 4.
See R. Labat, "Los origines ct la formation de Ill. terr~ dans Ie poeme
Babylonien de Ill. creation," in Siudia Eiblica cl Orientalia (Rome, 1959),
III, 105-207; and the penetrating analysis of the battle between Marduk
and Tial1UJt in Enuma dish in which Wakeman, God's &:llIlt>-, pp. 20-31.
s= a combination of two structurally separate accounts of cre.ation,
following the victories over Apsu and Tiamat respectively. See also Lambert,
JThS, N. S. XVI (1965), 293-295, who points out that three ideas CQ=rIDng
the primeval state were known in Mesopotamia! 0) the priority of the
earth, out of which eVerything came forth; (2) crc::ation out of the primeval
ocean/dep; and (3) time is the sOLlree and origin of all things. u,mpare
also Th. Jacob~n, "Sumerian Mythology. A Review Article," JNES, V
(1946), 12&-152.
Payne,
cit" p. 10: J. Skinner, Gm~sis (ICC; 1d cd.; Lcmdon. 1930),
p. 48; N, H. Ridderbos, "Genesis I: 1 W1d 2," OTS, 12 (1958), 235 if.:
Galling. op. cit., p. 151; S. A.alen. DIt Begrlffe 'Uchr' und Ftfl.mrnls' im
Allen TutQnJenl, im SplitjudelltJlJ/1 und 1m RabbintsmILS (Oslo, 1951), pP.
10 f.; Schmidt, ap. cit,. p. 81 n .5; Westermann, G~nesis, p. 146.
Staddmann, op. cit" p. 14, notes that "the primordial stale in which the
world was pictured, . is further determined by its rdation to darkness. , .
nc.ither the darkness nor the chaos ("sea"] is per.>onificd, nothing is said of
its 1\ceding to be subdued before the work of ereation can begin."

"art

,xXDS

II

95

JS

,
-:

J6

"p.

"

96
)1

38

J9

~l

H
.1

+<
,U

The Evangelical Quarterly

So still W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Gard<:n City.
New York, 1963), pp. 184, 185. who is. J:0wcve~, forced t~ admit ~hat
Gen. 1: 2 as it now reads docs not contain the Idea. Albright surrlllses
that vs. 2 originally contained a statement of the triumph of God over
the great Deep (Ttll6m) , "which was later deleted:' Such subjective guesses
are or little value! Objections against the view of demythologizations in
Gen. !: 2 are presented by &bmidt, op. cit., p. 81 no. 5: Westermann,
Genesis, p. 146; Payne, op. til., p. II. E. D. James, "The Con~eptton of
Creation in Cosmology." in Liber :Amitorllin. Stud/Its in Honor of Prof.
Dr. C.l. B!t:d:a (SuppJ. /0 Numen, XTI: Leiden, 1969), p. 106, sums up
his study of the ancient Near Eastern cosmologies by pointing ou~ that
Gen. t is "without any reference to the struggle betweeu Yahweh and
Leviathan and his host as in . the P.salms and the book of Job, or to the
ba.ttle between the gods and the victory of Marduk over Tiamat ill the
Enuma ~IIJh." W. Harrelson, "The Significance of Cosmology in the Ancient
Near East," in TrlUlSlatlng and UndersJanding Ihe Old Testament. Essays in
Honor of H. G. Ma)" ed. by H. T. Frank and W. L Reed (Nashville, 1970).
p. 241: " all vestiges of the conflict of Yahweh with powers of the
universe have hoen eliminated as the story now stands."
Westermann. Gmesis, p. 146; "Von cinem Kampf mit lehUm, entsprecbcnd
clem Ka.mpf Mardu\(s mit Tiarnat. :zeigt Gn I, 2 keine Spur " Cf. Aalen,
op. dr., pp. 10, 11.
SO Stade!mann, op, dl" p. 16.
So Galling, op. cil., p, 151. Even in Ugaritic Ilzm/lhmr does not in.dlcale a
conflict as betwe<:n Baal and Yam in the Baal-Yam cycle or a battle between
EI and Yam (cf. D. J. Fl'lIJTIe, "Creation by the Word" [unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation. Drew University. Madison, N. J . 1969). PP. 131 ff.) nor are
there contained in this Ugaritic cognate Ilotions such as are assooiated with
uvialhan. the sea-monster (cr. UT, 67: i: Il; Wakeman, God's Batlle,
pp. 95, 96).
H. Frankfort, Ancient Ef{)'Ptian Religion (New York, 1961). pp. 19 r" points
OUl that Egyptian creation thOUght is distinctive through its "multiplicity
of approaches" and "multiplicity of answas." cr. R. Anthes, "Mytholo~es
in Ancient Egypt." in Myrhologies of fhe ANcient World, pp. 17 If. DetaHed
discussions of Egyptian. cosmogonic specUlations are provided by Brandon.
op. cit., pp. 20 If. and Frame, op. cit., pp. 6874.
Taken from Chapler XVU of the Book o!lh~ Dl'ad (Cll. 2000 B.C.) as quoted
from ANETJ,p. 4a.
Atum is often referred to as the "ol\e who came into being by hirnself"
and the "one wno was alone in Nun." Cf. ANETl, pP. 3, 4.
Brandon, op. cil., p. 24.
ANETl, p. 9b, from the 175th Chapter of the Book of the Dead (ca. 1550-

l.3S0 B.C.).
-16 Brandon, op. cit., p. 11.
.1 Ibid., p. 26. In Memphlle

theology two other deities, Hu and Sia. seem to

crist alongside Atum as assistant creators, Cf. H. Ringgren, Word and
Wisdom (Lund, ]947), p. 22.
,. It is preserved on the so<alled "Snabaka Stone" (ca. 700 ~.C.L whO$(
traditions go back 10 the Old Kingdom (C4. 2700 B.C.) according to J. A.
Wilson in .. NET), p. 4a, and Brandon, op. cil., pp. 31 ff.
,~ The "father" and "mother" of Alum is Prall who was both Nun., the abysmal
Walas, and his corum! Naunet. He !>ms to be androgynous. ANET)
p. Sa, and M. S. Holmb<:rg, The God Plan (Lund, 1946), p. 32.
50 Ptah "gavc birth to the gods." AlVETJ, p. Sa.
31 Holmberg, op. cit., p. 31.

97

The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology

Sl

J3

S4

S3

5~

51

~s

~?

6Q

G(

The four pain of gods who make up the Ogdoad are Nun and Nauuet
(water'), Hu and Hauhet (in.fin1ty), Kuh and Kauk~1 (darkness), and Amull
and Amaunet (hiddrnness). Cf. Brandon, op. cil., pp. 4) ff.; Kilian, op, cit.,
PP. 420 ff.
H. Bnmner, "Die Grcnzen von Zeit und R.lum bei den Ag)'lltern," ..If0,
)""VII (1954/56). 141-45; E. Hornung, "ClUlotische Bcreiche in def tc;:lrdnelen Welt," ZAS, LXXXI (1956), 28-32; S. Morenz.. A~YPli.scht &Jigion
(Stuttgart, ! 96{. PP. 167 If.
So still F=e, op. cit., p. 73.
E. Wllrthwein, "Chaos und Schopfung im mythischen Denken und in der
bibllifhen Urgeschichte," in Wor/ ulld Exi.tmz (GOttingen, 1970), p. 35.
Brunner. op. dt., p. 142. points out that "olemals ist dn Mythos 'hlstorlsch'
1m Sinn der Israelitlschen oder einer spate-ren Geschichtsbetrachtung
gemein.t. nkmals will er dn elrunaHses, unwiederholb:u-es Ereignis schildcrn
. Die Zeit, die der Mythos meint, ist vielmohr stets auch das Hier und
Jetzt; ,"
Moren:z., op. cU., pp. 176 f.; Frame. op. cit., p.
Against Frnme, op. cil., p, 193, who attempts to revive a sugg~tion mad~
by A. H. Sayee, "The Egyptian Background of Gcnesis 1," in. Studies
Preserrted 10 F. L. Grl/fith (London, 1932), 417-23, lnat the chaos in. Gcn.
1:2 is very clos.e to the Hconopolitan cosmogony.
T. H. Gaster, "Cosmogony," Interpreler's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville,
1962), I, 703; cf. Sarna, op. dr., p. 13. The priority of water in ancient
cosmogony and mythology may be due to the fact that water, having no
fixed s.hape and ap~ring to be u~enerated, comes by nature 10 be regardoci
as sometbing that must bave existed before all other thin~ were made.
Sec "The Primeval Establishment of Order" in .ANET~, pp. 9, 10. ct.
Frankforl. op. cU., pp. 1:!1, 133. Frame, op. cit., p. 193, docs not reco~
that the bLlrst of light with whlch the creator-god overcomes darkne$S is
described as a victory, an overthrow of enemies. Egyptian creation thought
contains the battle myth, s.ec Wakeman, God's Bailie, Pp. 1719.
This has been elaborated by WUrthwein, op. ell., p. 35. but Dote also our
observations above which stress tbat Genesis creation comes "in the
begi.nning" as a unique act which is completed within seven days; supra.

n.

D.

56.

So Galling, op, dr., p. 151.

63 With Galling, op, cit,. pp. 154, ISS; WGrthwein, op. cir., p. 36: and others
agairut Kili3.D, op. eli., pp, 420-438, who argues that Gen, 1: 2 is connected
with the Herrnopolitan cosmogony. He concludes that the first words.
"but the carth was," are SecOllda:iy and t.ran.slates Gen. I: 2, "Tobu wabohu
and darkness were above the primeval ~ and the spirit or God hovered
above the waters." The difficulty of this translation Hes in having tohu
wabohu "above" the teht$m, which is very hard to conceive (c(. WesteonanD,
Genl!sis, p. J 42). Furthermore, there is no rearon to cxcis.': the first words
of GeIl. 1: 2. Since this is the procedure by which K.i.Ii.:ul establishes a. definite
reiationship bctweD. Gen. 1: 1 and the Eg)'lltlan cosmogony, his attempt
must 00 considered to be unsu=ful (cf. Sc.hmldl, op. e/l., p. 86 Il. 6).
In addition, on methodologk::al grounds it is inadvisable, act\.lAlIy impermissible, to re.'ld Gen. 1: 2 through the eyes of Egyptian mythology, if
OIlO does ]lot Want to prejudice one's conclusion from the start.
6.4 L. Koehler-W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in VeJeru TUI~Nti Libros(Leiden,
1958), pp. 1034, 1035, suggests "sea-monster" for G<:n. I: 21 j Ps. 148: 7;
"dragou" for Is. 21: 1; 51: 9; Jer. Sl: 34; Ez. 19: 3; 32: 2; Ps. 74: 13:
Job 7: 12; "sIJX;t\!" for Ex. 7: 9,12; Dt. 32: 33; Ps. 91: 13.
65 A,NEn, Pp. 129-155.
02

98

Tilt' pO/l!mic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology

This is the translation of 'Anat: ill: 34-39 by John Gray in 1JtJl~W't1",..

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<l\ivc Lexicography," JA
(1959), 169176; S. E. Loewenstamrn. "The Muzzling of tho
Ugaritic Myth," IFJ rx (1959),260 C.; Wakeman, God's Baltle, pp.
68 In another conlext of the same myth it is said of Baal that he slew
the Primeval Serpent, the Crooked Serpent, Gray, op. cil., p. 123 n.
cr. UT, 67: I: 13.
. 6~ See G. R. Driver. "Mythical Monsters in the Old Testament" Studla
lalia, I (1956), 234-249; Gaster, Tltespis, pp. 142.149; 'Yakcman,
&6

70

7!

71
lJ

BoUlt, pp. tOO-llS.

Gu.nkel, SchiJpfung 11M Chaos, p. 120: "Aus den urallen Chaosungeheu
aber is! dne merkwilrdige Art von Fischen geworden die unter den
Gl:SChopfcn figurieren." Idem, Gcru:sis, p. 100,
'
Twi~ or possibly thrre times of thirteen ap ....... ra.nces; rs 27: l' Ez 29' 3'
(32: 2).
y. , . .
,
Twi~: Gen. 1: 21; Dt. 32: 33. Ex. 7: 12 seems to have an tUclitic

m.

Wakeman. God's Baff/~, p. 103.

,. Ibid., p. 111.

or

Ex. 7: 9, 12 speaks
a rod ttiming into a serpent; Ps. 91 : 13 preserves tho
promise, "You shall tread safely on sn~ke and serpent" (NEB): Dt. 32: 33
refers to the venom of serpnts: Ez. 29:.3 and 32: 2 compares th~ Egypti:m
Pharaoh with a mighty animal of the stre3.ms. Commentators usually
assume that taMIn refers. in these two verses to the crocodile. Jer. 51: 34
compares Babylon to a powerful animal which swallows up Jerusalem.
16 Driver, op. cir., PP: 234 fr., points out t~at th.ere i~ T<~ally no reason a~ainst
the vIew that IGl1I1tr1 as a normal gencnc designatIon for a type of animal
even if a .speclficayy. mysterious and dangerous one, could not go back
to t!"t~ e.a:rllest ImgulStlc stages. Westermann, Genl.'Jis, p. 191. takes the samo
pos!tlon.
7S

77

Only in Is: 2.7: 1; ~I: 9; Job 7: 12; :l.!ld in P~. 71: 13 can a usage of tannin
be: TeCOgnJzed whIch corresponds In some of !Is aspects to the ancknt

Near Eastern bJ.tt!e myth.

I. S? T. H. Gaster, "Dra[;on," Inlerprl!fu's Dic/ionary of the Bible (Nash.

ville, 1962), I, 868.
19 G. von Rall, Gmesis. A Commentary, trans!. by J. H. Marks (Philadelphia
1961), p. 54: "Signific:.a.ntly it is used first (if we disregard the summary
v. I) for the creation of liying creatures (v. 21)." cr. Ridderbos, op. dr.,
p. 223; Westermann, Genesis, p. 190.
10 Schmidt, op. cit., pp. 164 fr., points out trot bara' appears in the creation
a.ccount of Gen. 1: 1-2: 4a at places where dcxisive theological statements
arc made and that therefore important mean.in.g is attached to t.hls verb.
&1 Waker:um, God's Batt/e, p. 109, thinks that (C/llI1in in. Gen. I: 21 singles out
a particular species of creatures whereas the other creatures are iisted only
by general categoric:s. This suggestion TUns iuto difficulty in view of the
fact that in no other place in Gen. I a particular species is singled out.
Ps. 10.1: 2526 which is par:illel to Gen. 1: 2122 speaks of the creation of
large and ml2.l/ aquatic creatures, which seems to be: the distinction also
of Gen.. I: 2122.
,

~:

99

Westermunn. Genes:i p. 191, points out that Gen. I: 21 wants to distinguish

dearly betwet:n lar&e and small water creatures. He supports the vlew of
A. D]JImann that Gen. 1: 21 as Ez.. 29: 3 and 32: 2 means by tGMinlm
crocodiles and similar large water crc.aturc:s. T. C. Mitchell, "Dragon,"
Tlu' New Bible Dictlonar), (2d cd.; London, -1965), p, 322 also suggests
that in Gen. 1: 21 evidently "large sea-CTc.atuTC:S such as the whale an:

intended, "
,j The relationship between Ps, 104 and Gen. 1 is discussed by A. van der '
Voor!, "Genese I, J A II, 4a et Ie P&aume ClY." RE. LVIll (1951), 321347; P. Humbe:rt. "La relation de Genese I ct du Ps.aurne 104 avec la
liturgic du Nouvel-An israelite," Opuscules d'iln Hebraisanl fNeuchatel,
19$8), pp. 60-83. Whc~ Humbert follows Gunkel in cousidcnng that
the author of Ps. 104 has had the text of Gen. 1 before him, H. J. Kraus,
Psa/men INeuklrchen-VluYTI, 19(0), n. 709, bdicvc:s that there is no dirca
"literary dependence of one on the other and maintains that both Gen. 1
and Ps. 104 depend on the same tradition. Schmidt, op. cit., pp. 41, 42,
follows Kraus. On the whole su also Frame, op. cit., pp. 171176, who argues
that Gen. 1 shares with Ps. 104 "the creation thought that formed a ba.cl
sround for the festival of Zion and for the wisdom influenced theology
of the Davidic court" (p. 177). On the other hand, Stadelman, op. cit.,
p. 34, is of the conviction that Gen. I "was modelled on the pattern of thh
psalm {1M]," Whatever the exact relationsblp may be:, it is certain that the
sequence of creative acts in both Gen. 1 and Ps. 104 is very close. We
iliould also emphasize the non-cultic nature of the story of creation in
Gen. J with Sarna, op. cit., p. 9, S. Mowincke\, The PsaJnu In Isrcufs
Worship (Nashville, 1962), I, 166-169, H. Ringgren, lsraeliu: Rcligion
(Philadelphia., 1966), p. 100 n. 8; and F. Hvidberg. "The Canaanite Bad:~
ground of Gen.l-ITI," VT, X (1960),285294, against Humbert and Frame.
,.. cr. &:hmidt, op. elt., pp. 122, 180, who speaks of Ii. "critical reaction"
against mythology in Gen. I: 21. Wak~man, God s Batf/~, p. 109, says that
tQllnln in "Gen. 1: 21 is a deliberat~ effort to contradict the battlc myth."
Sarna. op. cit" p. 22.
'$-.Againsl Westermann, Gel1~sis, p. 191, who be:lieves that Gen. I: 21 merely
" dcmythoJoglz.e.s."
!. Kramer, Sumerian My/ho!OIlY, p. 37;
Schmidt, op. dr., p. 21; Staddmann,
op. cit p. 17.
11 ANETJ, p. 67; B. Landsl:x:rgcl :md J. V. Kinnier Wilson, "The Fifth Tablet
of Enuma Em," JNES xx (1960, 154-119.
'A O. R. Gurney, The Hittites (2d cd.; Baltimore, 19(6), p.193; H. G. Guterbock
"Tho Song of Ullikummi," JCS, VI (1952), 29. " they came and cut
heaven and earth asunder with a copper tool, "
,~ H. W. Haussig, ed., Wortt'rbuch der Myt/rotogie (Sluttgart, 1961), 1, 309,
3 t O. H. Ringgren, "Ar den bibclska skapelse:sbe:rii.Uelscn en ).;ultte:u r'
SEA, XII (948), lS, shows that the word merabt:pl!/ shouJd not suggest
any conception of cosmic egg. He attempts to show that Gen. 1 has bo::n
formed in conscious protest against a certain (Canaanizing) version of
the New Yc.:u Festival. It appears on the basis of our investigation that
this is a too limited and one-sided view. The conscious protest or polemic
goes against a great number of mythologic.aJ motifs,
9\) Morenz, op. ell., pp. 18o..1S2; Stadelman.n., op. cir., pp. 57 if. It is also
significant that in this cosmogonic pr=:ntation the heaven/sl.."Y is felllini:n.o
where.lS the C.lrth is masculine.
~! cr. Westermann, Genesis, pp. 47 fr.; 160 if.
!l'l Gaster, Myth, LegeM, and Cl.Utom in the
p. 6.

cr.

or,

9)

Westermann, Gen.e.ris, p. 160.

100

The Evangelical Quarterly

9~

See the cssa.y of the pr=nt writer, infra, n. 123, and Schmidt, op. cil.,

9~

Kramer, Sumerian MyfltolofY, pp. 41 If,; :E;f. Schmokel. Das Land Sumer
Od ed.; Stuttgart. 1962), pp. 129 If.
Frankfort. OPt cit., p, 28.

The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology

118

PI'. 117, 118, with addilionaiHterature.

96

97
98

99

A. Goetze, KJeimuien. Hlll1dbuch der Altertumswissensc/w/t, III. (ld ed.;

.Milnchen, 1957), pp. 89, 136 If.
A. S. Kapdrud, Tlte Ras Shamr.a Discoyeri~s and rhe Old Testament (London.
1965), p. 45.

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 divinit~ solaire oucarilique." Syria,
)",'XXVI (1959), 90-101: T. H. Gaster, "Moon," InfcrpNUr's Dictionary
of the Bible (Nashville, 1962), m, 436.

10)

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 (1 945{46), 405-489; E. Dhorme, Les'
rc/igions de Babylonie n d'Assyrie (Paris, 1949), pp. 5394.
Heidel, OPt dr., p. 116. .

104

ANEn, p. 68.

105

106

Ibid.
Not as Heidel, op. cir., p. 117, says, "stal'S, moon, and

101

Ibid.

lOS

Tablet V: 2. In Babylonian thought the gods cannot be separated from the

stars and constellatkms which represent them.

102

SUll."

119

120

111
lU

1201

11)9 Tablet V: 5-7.

110 00. this point, see Westermann, GeMsis, p. ISS.

Schmidt. op. cit., p. 1IS n. 9.

m Staddmann, cpo cit., pp. 57 fr.

111

II.

Sclunidt. op. cil., p. 119.

Meissner. op. cir., n, 25 tr.. 398 If,; Dhorme
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/,

III

12,
OPt

cit., p. 82; Gas(ef, Thespis,

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.; Stadel mann,
OPt Cil., p. 17: David Neiman', unpublished paper, "The Polemfc Language
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,

or

126
127

la
119

101

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 of 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.
Sarna, op. cit., p. 14.
Gaster, "Cosmology," Interpreter's Dktlonary of rh .. Bib/e, J, 704.
See also the chapter "Man as Ruler of the World" in O. Lor~tl, Schiip/ung
und Mythos (Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 92-98.
Chlld1i, op. cit., pp. 31 If. discusses a number of a.sp<xts of myth in contlict
with Old Testament reality. For a critique of von Rad's view that a star)'
of God creating the world should exist from ancient times and yet not be
brought into a real theological relationship until it was related to a historical
salvation-faith ("The Theological Problem of the Old T.:s!::unent Doctrine
of Creation" in The Problem oj'the Ht'xaleucn and Orhl'r Essays [New York,
1966J, pp. '131143), see James Barr, Old and NtIV in InterpreraTion (New
York, 1966), Pl'. 74-76, 98.
See the excursus with literature by Schmidt. op. cil . pp. 173-177. cr. Westermann, GelU'.tis pp. 52-51; Frame, op. cit" pp. 61 ff.: and the present "'Titer's
essay, "Th~ Significance of the Cosmology in Gen. I in Rd::Hion to Ancient
Neat Eastern Parallels," AUSS, IX (1911).
Schmidt, op. eft., p. 174. It is true that Marduk in Enumo ~li.h Tablet IV:
:U-26 (ANErl, p. 66) demorutratcs his creative po Wet by letting a piece of
cloth vanish and by restoring it through the word or his mouth. Gunkel,
Genesis, p. 95, points to the "tremendous difference between the Hebrew
and Babylonian notions" of creation. In Gen. I God creates by word
alone. but for Muduk it is only one of many "means" of creation, However
Gunkel also remarks in his Gelles;s (1910 cd.), p. 105, that Marduk employs
a conjurer's word. This display of heing able to make a cloth v.mish and
appear again by word of mouth is "the act of a stage magician," So 1. L.
McKenzie, ''-fytl.s and Realities (Milwaukee. Wisc., 1963). p. 100. It is
obvious that there is no similarity between the Genesis formula. "God
said and it was so," and the magic notion in Enuma tlish.
ANETJ, p. 5. See also the anAlysis of Ihis text by K. Koch. "Wort und
Einhdt des Schopfergottcs in )..!emphis und Jerusalem," ZThK, LXII
, 1965), 154 fr.
Brandon, GP. cit., p. 51.
Westemlann, Genesis, pp. S6, 57: "Die Entsprechung zwischen dem Er
schaffen durch das Wort, 2:. B. in def memphitischen Theologie und Gn.
1, ist so ru crklaren, class bcidc T.:xte den gleiehen Gegenstand haocn und
beidc je in ihn:r Traditionsgeschichte einem relativ "paten Stadium ans-ehOn:n.
Da die Motive und Darstellungswelsen dcr Schopfung ocgTenzt sind, is!
von vomherein mit mancherlei Entsprechungen zu re.chnen. die ohne
Abhangigkeil des einen Textes von anderen vielfach anzu!reffen sind,"
Sarna, op. rif., P. 12.
Ringgren, lslaelire Rdigion, p. 107.

.1P".21"1BS.~C~~""IM""""".757~""""".r

102
J.!)

m
m
IH
Il5

136
m

The Evangelical Quarterly

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 Ih~ 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 nonrepeatable 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.
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 undersUndins of existence, the term "demythologization" (EnfmYlhologiiilerung)
should be reserved. whereas the designation "demythologizing" (entmyIlwlogisiuel!) 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.
Gunkel, G~/I~si$. p. 104.
G. Fahrer, Gesch;chle du israclilisdren Rtligion (Berlin. 1969). p. 177.
Childs. op. cit., p. 43. He also speaks of 3 "reshaping" and "assimilating"
of myth.
McKenzie. op. cil., p. 195.
Cr. M. Noth, "Die Hisiorisierung des Mythus im AJlen Testament,"
Chrill~lflum tJnd WilulUcna!J.' V1II (192S). 26S-272t 301309~ E. Jacob,
Th~oIOKY oj tht Old Testament (London. 1958), pp. 197200.
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."

'.
"
"

':;'"