Creation as Social and Political Order in Ancient Thought
and the Hebrew Bible
By
Kevin Mellish
Olivet Nazarene University
Introduction:
Over the last 150 years scholars have made a number of seminal contributions to the field of Hebrew Bible that have literally revolutionized our understanding of the history and composition of the text. Julius Wellhausen’s promulgation of the so-called Documentary Hypothesis, Bernhard Duhm’s work on the book of Isaiah, Herman Gunkel’s form-critical investigation on the Psalms, and Martin Noth’s theory of the so-called Deutronomistic History (DtrH), are but a few examples of groundbreaking research that have significantly altered the landscape of biblical exploration and, even at present, require scholars to take into full consideration when doing research in these content areas. The archaeological discovery of the Mesopotamian epics such as Enuma elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh by the British explorer Austin Henry Layard has also left an indelible mark on the enterprise of biblical research, particularly in the study of the cultural and historical backgrounds of Israelite thought and literature. Although Layard himself had unearthed these Assyrian texts, which dated to the time of Ashurbanipal, George E. Smith is credited with translating the creation story Enuma elish in 1876. Smith’s work not only opened a window into the world view of the ancient Mesopotamians that had remained closed to modern, western audiences for centuries, but it also shed new light on the development of Israel’s faith and religious traditions.
The accumulative impact that the discovery and translation of these ancient accounts had on Old Testament studies, in particular, cannot be fully appreciated or calculated. In the aftermath of their translation, biblical scholars at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries were smitten, even enraptured, with the prospect of analyzing and interpreting the great creation texts of the Hebrew Bible (Gen.1-3, for instance) in light of the newly translated myths from Mesopotamia as well as those from Rash Shamra and Egypt. Initial examination of these ancient Near Eastern texts revealed that the creation myths from Mesopotamia contained some of the closest literary and thematic parallels with the Genesis traditions, and thus, detailed comparison/contrast analysis between the biblical materials and works such as Enuma e lish, Gilgamesh, and A tra ha sis followed in earnest. Concomitantly, the development of the Documentary Hypothesis provided scholars a chronological framework by which to date texts like Genesis 1-3 against the creation epics of the ancient Near East. According to source critics like Wellhausen, Genesis 1:1-2:4a derived from priestly circles and could be dated to the exilic or even post-exilic period. As a result, modern critical scholars posited that Gen. 1:1-2:4a was a younger tradition than the Mesopotamian epics and thus any similarities between the Genesis material and Mesopotamian accounts suggested that the biblical writers borrowed language and ideas from the latter.
Trends within the discipline of Old Testament theology at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century had also progressed to the point to where it became methodologically fashionable to incorporate the study of the biblical creation narratives within the History of Religions (Religionsgeschicte) School. Robert A. Oden notes of this period that, “the larger program of the “History of Religion School” was most basically founded on the project of fully utilizing texts from outside the OT to explain the development of the OT” (1992, 957). Thus, scholars associated with the History of Religions School consistently examined and evaluated biblical texts in light of the ancient literature and religions of the world, which in the end, tended to emphasize the similarities between Israel and her neighbors rather than illuminating the distinctive elements of Israel’s thought and theology.
No scholar exemplified the above mentioned approach more than Herman Gunkel, the father of form-critical methodology and a pioneer in comparative religions. In his monumental study, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton (Shopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzei t), Gunkel set forth to systematically flesh out elements of the creation narrative in Gen. 1 which had direct parallels with the Mesopotamian creation stories. As a result of his detailed analysis, Gunkel argued that it was impossible for a text like Gen. 1 to have originated independently in an Israelite context, but, at its most primal level, owed its existence to Mesopotamian lore. To prove his point, Gunkel methodically analyzed the theme of chaos war (Chaoskampf) in creation myth and argued that it was an ancient concept that had been co-opted and later demythologized by the writers/narrators of Gen. 1. At the conclusion of his investigation, Gunkel wrote, “From this it follows that Genesis 1 is not the free composition of an author but it is rather the deposit of a tradition. Furthermore, this tradition must stretch back to high antiquity” (1984, 31). For many practitioners of the History of Religions School there was nothing really new in the Old Testament that was not a pale reflection of Babylonian thought. Fredrick Deilitzsch even argued that the Old Testament was lacking almost completely in originality. One can see a strong backlash to this position in the work of Gerhard F. Hasel, for instance. Hasel, in particular, attempted to show that the creation narratives in the Old Testament were not as similar to Babylonian creation mythology as those in the History of Religion School had maintained. Hasel argued vehemently that the cosmology of Gen. 1 exhibited a sharply anti-mythical polemic. He wrote, “It appears that Genesis cosmology represents not only a “complete break” with the ancient Near Eastern mythological cosmologies but represents a parting of the spiritual ways brought about by a conscious and deliberate anti-mythical polemic which meant an undermining of the prevailing mythological cosmologies” (1974, 91). Whether Hasel is completely correct in his assessment of these issues remains up for debate, but it is more important to note that his reaction to the pan-Babylonian approach of scholars like Gunkel demonstrates the extent to which modern researchers had assumed Mesopotamian influence on the biblical text.
Scholars of the Old Testament will remain indebted to those who discovered and translated these ancient accounts and pointed out where the biblical writers were familiar with their content and even borrowed from them when composing texts like Gen. 1-3. The purpose of this paper, however, is not to engage again in a systematic comparison/contrast analysis showing where the creation accounts of the Bible have literary and thematic points of contact with ancient Near Eastern mythology as well as significant differences. As the previous paragraphs have attempted to show, this type of investigation has been done satisfactorily by people much more competent than me and the research on this topic is extensive (see Westermann for bibliography). Rather, the thrust of this examination will focus on the connection between the creation accounts themselves and the historical contexts in which they were written. In so doing it will become evident that on one level creation narratives reflected the social and political realities of the societies that produced them as much as they attempted to explain the origins of the cosmos and the earth. The connection between the creation accounts of ancient societies and their historical context is evident in two ways. First, creation narratives functioned as etiologies in the ancient world and thus explained phenomena characteristic of the natural world and human society. Second, ancient cultures depicted the defeat of primordial chaos at creation as resulting in the establishment of social and political order. As we will see, both of these concepts are particularly relevant in ancient Mesopotamian and Hebrew thought.
Creation Narrative as Etiology:
In addition to serving religious or metaphysical purposes in the ancient world, mythology, in general, and creation myth, in particular, inherently touched on issues pertaining to the mundane or secular aspects of human existence. Creation narratives possessed the unique ability to provide justifiable causes for the most common experiences of life. Biblical scholars, ancient historians, and anthropologists alike have long known that at the physical level creation narratives could serve as explanations for certain social or natural phenomena in a society. That is to say people who have studied ancient cultures and literature have recognized creation myths could function in an etiological capacity. In referring to the function of myth in an ancient society Oden says, “myths reflect both a particular stage in human development and the universal and continuing need for humans to explain things” (1992, 950). By functioning as etiologies, creation narratives were able to assign a specific cause or rationale for the origin of a people, the domination of one group over another, the differences between ethnic groups or the sexes, and even the practice of certain customs or the establishment of particular mores in a society. Joan O’Brien Wilfred Major has shown, for example, how certain elements within the Atrahasis poem contain explanations for the origin of certain rituals related to childbirth in Mesopotamian society (1982, 73). Likewise, Tikva Frymer-Kensky and others have demonstrated how in Atrahasis the introduction of death, the creation of female sterility, miscarriages, and religious celibacy serve a useful function in that they limit human population and obviate the need for the gods to destroy the human race (1977, 36). The Akkadian myth, A Cosmological Incantation: The Worm and the Toothache, performs a similar explanatory duty by linking the cause of toothaches to a worm that the gods had allowed to dwell among the teeth and gums (ANET 100-101). Likewise, African creation narratives from Tanzania and Zambia account for the separate origins of men and women through etiology as well as explain the unique differences which exist between the sexes (Van Wolde 1995, 219-228).
In many respects, Israel’s creation narratives were no different than other ancient peoples in that they also contained etiological elements within them. These narratives not only touched on cosmological or metaphysical issues and/or justified the superiority of Yahweh/Elohim over against the gods of her neighbors, but they also served as a means to explain certain historical realities endemic to a Syrio-Palestinian environment. Tradition-history scholars, such as Sigmund Mowinckel along with Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth, had long been interested in the historical development of traditions which dealt with the origins of countries and nations, the names of cities, sacred or cultic sites/shrines, unique customs and traditions as well as people’s names. At the same time, tradition-history scholars were quick to point out that etiology appeared as an essential component of the creation traditions in Genesis.
To prove this point one only has to consider a text like Gen. 2:4b-3 to realize that it abounds with etiological agendas. For example, the term for man, ?which is prevalent throughout the narrative, is linguistically related to the word for ground/earth, ?By engaging in a word play that links man with the ground out of which he was fashioned, the biblical writers effectively highlight the fragile, finite nature of human beings who return to the ? in death. Also, the text demonstrates how males and females share a basic human identity and bond, since the woman was literally built (?out of the rib of the man. The Hebrew nomenclature also captures this special human connection by showing that ? is derived from ?. The story, furthermore, powerfully conveys the harsh realities of life and provides a cause for the tenuous existence of human beings living in Syrio-Palestine. Farmers trying to eke out a living in a part of the world where rain was withheld for long periods of time could surely appreciate the message of the Gen. 3:17-18:
Cursed is the ground because of you, you will not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of you in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it will bring forth for you; and you will eat of the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you will eat bread. . . .
In the same narrative complex, explanations are also provided for the misfortunes the woman has to endure. Trying to make sense of the extremely painful experience of childbirth certainly provided the impetus for the ominous words uttered in Gen. 3:16 which read, “in pain you will give birth to children (in Hebrew the word is sons).” In the minds of the biblical writers the acute pain and stress associated with childbearing seemed to be a curse a woman had to suffer, and they explained this agonizing experience in a manner that did not incriminate God but placed the onus for the woman’s travails on human misconduct. Similarly, the creation story in Gen. 2:4b-3 explains the women’s subordinate role to her husband in Israelite society through the use of etiology. According to Pyllis Trible, the account of Gen. 2-3 shows that the narrative does not proclaim male domination and female subordination as the true will of God; rather, it is the result of a curse. Moreover, she contends that the statement, “your desire is for your man, but he will rule over you,” actually judges the patriarchy of Israel as a sin (1992, 405) (what a commentary about Israelite social patterns!).
The text also has something interesting to say about more trivial matters, such as the nature and destiny of serpents. The biblical writers creatively (pardon the pun) explained the reason why snakes slithered on the ground and posed a threat to human beings. Here, the text justifies the permanent abasement of serpents, which are destined to crawl on their bellies in the dust, as a curse and appropriate punishment for the role the first serpent played in tricking the women into eating the fruit. The power of this etiology is reinforced by paronomasia so that the woman’s response to God, in which she exclaims the serpent tricked her, sounds like the actual hissing of a snake (? in Gen. 3:13. Thus in examining a text like Gen. 2:4b-3, it becomes clear that creation narratives could function in a manner that explained present-day historical realities. According to the ancient mind, such phenomena existed since the beginning of time (at the time of creation) and they continued to remain in existence even after these traditions had been committed to writing.