The conclusion that the Genesis 1 creation account “stands toward the end of a long chain of tradition whose beginnings lie outside Israel altogether” is well established. Many scholars recognize that Genesis 1 is related to Enuma Elish (See, e.g., A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963); Speiser, Genesis, 8-13; B. E. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 73-101; H. Gunkel, Genesis: Translated and Interpreted (trans. M. Biddle; Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1997), 102-33; J. McKenzie, “Myth and the Old Testament,” CBQ 21 (1959), 277-78; L. Ruppert, Genesis: Ein kritischer und theologischer Kommentar 1. Teilband: Genesis 1,1 – 11,26 (Wirzburg: Echter, 1992), 61 – 63; K. L. Sparks, “Eniima Elish and the Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism,” JBL 126:4 (2007), 625-648; B. Halpern, “Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1 and the Birth of Milesian Philosophy,” Erets-Israel 27 (2003), 74-83; Levenson, Creation; Smith, Priestly. Although Smith is less sure of any formal dependence, he recognizes many parallels between the two accounts and admits the possibility (184-85).
Regarding the comparative ordering of the two creation accounts, A. Heidel has famously presented the following tabulation (Heidel, Babylonian, 129; cf.). Speiser, who states, “[e]xcept for incidental differences of opinion in regard to the exact meaning of the first entry in each column…the validity of this listing is not open to question” (Genesis, 10). Nevertheless, many have questioned the parallels. Perhaps the most common objection is that the actions of the third row are not really parallels at all. in fact, in Enuma Elish the “light emanating from the gods” is 1) not created and 2) not even discussed in the context of creation. For a recent defense of this parallel, however, see Smith, who argues that the light of Gen 1:3 should be understood as an uncreated, divine light corresponding to the ~=> of the tabernacle (Priestly, 71-9). \ To Heidel’s structural similarities, we may add K. Sparks’ convenient summary of the comparable thematic similarities: Both Eniima Elish and P’s creation story are introduced by a temporal clause: in the first instance by “When on high” and in the second by “In the beginning.” In Enama Elish Marduk defeated the waters of Tiamat; in Genesis God tames the waters of o1nn (téhém). In Eniima Elish creation was initiated by the splitting of watery Tiamat; in Genesis God did so by separating the waters. In Eniima Elish the creation of heaven and earth was followed by the creation of the heavenly bodies and humanity; the same counts for Genesis. In its description of creation, Enuma Elish accentuates Marduk’s role in establishing the boundaries of the created order, not only of space (such as the structures that hold back the heavenly waters) but also of time, which is marked off by the stars and heavenly bodies; Yahweh does the same in Genesis. In Enuma Elish humanity was created from the blood of a slain god, while in Genesis humanity was created in God’s image (Sparks, “Priestly Mimesis,” 630-31).
Perhaps the most significant contrast between the two accounts is that the conflict motif, which is so important in Enuma Elish, is absent in Genesis 1. While Enuma Elish presents the creation of the world as a result of Marduk’s defeat of Tiamat, “creation without opposition” is a more accurate description of the theology underlying the Genesis passage. Rather than “chaotic,” the waters in Genesis 1 are inert (“they are simply there”®*) and offer no resistance to God (Cf. J. Levenson, Creation, 122; W. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: the Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 42; J. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and The Old Testament (Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), 199; D. Tsumura, The Earth and Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation (JSOTSupp. 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 45-83, 156-59). Nevertheless, like Enuma Elish, the waters are still “transformed during the act of creation” ( Levenson, Creation, 122). Instead, Genesis 1 appears to begin where the action of Enuma Elish ends “with the primordial waters neutralized and the victorious and unchallengeable deity about to undertake the work of cosmogony” ( Levenson, Creation, 122). In Gen 1, the divine conflict appears to have been replaced by divine speech and wind. Yet, even here, there may be a connection with Enuma Elish. In the latter, Marduk utilizes the winds to defeat Tiamat just before splitting her body to form the sky and the earth. Likewise, subsequent to the splitting of the waters in Gen 1, we read that the earth was “formless and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep (o1nn) and a wind (nm) from God hovering over the water” (v. 2; cf. Levenson, Creation, 121; Smith, Priestly, 54). Regarding the emphasis on divine speech, Batto has observed that in both Gen 1 and Enuma Elish there is “a stress upon the power of the word of the (chief) deity: Marduk controls destinies, making entities appear or disappear by his word alone; in Genesis 1 God makes creation appear by his mere word” (Slaying, 77-78).
Further, the distinctive, Priestly anthropological and theological outlook explains many of the differences between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish. Whereas in Enuma Elish humanity is created from the blood of Qingu, Tiamat’s ally, Genesis 1 claims that humanity was created in the deity’s image. Further, only in Genesis is creation seen as providing for humanity. Thus, humanity is bestowed with more dignity in Genesis 1. Other than the parallels between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish cited above, there are a multitude of similarities between the biblical, Priestly material and Mesopotamian literature. Other than the examples provided below, many have also found parallels between the Priestly ancestor lists in Gen 5 and 11:10 ff., which frame the flood account, and the Sumerian “King’s Lists” (cf. the later Babylonian “Dynastic Chronicle”) as well as the description of the deluge and Atrahasis. Further, Batto compares the final episode in the Priestly flood story, the hanging of the bow in the sky (Gen 9:8 – 17), with Marduk hanging his warbow in the sky at the completion of his palace in Enuma Elish (Slaying, 87-88; cf. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 62-3). For instance, the Priestly re-telling of Israel’s deliverance at Yam Suph (Ex 1-24) (see, e. g., B. Childs, Exodus (London: SCM, 1974); A. Campbell and M. O’Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 35-41). Further, the Exodus account also features some prominent characteristics found in Enuma Elish. Cross pointed out the mythological overtones of the Exodus tradition long ago, while defending the antiquity of Ex 15 by demonstrating the resurgence of the myths of creation and their ultimate synthesis into the Exodus tradition. Although he focused almost exclusively on the Canaanite myths, he does mention Enuma Elish as sharing these motifs (CMHE, 112- 144).
Batto has brought out many of these characteristics in his comparison between Near Eastern myths and the Exodus tradition (Batto, Slaying, 102-127; cf. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 60). He argues, for instance, that one of the clearest indications that the Priestly story has adapted (and demythologized) Marduk’s victory over Tiamat is the “splitting” (pa) of the sea by means of the divine “wind” (nv) in the Hebrew account (Ex 14:16, 21b; cf. Gen 8:1 -2). As Batto notes these features do not play such a significant role in earlier, non-priestly accounts of the Exodus (Slaying, 110; cf. Cross, CMHE, 132, 140; Sparks, “Priestly Mimesis,” 637; Nihan, 60). As we have seen, the separating of water by wind provides space for creation in both Enuma Elish and Genesis 1. In Exodus, also, the action provides space for the creation of Israel (Sparks, “Priestly Mimesis,” 637). Sparks suggests that “[a] further connection between Exodus and Eniima Elish may be implied by P’s creation story in Genesis 1, which makes no great distinction between the waters of ovnn and o°. One could easily argue that the author means for them to be understood as equivalent, in which case we have in Exodus the same pattern as in Genesis: a subtle parallel between the waters of Tiamat and nin (= 0″).” In Enuma Elish, the construction of Esagila is the crown and consummation of creation, the result of Marduk’s cosmic victory over Tiamat. Likewise, the construction of YHWH’s tabernacle is the crowning achievement of the Exodus, the result of YHWH’s victory over Pharaoh/Egypt.’ Sparks also compares the painstaking detail of the tabernacle’s “blueprint” with Mesopotamian topographical texts (“Priestly Mimesis,” 637-42). For a description of Egypt and Pharaoh as the mythological Sea Dragon in the Hebrew Bible, see Batto, Slaying, 217-218 n.21. Significantly, many recognize striking similarities between the Priestly annual atonement ritual in Leviticus 16 and the Mesopotamian kuppuru ritual, which was performed on the fifth day of the Babylonian akitu festival (5″ Nisan), a day after the ritual recitation of Enuma Elish. For acomparison between these two rituals, see, e.g., Sparks, “Priestly Mimesis,” 632 -35; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1 – 16 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1071-79; D. Wright, Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987); M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against their Ancient Near Eastern Background,” Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 16-21, 1981 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1982), 111-113; cf. Janowski, Siihne, 54-6, 265-74. For a detailed comparison of the two terms and a discussion of the relevant texts, see Janowski, Siihne, 29 – 60. For the text and translation of the akitu, see, most recently, M. J. H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practices (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 215-37.
J. D. Levenson also notes the similarities between Leviticus 16 and the kuppuru ritual in his comparison of Genesis 1 and the akitu (Levenson, Creation, 70). Levenson argues that the akitu may provide one of the few extra-biblical examples of creation over a period of several days. This comparison very much relies on the cultic interpretation of Enuma Elish in the akitu,” but also on a similar understanding of Genesis 1. Levenson argues that neither creation account describes the “banishment of evil, but…its control.”* Despite the passive character of the forces of \ nature in Genesis 1, these forces and the threat they present to life and order have not been eradicated. This is apparent even in other parts of the Priestly literature (e. g., Gen 6-9). As Levenson states, “the positive order of things associated with creation is not held to be intrinsically irreversible…[but] is possible only because of a special act of God.”* In the Hebrew Bible, nature (whether demythologized or not) is entirely dependent upon “God’s special solicitude, his tender concern for the world.”
Neither prose nor poetry. The unusual nature and unevenness of Genesis 1 was often ascribed to the process of redaction, the imposition of priestly concerns on an earlier, poetic account (See, e.g., Skinner’s convenient discussion in Genesis, 7-12).
