Old Testament creation accounts: tainted by pagan mythology?

How much longer must mankind stagger under the burden of absurd myths that perpetuate the absurd myth that the Bible is just another ancient human attempt to understand and explain the wonders of nature and the marvel that is mankind? One burdensome myth in particular - that biblical accounts of creation mirror those of other ancient peoples - should have been buried long ago, but it keeps popping up like the proverbial hydra-headed monster. Richard Dawkins would have us believe that the biblical account, ". has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants" (The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design , 1986, p. 316). A Google search yields many sites where the myth is perpetuated. For instance, at "Genesis and Babylonian Creation Myths Compared" one is meant to be impressed by the apparent parallels between the Genesis account of creation and the Babylonian "Enuma Elish", and so we are meant to be persuaded that the biblical account plagiarized the Babylonian. Yet the opening words of the Enuma Elish read,

When in the height heaven was not named, and the earth beneath did not yet bear a name, and the primeval Apsu, who begat them, and chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both their waters were mingled together, and no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen; when of the gods none had been called into being, and none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained; then were created the gods in the midst of heaven.

Even a child can see that such a cosmology should not begin to be compared with Genesis One. Further, advocates of the "just-another-ancient-writing" view would have us believe that creation events mentioned in Genesis One are paralleled - and possibly even in the same order - in the Babylonian fairy story. In a table supposedly setting the parallel highlights side by side, we read that in the Enuma Elish, in parallel to the biblical account of the creation of the firmament, the

"Firmament created; also perceived as a rigid dome". A search of the Enuma Elish, however, yields not the vaguest hint of a rigid dome. (Lots of weird stuff, such as "With poison, instead of blood, she hath filled their bodies. Fierce monster-vipers she hath clothed with terror.", but nothing about a firmament to divide the waters above and below the earth.) Why such assertions are made baffles this author.

The highpoint of the story is the decisive battle between Tiamat and Marduk, an account that should be read by every Hollywood movie director. Marduk won:

He seized the spear and burst her belly,
He severed her inward parts, he pierced her heart.
He overcame her and cut off her life;
He cast down her body and stood upon it.

You don't have to be nuts to imagine that Moses was inspired by accounts of gods being created and waging bloody war with each other when he penned Genesis One, but it would help. Problem is, even respectable scholars have thrown in their lot with the parallelomania craze (the notion that any similarity between two passages shows that, 1) they share a common source or, 2) that one derives from the other or, 3) that the two authors at least held similar beliefs). Many scholars properly reject the notion that Genesis One and the Babylonian legend are of a piece but nevertheless are inclined to see motifs from pagan creation concepts sneaking into the Old Testament, and hence that the Bible writers were at least influenced by dream-time legends of idol-worshiping neighbors. Were this to be true, Scripture's validity as the true word of the One True God would rightly be in doubt. In "The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible", Theodor Gaster writes that the Old Testament at least alludes to just such a myth:

The essence of this myth is that at the beginning of the present world era, the supreme God (Yahweh) did battle with a draconic monster, whom he subdued either by slaying him or by keeping him in bonds (Vol. 1, p. 706).

Intrigued? Read on below.

Sea monsters and creation

Though he doesn't explicitly say that the Bible writers actually swallowed the popular cosmogonic myth, Gaster does seem to imply just that. Other scholars say similar things. Bruce Waltke, for instance, says,

In several passages of the Old Testament, reference is made to God's conflict with a dragon or sea monster named as Rahab, "The Proud One," or Leviathan, "The Twisting One." At least five of these texts are in a context pertaining to the creation of the world. An understanding of these passages will aid in understanding the Genesis creation account (The Creation Account in Genesis 1.1-3, Biblia Sacra, Jan-March, 1975, p. 32).

Waltke draws from a detailed study of ancient creation legends by Mary K. Wakeman entitled, God's Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery. He describes the nub of her study this way:

Her analysis showed that at the core of the myths three features were always present: (1) a repressive monster restraining creation, (2) the defeat of the monster by the heroic god who thereby releases the forces essential for life, and (3) the hero's final control over these forces. These myths of the ancient Near East identify Rahab or Leviathan as an anticreation dragon monster. Interestingly, the biblical texts that refer to Rahab or Leviathan imply these same three features found in these other mythical cosmogonies.

The "monster" in many such myths inhabits the sea whose watery depths, according to other studies, "are a standard symbol for the powers of chaos and death" and which "appear as a dragon or sea monster to be killed by the gods" (New Geneva Study Bible on Ezekiel 28:2).

What are we to make of such statements that, taken at face value, appear embarrassing to those who believe in the purity of Scripture as the untainted Word of God? Let Waltke explain what he feels is the simplest answer:

Having established that Leviathan in the Canaanite mythology is a dragon resisting creation, we must raise the hermeneutical question whether the inspired poets of Israel meant that Yahweh actually had a combat with this hideous creature or whether this Canaanite story served as a helpful metaphor to describe Yahweh's creative activity. If we assume that the biblical authors were logical - and they were that and far more - then we must opt for the second interpretation of these references. The poets who mention this combat also abhor the pagan idolatry and insist on a strict monotheism (p. 34).

One of the passages he calls upon in this context is Job 26:12-13:

By his power he stilled the sea; by his understanding he smote Rahab. By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent (RSV).

Even though Waltke takes this passage as a description of divine creation he rejects any suggestion that such a passage is tainted by idolatrous concepts. Even if this passage was deliberately intended to evoke in the readers' minds images of the popular myth the only thing that was actually being "borrowed", as Waltke is saying, was its imagery, not its content. (Along similar lines, many suggest that Jesus' reference to the rich man being "in torments in Hades" in Luke 16:23 uses imagery from a well-known Egyptian myth and should not be taken as a statement of what actually happens to the dead.)

The Bible was written in the language of its time, and we should have no problem with its use of words, terms, or phrases that may have originally derived from some pagan source. Had terms such as "Rahab" and "Leviathan" come to be used in biblical times as metaphors for "the opposition", then why not use them in Scripture in the context of the destruction of all opposition? After the Babylonian exile, Jews used Babylonian names for the months of the year rather than original Hebrew. Hence, the first month is called by its Babylonian name, Nisan, in Nehemiah 2:1 rather than its "pure" Hebrew name of Abib.

However, we can soften the charge of plagiarism from paganism in reference to creation accounts even further by disputing Waltke's assertion that the offending allusions are sometimes used in the context of creation. A consideration of every passage where the language may be reminiscent of ancient mythology raises doubt that a single one of them has anything whatever to do with creation! Whereas Waltke and many others see the Job passage quoted above as referring to creation, we have every reason to dispute the connection. A study of the various translations of this passage will show that one would be unwise to speak dogmatically about its real meaning. The Jewish Soncino commentary tells us that older Jewish commentators, "understood the verse to refer to the miracle at the Red Sea when God divided the waters and the Egyptian hosts pursuing were destroyed". This interpretation rests on a solid foundation. Note, for instance, Isaiah 30:7:

For the Egyptians shall help in vain and to no purpose. Therefore I have called her Rahab-Hem-Shebeth.

The name "Rahab-Hem-Shebeth" means something like "Rahab, who does nothing" (NKJV study note). The implication is that Egypt had long been known under the rubric "Rahab", a power in opposition to God, and is now derisively shown up for what she really is - powerless. True, the use of the term Rahab in connection with Egypt may well originally derive from the creation myths of Ugarit and Babylon, but the point remains that a passage often taken to prove pagan influence on biblical teaching (Job 26:12-13) proves absolutely nothing of the kind. That Egypt was commonly referred to as Rahab well before Isaiah said so, note Psalm 87:4:

I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to those who know Me; behold, O Philistia and Tyre, with Ethiopia: "This one was born there" (Ps. 87:4).

As the article, "Rahab" in the Illustrated Bible Dictionary says concerning this and other verses, "Rahab comes to be employed quite generally as a poetic synonym for Egypt". Similarly, another passage often called upon to prove Bible writers were dolts who stole their creation ideas from idolaters is Psalm 74:13-14:

You divided the sea by Your strength; You broke the heads of the sea serpents in the waters. You broke the heads of Leviathan in pieces, and gave him as food to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

So must we see here some deviant variation of Genesis One? Did the Psalmist hope that readers would conjure up images of Marduk splitting open Tiamat to create the world? No way! He was reminding Israel of the mighty deliverance from Egypt at the Red Sea. "The people" refers to "the beasts of prey which fed on the carcases" (Soncino on Psalms, p. 239).

We shall close with a look at Job 3:8:

May those curse it who curse the day, those who are ready to arouse Leviathan (NKJV).

Waltke feels that this verse "makes it clear that Leviathan is a repressive, anti-creation monster who swallows up life". Beg to differ; nothing in the context suggests any such thing. The Jewish Soncino comment makes much more sense; in this instance the Hebrew "Leviathan" can be translated quite differently as "their mourning" and should be taken as referring to wailing women at funerals. The sense becomes quite clear; Job is lamenting the day of his birth (vss. 1-7), and here gives vent to his wish that he could die and that the professional mourners would wail at his departure.

The biblical account of creation can never be viewed as just another ancient opinion about how the world began. Genesis One should never be compared with any ancient creation legend; the differences are so great that only contrasts can be drawn.