A Comparison of Creation Narratives
The Judeo-Christian Creation Account and the Ancient Mesopotamians[1]
Genesis 1&2 and Enuma Elish
In the Judeo-Christian creation story, the universe existed as nothingness. God is self-sufficient and eternal (John 1:1-3, 14; Romans 16:26; Colossians 1:15-16; Hebrews 9:14; Revelation 22:13). Thus, it is often said that the earth – even the universe – was created ex nihilo.[2] This is evident from the Genesis account, which says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Many have claimed that the ex nihilo position is an unstable position from Genesis, as verse two of Genesis 1 says, “The earth was without form and void” (Genesis 1:2). This statement, however, clearly modifies the first, in which it is implicit that God created the heavens and the earth ex nihilo. “The earth was without form and void” because it had not yet been completed (i.e. the division of the water and the atmosphere, the water and the land, the population of the earth with vegetation and animals, etc. during the subsequent days of creation).
In the Genesis creation account, the universe was created in six days. In the beginning was nothing (Genesis 1:1); on the first day, God created light (v. 3) and day and night (v. 5); on day two, the skies or atmosphere (heavens) (vv. 6-8); on day three, land (v. 9) and vegetation (v. 11); on day four, the sun, the moon and the stars (vv. 14-18); on day five, sea creatures, birds, and land animals (vv. 20-22); on day six, mankind (in the image of God) (v. 26); and on day seven, God rested (2:2-3). God rested on the seventh day to institute the Sabbath, a holy day of rest and reflection. The Sabbath was designed for man (Mark 2:27) rather than God, as it is unnecessary for God to rest.
It is important, though, to note details, such as the order of events in the creation account, as many, like Friedrich Delitzsch, have drawn “sharp attention to the Babylonian ingredient in Genesis, and [have proceeded] to conclude that the Bible was guilty of crass plagiarism.”[3] For when compared to the ancient Mesopotamian creation account, “the order of creation events is the same, leading many to presume a dependence of the Old Testament account on that of the Enuma Elish or similar Babylonian documents.”[4] This idea of borrowing has undoubtedly been a common one among scholars over the past centuries. Another example of similarities between the Mesopotamian creation accounts and the Biblical accounts is the Hebrew word tĕhôm (“deep”) in Genesis 1:2, which is said to be reminiscent of the Babylonian goddess Tiamat. Tiamat was the goddess of the deep sea and an enemy of the creator-god Marduk. Examples like these abound, and many scholars claim that the Biblical writers were simply demythologizing familiar pagan myths.
But as John D. Currid and others point out, several differences between the Genesis account and Enuma Elish exist as well. Currid writes that 1) the primary purpose of Enuma Elish was to praise Marduk (the Babylonian creator-god) and explain why he was the supreme god of the polytheistic Babylonian pantheon, while the Bible promotes monotheism, and “no evidence of theogeny, a pantheon, or a cosmic enthronement”[5] exists; 2) Enuma Elish presents a cosmic battle in which Marduk struggles to eliminate chaos to bring creation into being, whereas the activity of Yahweh is effortless, and creation is merely spoken into existence; 3) Enuma Elish and other Ancient Near Eastern myths portray humans as slaves to their gods, while humans are said to be created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26); and 4) the gods of the Enuma Elish are not all-powerful, but rather subject to the more powerful force of magic, while Yahweh is all-powerful.[6] While many scholars draw parallels between the Ancient Near Eastern creation stories and that of Genesis, it appears as if there are at least as many differences as there are similarities.
Islamic Creation
The Qur’an
Unlike the Judeo-Christian creation story, the Islamic creation story is not found in one place in the Qur’an. The Qur’an is not read in narrative form as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible is. Rather the individual chapters (Surahs) are arranged by length – longest to shortest – and often each Surah is not a homogeneous unit. Instead, topics change abruptly, and little continuity exists within Surahs and let alone between each Surah. To determine the creation story of the Qur’an it is necessary to practically search the entire Qur’an for different insights regarding creation.
Moreover, because Islam is the reformation of the Jewish and Christian faiths, it follows that the creation account in Islam is very similar. Indeed the Islamic creation account could be exactly the same as the Judeo-Christian account without any legitimate theological concerns for a devout Muslim. So, as one might expect, the allusions to creation are very similar to what is recorded in Genesis 1 and 2. The following entails parallels between the Judeo-Christian account and the Islamic allusions.
In Genesis 1:26, it is shown that God created man in His own image. Chapter two follows, filling in specific details of the sixth day of creation. Unlike the earth, man is not created ex nihilo, but rather from dust, and God breathes life into man (Genesis 2:7). In a similar manner, Surah 40:67 declares that God created man from dust, and verse 69 continues, stating, “It is He [Allah] Who gives Life and Death; and when He decides upon an affair, He says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.”[7] As is observed, the idea of speaking something into existence is present in both the Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions (cf. Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). Further, Surah 7:54 evidences an obvious parallel to the Judeo-Christian account in the length of creation as six days. That verse reads, “Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil o’er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!”[8] This is directly parallel to the account given in Genesis 1. Finally, another verse in the Qur’an seems to run rather parallel to the Jewish and Christian traditions, not to the Genesis account, but rather to various Psalms and a pair of verses in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Surah 45:12 says, “It is Allah Who has subjected the sea to you, that ships may sail through it by His command, that ye may seek of his Bounty, and that ye may be grateful.”[9] This verse seems to indicate that Allah is sovereign over the world, and the purpose of creation is to glorify Allah and lead people to a knowledge of his greatness and creativity in the universe. In the Hebrew Bible, for instance, Psalm 19:1 more explicitly declares that the creation points to the Creator: “The heavens declared the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” Later the psalmist sings praises to God for His creativity: “O LORD how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures” (Ps 10t:24). And commenting on the opportuniti of the wicked to know of GOd’s greatness through creation, Paul writes, “For what can be known about GOd is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Ro 1:19-20).
The parallels between Islamic and Judeo-Christian creation traditions are obvious, but do not necessarily suggest borrowing ofideas in the theological sense as Islam is viewed as a religion of reform rather than a completely new religion. From a more humanistic view, however, borrowing of ideas could been seen as utterly obvious. For whatever reason, however, the parallels between the Genesis creation accounts and those found in the Qu’ran are quite striking.
Hindu Creation
Rig-Veda
The following is quoted from the Rig-Veda, one of the sacred Hindu texts. It is worthwhile to read this passage in its entirety.
When neither Being nor Not-being wasNor atmosphere, nor firmament, nor what is beyond.What did it encompass? Where? In whose protection?What was water, the deep, unfathomable?Neither death nor immortality was there then,No sign of night or day.That One breathed, windless, by its own energy:Nought else existed then.In the beginning was darkness swathed in darkness;All this was but unmanifested water.Whatever was, the One, coming into being,Hidden by the Void,Was generated by the power of heat.In the beginning this [One] evolved,Became desire, first seed of mind.Wise seers, searching within their hearts.Found the bond of Being in Not-Being.Their cord was extended athwart:Was there a below? Was there an above?Casters of seed there were, and powers;Beneath was energy, above was impulse.Who knows truly? Who can here declare it?Whence it was born, whence is this emanation.By the emanation of this the godsOnly later [came to be.]Who then knows whence it has arisen?Whence this emanation hath arisen,Whether [God] disposed it, or whether he did not,–Only he who is its overseer in highest heaven knows.[He only knows,] or perhaps he does not know![10]
This passage about creation is very different from Enuma Elish, the account in Genesis or the comments about creation found in the Qur’an. It is not a narrative like the others, but rather a contrast of opposites, speculations, and inquiries. While many ideas are very hazy and unsure in this passage, there are some – although few – ideas that are clear.
The first line speaks of neither Being nor Not-Being existing. To what does this “Being” and “Not-Being” refer? To life? To God or Brahman? I have no knowledge of Sanskrit, nor is the Sanskrit even available to me. However, it seems that if “Being” referred to Brahman, this could imply that Brahman – and consequently Brahma – are not eternal beings or existences. While the lack of eternality of Brahman may be true, the more likely interpretation seems to imply that “Being” is the human Self.[11] This seems especially probable when one reads later that “In the beginning this [One] evolved,” as “One” most probably refers to Brahma. But the idea that Brahma evolved (also translated: “That One which came to be”[12]) is very evident. This is also deduced from the phrase, “In the beginning was darkness swathed in darkness.” It may be a bit presumptuous to declare that Brahma is not an eternal being based on this phrase alone, but in reference to the aforementioned passage (“In the beginning this [One] evolved…”), it seems to be the likely interpretation. So it seems that, contrasted to Yahweh and Allah, Brahma it not an eternal deity and was somehow brought into being so that he could bring creation into existence. The author of this passage throws quite a curveball, though, when he says, “By the emanation of this the gods / Only later [came to be.]” (alternate translation: “The gods themselves are later than creation.”[13]). This seems to state that creation existed before the gods did. Does this include the creator-god Brahma? It seems as if it would not, though it is important to note that Brahma is implied as being the “One” of this text.
Further, the phrase, “That One breathed, windless, by its own energy: Nought else existed then,” seems to indicate the self-sufficiency of Brahma. And while the breathing does not refer to breathing life into man, it at least draws one’s attention to the Western idea of God’s life-giving breath (cf. Genesis 2:7; Surah 40:69).
Not much can be drawn from this text with any great amount of certainty. The author asks questions, and what does seem to be concrete in his writing often raises further questions. But in this questioning style, this passage is very similar to the final four chapters of the Hebrew Book of Job. A large distinction does exist between the two, in the identity of the “interrogator.” As the author declares his ignorance regarding origins through his questions, so does God manifest Job’s ignorance of the specifics of creation and ultimately His sovereignty. The Hindu author asks, “But, after all, who knows, and who can say whence it all came, and how creation happened? … so who knows truly whence it has arisen?”[14] and God interrogates Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7). Now I am not in any way suggesting that one of these texts was necessarily written before the other, and that the other stole the idea of asking questions about creation, but merely drawing a comparison. Even the purpose of the questioning is different. The Hindu author asks questions because he is searching for answers regarding the beginning of time, while God hammers Job with pointed questions to demonstrate His power and control. Nevertheless, similarities do exist, even among these two very different traditions.
* * *
Similarities abound in the various creation epics of the world’s religions. The differences, too, though, are no less. It is also very important to recognize the diversity and distinctions of the differing origin traditions. But when comparisons are made and similarities are found, all too often “BORROWED” is stamped in bright red ink on the manuscripts of the various creation stories. Although the following idea is surely unoriginal, it does not ever seem to receive any airtime, so to speak. What if, perhaps, when similarities were discovered between several creation epics, that the parts that were found to be similar actually reflected a truth? Could it be that these similarities reflected a single historical event that was handed down, generation to generation, embellished for cultural relevance and honor? This seems very likely, especially when one discovers the vast number of flood stories that survive in the world’s religions. It is not only the Hebrews and Babylonians who have a tradition of a great flood. The Sumerians, Chaldeans, Australians, Zoroastrians, Greco-Romans, Hindus, Apaches, Mayans, Aztecs, Hopis, and Navajos and many more have stories of a great flood. It seems very strange that such a far-fetched idea as a dramatic worldwide flood would be present in religions literally all around the world. This would be the ultimate coincidence, and it seems that it is too widespread for borrowing to be a legitimate solution to this “problem.” So why, when similarities are discovered time and again among world religions, is borrowing the necessary solution? Is it not also plausible that these religions could be retelling actual historical events in ways that are fitting to their culture?
Most world religions will agree far less on the “who” and “how” of creation than they would of the existence of a worldwide flood. Nevertheless, there is one common denominator in practically every religion behind the respective tales of creation: a Creator. Should we not look to a Creator for our own origins rather than to random blind mutations, driven by natural selection and physical origins that contradict either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics – or both? But belief in a Creator is intellectual suicide, scholars say. This may be so in a future day, but not today.[15] For now, let us search honestly. If that intellectual honesty leads us to a Creator rather than nature, let it be as it is. But let our search be an honest one.
[1] Note: All Biblical quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.
[2] Ex nihilo is Latin, meaning “out of nothing.”
[3] Delitzsch, Friedrich. Babel and Bible: Three Lectures on the Significance of Assyriological Research for Religion, Embodying the Most Important Criticisms and the Author’s Replies. Open Court Company, 1906. 50.
[4] Sproul, Barbara C. Primal Myths: Creation Myths Around the World. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991. 123.
[5] Currid, John D. Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1997. 29-30.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Translated by Yusufail. http://majalla.org/books/quran/index.htm
[8] Ibid. Emphasis added.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Zaehner, R. C., trans. Hindu Scriptures. London: J.M. Dent, 1966. 11-12.
[11] Leeming, David A., and Margaret A. Leeming. Encyclopedia of Creation Myths. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 1994. 140.
[12] Basham, A. L. trans. The Wonder That Was India. London, 1954. 247-248.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] For a thorough and honest critique of evolution, see Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press, 2006.
Re: Verse 7:54, where the Qur’an says that Allah (swt) created the heavens and the earth in six days, it should be noted that Muslims do not take this to mean an Earthly 24-hour day. There are several verses in the Qur’an that suggest that a day for Allah (swt) is equivalent to a thousand years (32:5) or even 50,000 years (70:4). So when we read that the heavens and earth were created in “six days,” we understand this to mean a very long time.
Many Christians likewise see their “seven days” of creation to consist of “1,000 years” – as elsewhere in the Bible it is stated that “a thousand years is as one day with the Lord” – (and the reverse). One thousand years is taken literally by some but by others figuratively to mean, as with Muslims, a very long time. Some Christians have even claimed that the “seven days” refer to seven “periods of time” that “may be geological ages”.