the polemic nature of the genesis cosmology - gerhard hasel
Post on 22-Feb-2018
254 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel
1/13
I
fiu
'\ J r r u ~ @ ~ D ~ ~ ~
Q J
~ r 1 1
[?
rr
Vol.
XLVI
No.2 . April-June 1974 Price 40p net
THE POLElvIIC NATURE
of
THE
GENESIS
COSMOLOGY
by
Gerhard F Hasel
an
Internat ional
Quarterly
of
Christian
Thought
' ,
-
7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel
2/13
i
I
The
Polemic ature of the
enesis Oosnlology
by Gerhard
F
Hasel
81
This paper, emphasizing thaI Ihe creation narrative
of
Genesis I
f r from
being dependent Oil the creation stories of Babylollia
and other ancient Near Eastern comogonies, designedly polemicizes
against them, was originally presented [ 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
ndrews
University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.
LMOST one hundred years ago a new phase
of OT
study was
inaugurated
with
the publications
of
the Babylonian versions
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
w s
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 T e ~ t a m e t
was lacking almost completely in originality. Today the situation
has
changed radically. We can no longer talk
glibly
about Baby
lonian 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
o t h r s ~
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.
lars in the lives of the astronomically and astrolOgically mmded
B:Joylonians . I07 .
Against
the
b a ~ g r o u n d of t h ~ w ~ d e s p r e a d astral worshIp
the
creation
and
function of the
lummanes
m Gen. 1: 14-18
~ p p e a r s
in 3 new light. (1) In
the
Biblical presentation
the
creatureliness of
3\ creation, also that of sun,
moon, and
stars, remains the f ~ n -
d3mental
and
determining characteristic. Conversely,
Enuma eflsh
depicts a ~ d u k as t h ~
~ n e
who fixes t ~ e astral likenesses of the
gods in theIr charactenstJcs
as
constellatlOns.
I
Ot
(2) In place of an
expressly
m y L ~ i c a l
and pnmary ruIership of the star Jupiter
ove,
other stars or astral deities,1
09
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.
ll
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 lumlO
aries 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
~ l a t e J that the entire passage vs. 14-19 breathes a strongly anti
mythical patbos lIS or polemic. W.
H
Schmidt has pointed .out
similarly
that there
comes to expression here [Gen.
I: 14-18]
m a
number
1
ways a polemic against astral r e l i g i o n . " l l ~ 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 anti
mythical polemic. The form
in
which this Hebrew creation account
has
come down
to US
attempts to portray
the creatureliness and
limi
tations
of
the heavenly luminaries as is consonant with the world
view of Gen.
1 and its
understandiog
of
reality.
The Purpose of the Creation of Mal
The similarities and
d i f f e ~ c e s . b e t w ~ n
tJle _pJlrpose of
man's
creation in Sumero-AlliQian
mythology
n Gen
. 1: 26-28 affords
another
point
which requires our attention. Sumerian
mythology
I
I
-
7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel
7/13
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.
l t
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 " b l e s s ~ d " by
(I:
28); he is the ruler of the. arumal and
~ e g e t a b l e
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 a n t i t ~ e s i s to
man's
purpose to care
for
. '
physical needs of t h ~ gods m S u m e r o - ~ k k a d l a n 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 orientat ion of Gen.
I and
man's
glory and freedom to rule the earth for his
own
needs is conveyed.
l2 l
We may suggest that the different idea with regard to the purpose
of the creation of
man
in Gen.
1
rests
upon
tbe Hebrew
anthro-
pology
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 w o r ~ is, also ~ o y m
outs ide 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. creat ion of the
world
by
word
is not known.
The
Memphite theology of the Egyptian Old Kingdom knows that
god Atum creates by the speech P t a h . I ~ 5 , S. G.
p .
Brando;'l's
investigation
of
the notion
of
crea J?n by
d l ~ n e
w.ord 10 Egyptian
thOUght has led him to the conc.luSlon
that
c ~ e a t l 0 n ~ a s
e f f e c ~ e d
by
magical utterance,"126
Thus
It seern.s certam.
that
m
~ P b a n
speculation the pronouncement. of the ~ g h t maglc.at word,
llk:e
the
performance of the right magical action, actualIZeS the arumate
p o t e n t i a l i t i ~
inherent in matter. In G.en.
I.
on t ~ e .
~ t h e . r
hand,
the notions of a magical word and of anImate p o ~ e n t l a l i t l e s 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 G O ~ ' 5
e f f o r t 1 ~
creation by the spoken word, in the words of H. Ringgren,
5
given a fundamental significance that is without parallel."U9 May
The poll mic Nature of he 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 b e c ~ u s e of t ~ e
One who speaks and not because
of
any magical power I l h e ~ e D t . n
I \\'ord spoken?
It
appears that this is a distinct way
of d l c a t l ~ g
th.ll Israelite faith
is
liberated from the banefUl in.fl.uence of magic.
Gen.
I
wishes
to
stress
thereby the
essentlal
d l f f e r ~ n c e
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
m o t i f ~
in the creati.on
:H:count of G ~ n . I in
conjunction
with a c o m p a r l s o ~ of
r ~ s p e c h v e
:.lncient Near Eastem analogues has repeatedly pOlO ted Into o ~ e
tlircction. The cosmology of Gen. 1 exhibits in a
number
of crUCIal
i n ~ t a n c e s
a sharply antimythica1 polemic.
llo
With a great many
~ J . f e g u a r d s Gen . I employs certain terms and motifs, partly taken
from ide.olQgic i Y .'Htd .theplogica)lyjllcompatible
p r e d e c ~ s s o r s
and
pJrtlycboseo
10
deliberate contrast to c o m p ~ b l e _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. p o l e ~ c
nalure of the Genesis cosmology with
its
consistent antI mythical
thread running through Gen. I, one does
not
d
-
7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel
8/13
92 The
Evangelical Quarterly
3
This theo ry was started by HUgo Winckler.
G ~ s c h i c h f e luaels
(Berlin, 1895,
19(0), 2 vols.;
Das
aIle
Wesrasien
(Leipzig, 1 9 9 ) ~
"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.
S
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.
6 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
o Ihe Flood
(1969) by
W.
G. Lambert md
A. R. Millard,"
in AUSS vm
(1970), 182-183.
1
C.
Westermann.
"Sinn und
Grenu
religionsgeschichtIicher Parallel
en,"
ThLZ.
XL (1965), cols. 489-496.
8 For
instance the Babyloni an epic
Enuma dish
contains a mythical
account of
Cfc.ltion, which has Clused
it to
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
d d s
with creation
is
relatively short (Tables
IV:
1 35-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
b e l i e v e ~
as a testimonial of the deity's achievements
but was
rc.ld 10 the
god
h i m ~ d f . It
is a hymn
in
praise of Marduk
by
which
t h ~
priest extols his
god." Note the
correct
attempts to come
to grips with
the
total
phenom
enolosical 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.
9
A number of decades ago
J.
Hempel,
"Chronik." ZA
IV,
xm
(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 othe r 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.
10
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 d i f f e ~ n c e s is to present an unbalanced and untrue
p e ~ p c c t i v c and to
pervert the &cientlfic
method."
11
Westermann,
ThLZ. XI
(1965). 490 f.:
"En dem
Verstehen biblischer
Texte
diencndes Vergleichen muss
Von
philnomenologisch fassbarcn Gan.zheiten
The Polemic Nature of he Genesis Cosmology
93
h;rkommcn
qnd
auf
sic
zldcn
Das
nur puuktuelle Vergleichen
iSl
dann
m:ht.
mehr s u m v o l ~
(undJ
fGttrt
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 c n t w i c k l u n g s g ~ h i c h t l i c : h e n
F e s t \ e g ~ n g
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 ~ e n
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 ~ n e s i s (Gollingen, 1901), pp. 109.112.
.
3
B. :V. Andernon, Creatfon .I er.flls
Chaos
(New York, 1967), p. 39 B. S.
C h i l ~ . }.f):lh
an:
Re4lily In the Old Testament (2d ed.; london. 1962),
P. 37: , ~ 1 : 1 . I 1 o l o ~ I ~ ~ l J y 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
~ o n d o n , 1962). P.
179;
R. Kilian, "Gen.
1:< und
die Urgotter
von
Hermopohs,"
VT XVI (1966) 420.
14
C . e s t e r m ~
Genesis
( N e u k i r c h ~ n - V l l l y n ,
1967
If. ,
p.
149: W. Zimmer/i,
?Ie Urgescnlchle. 1. Mose
1-11
Od e d . ~ Zurich,
1967),
p. 42; K. Galling,
Der ;:harakter.der C h a o ~ h i l d e r - 1 n g 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 . m b ~ r t , J T ~ S ,
N.
S. XVI (I9?5), 293; O. Kaiser,
Die m y t h i s c h ~ BedeutUIIg
des Meeres In A YPllm,
UJ[arr/
und l ~ r a ~ 1 ( 2 ~
ed. Berlin. 1962),
p.
115:
P.
,Reymond,
L eau. sa
v u ~ ,
rl sa N;nijiconofl dans l Ancim Tesramenr
(Lelden,
1953), p.
187 and 187 n.
2:
W.
H.
Schmidt
Die Schopfun1 sgesdlichle
der
p d e s l e r s c h r i f ~ (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
-
7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel
9/13
The El'angelical QUQ"eri},
p
94
'
.
The Polemic Nature
of
he Genesis Cosmology
95
I Aqht 42-43
W . ~ n l .
Wakeman,
God's Ballf,.,
p. 143. Note
ha
detailed discussion of t ~ h 6 m with
y ~ r k . b U m n , r k b .
reference to lhe question whether it ",'as once considered to be a person in
'rpt.bL\I.bl.rd.
:..
the
Hebrew
Bible (pp. 143-49).
b l . ~ r ' . t h r n l m . b l . l b l . q . b'l
lS
Exceptions are Is. 63: 13; Ps. 106:
9.
For seven yean Baal failed, for eight years the rider
16
It
is more often found in poetry where the article would not necessarily
on the clouds without dew, without showers, without
be expected. In this connection it is si llificant that whenever )'am, "s.ea,"
the upsurginl;s of the deeps, without
the
&weet
isfound parallel
to
'thOm (Job 28: 14; 38: 16; Is. S I: 10; Ps. 33:
7:
107: 23;
sound of Baal' s voice. ,
135: 6), then the former refers to tho sea lIS
art
of the cosmos and not to
The drought comes lIS the waters from above
and
Ihe waters from below
the
personification "Sea" as when yam is
ound
parallel
10 Rahab
(Job
26: 1 2 ~ Ps. 89 10; Is. 51: 9l,l.eviatlmn (Job 3: 8; Ps. 74: 13), Tanrun (Job
(thm)
are cut off (cf. 2 Sa. I 21).
7: r2). This appears te point into the direction that II?h6m
in
the Hebrew
UT,
5J:
iv:
20
idk.lttn.pnm
Bible
is
depersonalized.
'm.eLmbk.nhrm
n
M.
K.
Wakeman, The Biblical Earth Monster in the Cosmogonic u,mbat
qrb.apq,thmtm
MyUl,"
JEL, LXXXVm
(1969), 317, suggests
tMt
in Ex. IS: 8
lenam
is
Then surely [Anatl set her face
associated with
the
ancient image of the
earth
demon which is distinguisha
b1c
tow:ud EI
at
the source
of
the rivers
from, though controlling, the primeval waters." This, howc\'cr, does
not
in Ihe midst of the channels 0
the
deep.
need to imply'that it has mythological, personalized overtones.
In this statement the upper (heavenly)
and
lower (earthly)
0C
-
7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel
10/13
96 The Evangelical Quarterly
)1 So still W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Gard
-
7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel
11/13
98
&6 This
is
the translation of 'Anat: i l l : 34-39 by John Gray in 1 J t J l ~ W ' t 1 " , . .
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
-
7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel
12/13
100
The Evangelical Quarterly
See the
cssa.y of
the pr=nt writer,
infra,
n. 123, and Schmidt,
op. cil.,
PI'. 117,
118,
with addilionaiHterature.
Kramer, Sumerian MyfltolofY, pp. 41
If ;
:E;f Schmokel. Das Land Sumer
Od ed.; Stuttgart. 1962), pp. 129 If.
96 Frankfort.
OPt
cit., p,
28.
97
A.
Goetze, KJeimuien.
Hlll1dbuch
der
Altertumswissensc/w/t, III. (ld
ed.;
.Milnchen,
1957), pp. 89,
136
If.
98 A.
S.
Kapdrud, Tlte Ras Shamr.a D i s c o y e r i ~ s and
rhe
Old Testament
(London.
1965), p. 45.
99 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 d i v i n i t ~ solaire oucarilique." Syria,
)",'XXVI (1959), 90-101: T.
H.
Gaster,
Moon, InfcrpNUr s Dictionary
of the Bible
(Nashville, 1962), m
436.
102 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 (1945{46), 405-489; E. Dhorme,
Les
rc/igions de Babylonie n d'Assyrie (Paris, 1949), pp. 5394.
10) Heidel, OPt dr., p.
116
104
ANEn, p. 68.
105 Ibid.
106 Not as
Heidel,
op. cir., p. 117, says,
"stal'S,
moon, and SUll.
101
Ibid.
lOS
Tablet
V:
2. In Babylonian thought the gods cannot be separated from the
stars
and constellatkms which
represent them.
11)9
Tablet V: 5-7.
110
00. this
point, see
Westermann,
GeMsis, p. ISS.
111
Schmidt.
op. cit.,
p. 1 S n. 9.
m
Staddmann, cpo cit., pp. 57 fr
I I I Sclunidt.
op. cil.,
p. 119.
II
Meissner.
op. cir.,
n
25 tr . 398
If ;
Dhorme
OPt
cit.,
p.
82; Gas(ef,
Thespis,
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/,
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.; Stadelmann,
OPt
Cil.,
p. 17:
David
Neiman', unpublished paper,
The
Polemfc Language
or 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,
The Polemic Nature
of he
Genesis Cosmology
1 1
118 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 o
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.
119 Sarna,
op.
cit., p. 14.
120
Gaster, "Cosmology,"
Interpreter's Dktlonary of rh.. Bib/e, J,
704.
111 See also the chapter Man as
Ruler of
the World in O. L o r ~ t l Schiip/ung
und Mythos (Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 92-98.
lU Chlld1i, op.
cit.,
pp.
31
If
discusses a number of
a.sp
-
7/24/2019 The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology - Gerhard Hasel
13/13
1P".21"1BS. C ~ ~ I M . 7 5 7 ~ . r
102
The Evangelical Quarterly
J. ) 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
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
non
repeatable 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.
m 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
under-
sUndins
of
existence, the term demytholog ization (EnfmYlhologiiilerung)
should be reserved. whereas the designation demytholo gizing (entmy-
Ilwlogisiuel )
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.
m Gunkel,
G ~ / I ~ s i . p. 104.
m G. Fahrer, Gesch;chle du israclilisdren Rtligion (Berlin. 1969). p. 177.
IH Childs.
op.
cit., p. 43. He also speaks
of 3
reshaping and assimilating
of myth.
Il5 McKenzie. op.
cil.
p. 195.
36
Cr. M. Noth,
Die
Hisiorisierung des Mythus im
AJlen Testament,
C h r i l l ~ l f l u m
t nd
WilulUcna J.'
V1II 192S). 26S-272
3 0 1 3 0 9 ~ E. Jacob ':;'
T h ~ o I O K Y oj tht Old Testament (London. 1958), pp. 197200.
m 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.
,
top related