Pastoral Musings

Though I haven’t paid attention to the total number of hits, I’m glad that this post is getting seen daily.

The contrast between Genesis and Enuma Elish cannot be emphasized enough.

Please let me know what you would recommend one to read if he were to wish to study more in this area.

Neo-Babylonian Gnosticism:

Meaning of the term: The idea that the Genesis creation account is not a historical narrative that teaches a literal, physical creation in a six day period of time, but a re-warmed Ancient Near Eastern Myth which can actually be used to support theistic evolution.

Moreover, if the author expects the general reader to understand the text, the author will represent the text as the central focus of the reader- that is, the author will not assume that the reader will be looking elsewhere for the information the text is meant to transmit.  While it is possible for texts to do this sort of thing and virtually abandon their readers, narrative texts are known for their steady supply of information to the reader regarding the events they are depicting.  Biblical narratives, in particular, are noticeably reader conscious.  In reading them, one rarely has the impression of being left alone.  The authors have their way of guiding the reader along, even though in most cases the reader is unaware of their presences.

John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch As Narrative

Considering this, it would be well to ask this question to those who try to interpret the Pentateuch (especially Genesis) as Ancient Near Eastern Myth: “Is there a strong case for believing that Babylonian and Sumerian tales were known to the average Hebrew who lived in Egypt, was a relatively uneducated slave, and became a nomad for decades?”

Personally, I think it is a stretch to think that texts such as Enuma Elish were in the consciousness of Moses and those who heard him.  It assumes that the texts had traveled far and had a wide reading.  I’m not so sure that has been proven to us, though.

Related articles

• Repost: The Book That Influenced Me Most in 2010 (pastoralmusings.com)
• The Unity of The Bible: Genesis (pastoralmusings.com)
• Rules for Studying Genesis (pastoralmusings.com)

As scholars, teachers, preachers, professors, et al discuss the Genesis creation account there are varied perspectives.  An age old joke asks “What do you get when you put three Baptists in a room?”  Answer: “Five opinions.”

The opinions concerning Genesis chapters 1-2 (and sometimes expanding to chapter 11) are proliferating in like manner.  In fact, Christians are busier than rabbits at multiplying ideas about Genesis, it seems.

It seems that one fad (that we hope is a passing fad) is to compare the Genesis creation account to certain ancient Near Eastern documents.    As one looks at these documents, however, there is an obvious problem:  there are more differences than there are similarities.

The tendency to think that Moses borrowed from various ancient Near Eastern myths should be tempered by the realization that Scripture  and Jesus present to us an inspired Genesis, not a Genesis that is merely the result of societal and intellectual evolution.

Of even greater importance is the need to recognize that, while Genesis was/is inspired by God, Enuma Elish, etc. are not inspired by God.  They are simply the products of fallen, sinful men whose understanding of God was distorted by the fall. They are not infallible resources.  Neither are they better resources.  They are the products of depraved minds and hearts that were promoting idolatry and polytheism.

“The diverse and imperfectly developed ideas of the supreme Being which prevail among men are best accounted for as misinterpretations and perversions of an intuitive conviction common to all.”

Strong, A. H. (2004). Systematic theology, pg 57, Bellingham, Wa.: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

To think otherwise is to forget the Word of God through Paul:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 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. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. ” (Romans 1:18–23, ESV)

To think otherwise is spiritually naive.

It seems that the going thing for many is to draw parallels between the Genesis Creation account and various myths from the ancient Near East.

I have not read much from the ancient Near East, but what I have read seems to be more dis-similar than similar.

Why the parallelism/parallelomania?  Are there truly parallels to be found that show these similarities, or is it a sort of wishful thinking on the part of those finding the parallels?