Creation reports in the Ancient Near East (2)



F. C. Fensham was a doctoral student of W. F. Albright. He was my teacher. I was one of his last MA students. His friend S. du Toit was professor of Potchefstroom University in Transvaal province. Du Toit wrote a book that Fensham proofread and one of the chapters deals with creation reports among Ancient Near Eastern nations as it compares to the Bible. Because Seventh Day Adventists are taking the Creation report not as myth or legend but as literal facts, although fragmentary excerpts from reality in the past, Du Toit may have interesting aspects for Adventists but at time adjustments are necessary. Adventists also do not operate with the undercurrent of pan-Babylonianism, an aspect that sometimes are shared by both Fensham and Du Toit who were Calvinists.

What is relevant for an understanding of the Creation motifs among nations of the Ancient Near East, is the attempt to look at the Sumerian concepts, Babylonian and Assyrian concepts, Canaanites (Ugarit) and the Egyptians.


Sumerian concepts of Creation

One of the criticisms this researcher has against Ancient Near Eastern scholars of the past, is their reluctance to take chronology seriously. The date of a document or source providing data, is very important for a view at that time or if indicated the time assumed within the text with the help of time-markers "as the ancestors said . . . " etc. But, to take an old text and then to speculate that this concept in the text span thousands of years and link with other texts thousands of years later, is stretching the science too much.

Böhl in his book, De godsdiensten der wereld (120), gave a summary of the concept of Creation among the Sumerians:

The world originated according to the Sumerians from a premordial water that was not created. Out of this ancient "ocean" a world mountain originated, the ancient hill or the "navel of the world" that contained the elements of heaven and earth, without separation. AN (heaven as masculine entity) and KI (earth as feminine entity) is part of this ancient hill. Through the connection of the two the god of the air, Enlil, and the god of water, Enki, was born (Du Toit 1971: 78).

The god of the air, Enlil, separated the heaven from thee earth by lifting up the earth. So the heaven became the top and the earth the foundation of the cosmic mountain that connected the two. A later simbol of this "navel" or "link" of the world is the temple tower (ziggurat).

This researcher's understanding is that after the Flood of Noah in 2521 BCE, the tower of Babel were built out of fear that the flood may be repeated and just in case, the Tower would be the safe haven of rescue for the citizens. The ziggurats and pyramids were all designed with the underlying fear for the come-back of the world greatest Tsunami. That rescue in this way were later connected to the myth of the origin of the world with the link to a cosmic mountain, is just a later development of a reality that preceded it. Fensham and Du Toit did not keep this aspect in mind.

At a certain stage the earth is still empty and deserted, according to the Sumerians. Now the god of plants and the god of animals and god of grain called life on earth. So all are ready for humans to start the breeding of domestic herds, agriculture and civilization. Man is formed out of clay by a cooperative action of the premordial water, mother earth and the water god. Man is given the task to bring culture to the alluvial plains of the Euprhates and Tigris. The technology necessary is created by the gods.

At this point, one cannot but wonder where Böhl got his information from. What is the source of all these points? Which Sumerian text gave him these ideas? Du Toit took him uncritically, but Adventists are required to ask penetrating questions. Let us assume that there was an ancient Sumerian language cuneiform text from which he made his conclusions, then the correspondence with the Biblical Genesis report is simply an amalgamation of truth with human speculation resulting in the Sumerian version of creation. The Sumerian report is not older than 2521 BCE and Noah knew Henoch who knew Adam so that the oral source for the Creation process as described in Genesis 1 and 2, is well established long before the origin of the Sumerian legends after 2521 BCE. Any other later nation who shows correspondences with the Sumerian deviation of truth, is just supporting the pseudo-reality of the Creation reality which originated after the Flood as opposed to the truth which is contained in the Bible in Genesis 1 and 2. The Adventist approach to Creation reports of the Ancient Nations can be seen in G. Hasel, "The Significance of the Cosmology of Genesis 1 in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Parallels," AUSS 10 (1972): 1-20. Hasel pointed out that the idea of the separation of heaven and earth is found in many ancient Near Eastern mythologies. He pointed out that with the Sumerian mythology one can see a description thererof in N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology (New York: 1961): 37; see Hasel 1972: 7 footnote 32.

There are a number of sources available on the topic of creation myths and the Sumerians. The creation of man and woman was discussed in the past by S. Langdon in PBS X, 2 page 192 plate LXI no. 22. The origin of creation as viewed by the Sumerians and Akkadians were also discussed by M. Jastrow in 1916. He provides a comprehensive listing of creation literature. The Sumerian creation epic was discussed by W. F. Albright in 1918. The origin of the tradition of Creation with the Sumerians were discussed by M. Jastrow in 1917 also in 1916 by the same author in Tokyo, Japan. The Sumerian parallels to the biblical Genesis report was discussed by S. Landesdorfer in 1917. He dealt with a text of Poebel and Langdon as well as Ebeling and discussed the literary critical problems. S. Langdon dealt with the poem of Creation in 1915 with references to the creation of man, Marduk associated with Aruru, her connection with the decapitation of Marduk, the Eridu tradition and the relation of the two Sumerian poems to these traditions. He also discussed the Greek tradition concerning Prometheus and the Egyptian view and lastly, what he wrongly viewed as the biblical form of the assistance of the mother goddess. A creation text from Sumer was discussed by A. Poebel in PBS V plate no. 1 and PBS IV, 1 pages 9-70.


Babylonian and Assyrian creation myths

When Du Toit came to this part of his study, he used A. Heidel to explain The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: 1948). The book is also used in Adventist scholarship as one can see in the citations of Gerhard Hasel.

According to the Babylonian-Assyrian creation doctrine there were two premordial gods that were by gender distinguished from each other: Apsu the father and Tiamat the mother. The later existing copy of the last years of the Assyrian empire read:

IV: 138 He split her like a shellfish into two parts:

139 Half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky

(ANET 67 op. cit. Hasel 1972: 8).

We need to say as a Seventh Day Adventist the following about the Enuma Elish "When the gods..." text. The text was found by Henry Layard in the library of Ashurbanipal at Niniveh. Ashurbanipal was not king of the Sumerians and neither king of the Old Babylonians. He was one of the last kings of the neo-Assyrian empire. The date for the text has to start scientifically between 681-650 BCE. The fact that Sumrianisms can be found in the text is only because the liturgical language was sometimes Sumerian or dialects thereof. It is not necessarily that it had a long history as online sites are trying to say. There is no proof, in fact zero proof, that the Enuma Elish as we found it published by G. Smith in 1876 existed in the same form before 650 BCE. This is a reality that we have to work with. To ascribe this creation data to the view of the Babylonians and to press the issue that one has to go back so early as the Middle and Old Babylonian or Assyrian periods, is pushing the issue too far. It is superimposing upon these early periods speculation of what one found in 650 BCE in the late-Assyrian period. Scientifically one can brush aside all these pan-Assyrian or pan-Babylonian romanticism. The exitement of theologians and scholars finding correlations in the Enuma Elish and the Genesis report in chapters 1 and 2 is understandable. First it is important to remember that these copies were made during the Israelite exile to Assyria that started already in 723 BCE. They were part of the Assyrian society by nearly 70 years when this copy was made. They could just as well be scribes in the library of Niniveh who superimposed upon scanty Sumerian templates Israelite midrash of the Genesis report of Moses calling it then Enuma Elish "When the gods ...". Secondly, Genesis predates Enuma Elish by nearly 780 years when Moses wrote it, but orally it came all the time 6000 years along with Adam to Henoch who could have known Noah and who could have known Abraham. From there to Moses is easy to establish. From Moses to the scribes in exile in the Niniveh court, it was also a simple matter. The Gilgamesh Flood epic stands under that same constraints that we supply here. These were Assryian texts with Israelite midrash assimilated to Babylonian-Assyrian templates.

The neo-Assyrian time text of the Enuma Elish portrays Tiamat as a dragon or snake being of terrible appearance. She brought to live monsters but also the good gods. There is no necessity that she should be a dragon herself (Du Toit 1971: 79; also Heidel and Jensen who says it is pure fantasy that she is a dragon).

Apsu and Tiamat together represents the living uncreated matter of the world. Heidel is very romantic when he speculates: "they were matter and divine spirit united and coexistent, like body and spirit" (op. cit. Du Toit 1971: 79 cited positively not critical like this researcher). From them then all the elements existed that created the universe and from them the gods and goddesses of the Assyrian and Babylonian pantheon came. A. R. Millard is sharp enough to talk about "A New-Babylonian 'Genesis' Story" Tyndale Bulletin XVIII (1967): 3-18.

Gerhard Hasel pointed out that the Old Babylonian Creation epic does not open with the creation of the world (Hasel 1972: 15). This Old Babylonian depictions dates to 1635 BCE as both Lambert and Millard are claiming (see Hasel 1971: 15 footnote 75). This is very important since it provides evidence that the earlier form of the Enuma Elish did not have the same form as the Enuma Elish. The Old Babylonian form described the situation when the world had been divided among three major deities of the Sumerian-Akkadian pantheon. It was during the time of the 400 years labor of Israel in Egypt that started in 1850 BCE and lasting all the way down to 1450 BCE. A mirror of this toil and labor can be seen in this Old Babylonian text during the Kassite empire, saying:

"I:i:3-4 The toil of the gods was great.

The work was heavy, the distress was much (W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-hasis. The Babylonian Story of the Flood [Oxford: 1969], 43). In the Enuma Elish man was created to save the gods from their hard labor (Hasel 1971: 16).

Any discussion, comparing the separation of Heaven and Earth, creaton by word, creation and function of luminaries, purpose of creation, order of creation using the Enuma Elish stands under the constraints of Israelite midrash reshaping the Babylonian earlier traditions into a new hybrid that rings with a Mosaic Genesis 1 and 2 bell.

Anyone then who is using the Enuma Elish to outline the Babylonian concept of creation is doing so with a yellow card. The time zone of it origin in the library of Niniveh is not watertight resting in a status quo manner on virgin soil. This is the scientific state of affairs related to the Enuma Elish.

A. Heidel is romantic about the Enuma Elish and felt that it is Sumerian in origin since the names of the gods Apsu, Anu and Enlil are all Sumerian names. Most of the gods that Tiamat produced (tablet I: 132-142) and also the winds that Marduk created (tablet IV: 45ff.) had Sumerian names. As S. Du Toit so correctly said: "Unfortunately there are no Sumerian prototypes of the epic so that it is difficult to establish how much are from Sumerian origin" (Du Toit 1971: 80). "None of the existing texts however are older than the first millennium BCE" (Du Toit 1971: 80). Most copies and recensions are from the library of Ashurbanipal but some copies are also from Ashur (Du Toit 1971: 81).

Du Toit and Fensham explained that the Enuma Elish is actually not a creation story. The lines that deal with creation only comprise a small portion of the hymn. It is actually a hymn in honor of Marduk and it provides cosmological reasons why this god should be promoted from chiefgod of Babylon to chief god of the whole Babylonian pantheon (Du Toit 1971: 84). There is a political reason also behind this hymn, namely Babylon wanted to emphasize their rulership over all the cities of the plains (Du Toit 1971: 84).


Canaanite or Ugarit concept of creation

Fensham and Du Toit made it clear that not much is known about the Canaanite concept of creation (Du Toit 1971: 84). It may have compared to the Babylonian creation motif. The creation action was a struggle between Baal, the king of the gods and the chaos dragon Lotan of the sea or Yam. The way a Ugarit document described Lotan is similar than descriptions in Isaiah 27:1. The main god of the Canaanite pantheon is described as "creator of created things". He lives at the "conflation of the two streams". Fensham and Du Toit felt that it is the common source where the top and bottom waters of the Ancient-Eastern cosmology meets and are mixed. Actually, this interpretation is a romantic view of Ancient Near Eastern cosmology since that information is not too clear.

Baal is powerful and fight over the powers of chaos and triumph over them. The general theme of the Baal myth is his kingship that he received from ancient times due to his conquest of the chaotic waters. The text is that of Gray, The Canaanites 129 and Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook, 129, 137 op. cit. Du Toit 1971: 85).

For Gray felt that there is a difference between the mythology of Ugaritic mythology and Mesopotamia, yet there is a strong affinity between the Baal-myth and the Enuma Elish, for example the struggle between Marduk and Tiamat.

This researcher needs to supply some extra information. The Ugarit literature came during the time of the Judges when many Israelites intermarried with Canaanites. The religious Habiru settled in Canaan but the secular Habiru settled at Ugarit, a city that expanded after the expulsion of Canaanites from Canaan during the five years of conquest between 1410-1405 BCE. The Amarna letters is evidence of a five year conflict. During the time of the Judges, these Baal myths and other religious text originated. Of course with the presence of Israelites full of Mosaic liturgies and hymns, Canaanite literature will be transformed to be a hybrid Israelite-Canaanite product. It is thus not strange that M. Dahood found so many correspondences between Ugarit and Psalms and Moses other book, Job. The same with Marvin Pope on the book of Job. The Rebellion in Heaven Motif is a motif that comes all the way from Adam who knew Henoch who knew Noah who knew Abraham and the rest is simple to explain. Pseudo-stories of the Rebellion in Heaven motif then originated among the nations after 2521 BCE. They were in many cases derivative stories, derived from the true Genesis 1 and 2 report. In Genesis 3:15 is a remainder of the Rebellion in Heaven continued in the work of the promised Messiah.

Lotan is then killed by Baal. Some texts called Anat the winner not Lotan or ltn. Du Toit felt that the Rahab figure in the Old Testament has not found a correlate at Ugarit (Du Toit 1971: 85).

Fensham wrote a Ugarit grammar in Afrikaans. He was a keen reader of Ugaritic literature. The problem with modern Ugaritic scholars is that they do not operate with a biblical chronological scheme that would place everything in a proper scenario since the impact of the Israelites on Ugaritic literature is an aspect that cannot be overlooked. The book of Joshua and Judges said that the other nations were very surprised at the death of the Napoleon of Egypt, Thutmosis III the night of the Exodus in 1450 BCE.


Egyptian concepts of Creation

Gerhard Hasel provided a better picture than Fensham and Du Toit on the concept of creation with the Egyptians. The reason is that Hasel provided also the date of the text. In a praise text to the god Thoth dating to the time of Ptolemy IV (221-204 BCE) it reads: "Everything that is has come about through his word" (Hasel 1972: 10 from L. Dürr, Die Wertung des göttlichen Wortes im Alten Testament und im antiken Orient [Leipzig: 1938], 28).

To be romantic about the Egyptians view of creation reading this text is not wise. Firstly, the text is in the time that Hellenistic Jews lived in Alexandria and some were working in the library of Alexandria. Secondly, classical texts were composed, conflated, transformed, with phrases added and omitted, as one can see evidenced in the works of Homer (see M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria volume II [1970]). Again we are faced with the role of Israelite midrash that entered a transformation of an Egyptian template that may not have had these concepts earlier. A hybrid Israelite-Egyptian text thus. Below we will see that in early coffin texts from the time of Abraham there is also creation by word concepts.


Creation by word

The Hellenistic Alexandrian listener are reminded of the first creation when the god Atum stood on a primordial hill that risen out of the primordial waters. There he called the first gods. The god is asked to bless the rising pyramid which is an analogy of the primordial mountain. Ptah created by his word (S. Morenz, Ägyptische Religion [1960]: 172, see S. du Toit 1971: 85).

Atum the creator god was created by the speech of Ptah. Hasel cited the myth from Hellenistic Alexandria times: "Indeed, all the divine order really came into being through what the heart thought and the tongue commanded" (Hasel 1972: 10).

Hasel also indicated similarly than Du Toit in 1971, the very next year, that Brandon indicated from a Coffin text dated to 2240 BCE that "creation was effected by magical utterance" (Hasel 1971: 10 footnote 49). The text dates to the time of Abraham and contact between Mesopotamia and Egypt is evidence by Abraham's visit to Egypt. As Hasel warned, one has to be very careful of Klaus Koch who wants to derive the biblical concept of creation by word from the Egyptian cosmogony. Hasel said "In Egypt creation comes by a magic word, an idea alien to Genesis creation" (ibid; also C. Westermann and Schmidt). N. Sarna considered the comparison of the Egyptian creation by word motif and the Genesis 1 account as "wholly superficial" (N. M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis [New York: Schocken Book, 1970], 12). In Egyptian thought the pronouncement of the right magical word, like the performance of the right magical action, is able to actualize the potentialities inherent in matter (Hasel 1972: 11). God created with an effortless word (Hasel idem).

Samuel Kramer thought that creation by word came from Sumer originally and that accounted for all Ancient Near Eastern occurences (Hasel 1972: 10 footnote 46).

The creation motif of the Egyptians was also considered by S. Mercer in 1920. He compared the Babylonian and Egyptian creation motifs. He concluded that neither in Babylon nor in Egypt was there a systematic treatment of creation stories.


The chasing away of the dragon and the creation

In a ritual that drives away the demon Apophis (snake) that haunts the ship of the sungod Ra every night, the reference is to creation in which the snake (Apophis) was conquered already. The same thought is expressed in proverbs and prescriptions elsewhere (ANET 417 no. 49 op. cit. Du Toit 1971: 85). It was generally accepted by Egyptians that creation and chasing away of the dragon are linked to each other (ANET 3ff.; 6-7ff.; 9f. and 11f.). Egyptians are more optimistic in their religion than Babylonians. The conquest by light is always certain in Egyptian religion (Du Toit 1971: 85).


Separation of Heaven and Earth

Gerhard Hasel provided some very valuable information on this theme in Creation and the Egyptians. In Egyptian mythology, Shu, the god of the air, is referred to as he who "raised Nut [sky-goddess] above him, Geb [the earth-god] being at his feet" (Coffin Texts, edited by de Buck, II, 78a page 19 op. cit. S. G. F. Brandon, Creation Legends of the Ancient Near East [London: 1963], 28). The date of these texts are the Middle Kingdom (2060-1788 BCE). In this way heaven and earth were separated from an embrace by the god Shu (or other versions read Ptah, Osiris, Sokaris, Khnum, Upuwast or Assiut). He raised heaven above to make the sky (S. Morenz, Ägyptische Religion [Stuttgart: 1960], 180-182).


Creation and the function of the luminaries

Hasel pointed out that in Egypt the sun in its varied appearances was the highest deity, so that in the course of time many gods acquired sun characteristics. The moon had an inferior role. The daily appearance of the sun was considered as its birth (H. Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion [New York: 1961], 28).


Comparisons between Ancient Near Eastern myths and Genesis 1 and 2

1. The epic of Ancient Near Eastern nations are not a creation report but is a hymn to Marduk.

2. The epic is used by the priestly composers to be used as political tool to sing the praise of Babylon the city of Marduk and to show that Babylon should be in control of all the cities of the plain (Du Toit 1971: 86). There is not such function with Genesis 1 and 2.

3. Creation is the work of God or a godly being.

4. Creation is by the word like we found also in Egypt and in Mesopotamia.

5. In the beginning the waters played a role in the Bible, Egypt and Mesopotamia.

6. The waterflood is sometimes described as a fighting monster in the Bible, Egypt and Mesopotamia.

7. There is a Rebellion in Heaven motif in the Bible and in Mesopotamia (see the Legend of the Worm and its correlations to Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezechiel 28).

8. Rahab and Tiamat has their helpers.

9. The powers are attacked and conquered. God conquers also but not with a fierce battle. His method is different and that is what history is all about.

10. The waters above originated by a separation in the original world ocean.

11. The earth brought forth living creators in the Babylon creation myth with an evolutionistic method different than in the Bible.

12. Man is the highest creature in creation.

13. Man is created with material from this earth but there is an element in the Babylonian creation myth that is in man that is not from this earth, the blood of the god.

14. The luminaries function with time and time reckoning.

15. The number seven is very important in the Genesis report as well as in the Babylonian reports (Du Toit 1971: 87).

16. E. Speiser was very excited that there are the same order of description of events in Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish. He said that this is not just coincidental (Du Toit 1971: 87). It is not coincidental since the Enuma Elish originated in the library of Ashurbanipal ca. 650 BCE with Israelite scribes in the king's court.

17. The greatest difference between the Babylonian creation report and the Genesis creation report is that Babylonians places cosmogony (origin of the earth) subordinate on theogony (origin of the gods).

18. The other difference with Genesis 1 and 2 is that the Babylonian myths are nature myths.

19. The Babylonian gods do not exist from eternity but was born out of the primordial chaos.

20. The stars predicts the destiny of the gods and the people in Babylonian myths different than in Genesis 1 and 2 (Du Toit 1971: 87-88).

21. The epic functioned in Babylonian liturgy to free Marduk by way of magical presentation of the epic of his incarceration. If not, chaos will return and thus from Fall to Spring he is a prisoner (Du Toit 1971: 88).

22. Marduk does not create the world but protects it against chaos (Du Toit 1971: 88).

23. The Ancient Near Eastern myths are cyclic but in the Genesis report everything moves in a straight line forward to an end.

24. In Genesis God is so sovereign that there is no space for deism, pantheism or mythical actions.

25. The Babylonian creation reports is politheistic and that is why there are many different creators: Apsu and Tiamat, Ea, Marduk (Enuma Elish) (Du Toit 1971: 88).

26. The endresult of the descriptions of the Babylonian god is that one wants to reject him which is so different than the description by the passionate God of Genesis 1 and 2 (Du Toit 1971: 88).

27. The earliest stages in Babylonian creation myths are ascribed to sexual intercourse. The gods are like problematic humans. A grandfather decided to kill his grandchildren because they disturbed his sleep. There is jealousy, an uncontrolled ambition to bring disturbance among the gods. The became drunk in the meeting. They are afraid of higher powers. They will use any method to defend themselves (Du Toit 1971: 88). This description of the creator gods of the Babylonians are more fitting for the Rebellion in Heaven motif and Lucifer or Satan's actions in the Bible, not the Creator God of Genesis 1 and 2.

28. When the gods in heaven got their tasks they complain and rebel and could only be satisfied when a new slave race were created: mankind. This is so different than the biblical report in Genesis 1 and 2 (Du Toit 1971: 89). In the Bible, the believing person is servant of God but also prince.

29. In the Babylonian myths there are no reference to the Fall into sin by man (Du Toit 1971: 89).

30. In the Babylonian concept the creation of man is not part of the original plan of the gods (Du Toit 1971: 89). However, in the Bible and in the Israelite hybrid of Babylonian template of 650 BCE, the Enuma Elish, man is important in creation.

31. The Babylonians actually do not know creation. They could not go back further than a static primordial chaos which they saw as the primordial ocean of depths from which salt and fresh water came out of the earth (Du Toit 1971: 89; also G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology, 102).

32. Order was only attained in Babylonian creation concepts when there was a war in heaven. The powers that won was in favor of the earth and could then create. The war must be fought every New Year at that festival and they have to win otherwise chaos creaps in (Du Toit 1971: 89; also F. C. Fensham). Actually, in the Bible God's order was challenged in the Rebellion in Heaven motif by Lucifer who became Satan and was cast out of heaven. In a way also a war in heaven. But, it was because Christ was chosen as Creator of this universe of ours and not Lucifer, the highest of the angels or created beings. I remember prof. Fensham telling us this in class and I was on the verge of telling him that it is actually biblical in a way describing the Rebellion of Satan in Heaven.

33. Theistic evolutionists and Agnostic evolutionists wants to agree with the Babylonian Enuma Elish that matter always existed and that Genesis 1:1 actually states that for them (Du Toit 1971: 89). Creationists and Adventists cannot accept this since the six day creation week is center in the Sabbath command in Exodus 20 thus interpreting the correct reading of Genesis 1:1-2ff.

34. A. Van Selms (Calvinist teaching at Pretoria University in South Africa) said that the concept of Theistic evolution or Agnostic evolution is foreign to the careful design of this first chapter of Genesis. S. du Toit of Potchefstroom University concurred (Du Toit 1971: 89).

35. Out of chaos order was created in Babylonian myths but in Genesis 1 the God of order created and the tehom or world flood, did not resist Him or fought with him like the battle in the Babylonian myths. The God of the Old Testament is not part of nature but above it and in complete control over all its processes (Du Toit 1971: 90).

36. Babylonian creation myths are pantheistic and this is purely naturalistic. Everything originates out of chaos. It is naturalistic-dualistic since chaos contains both elements of good and bad.

37. In the Babylonian creation myths the composers knew only the world of the seen. Gods and people belong together. In the Bible there is also the world of the unseen or theism (Du Toit 1971: 90).

38. Also for Du Toit (1971) like Hasel (1972), the creation word of Genesis is the only and active ground of creation and any polytheism or dualistic aspects are set aside (Du Toit 1971: 90).

39. The God of the Old Testament is associated with a female companion and the human passions of procreation is never ascribed to the God of the Old Testament (Du Toit 1971: 90). God is never part of nature, He rules majestically over it.

40. Creation in Babylon was a yearly process since winter is a power of chaos that had to be conquered (Du Toit 1971: 90). Only monotheism can speak truely of creation. There are no emanations of gods that create.

41. Tiamat is a mythical figure but in the Old Testament tehom is not (Du Toit 1971: 91). Tehom is a mass of water but Tiamat represents only salt water (Du Toit 1971: 91).

42. It is grammatically impossible to derive tehom from Tiamat. Tehom has a masculine ending but Tiamat has a feminine ending. The /h/ in tehom is also difficult to explain. It is possible that originally the two words go back to a similar root though (Du Toit 1971: 91). Fensham taught the same.

43. Luminaries in Genesis 1 are given the order: sun, moon and stars but in the Enuma Elish we find the reverse: stars, moon and sun. The creation of the sun is not understood but assumed (Du Toit 1971: 92). The Old Testament do not know anything about gates at the East and West through which the sun must pass.

44. In Babylonian creation myths the origin of living creatures is by evolution and not by the Word of Creation.

45. In the Babylonian creation concepts humans are created out of the blood of Kingu, the "devilish god" so that man's origin is already shrouded in evil (Du Toit 1971: 92).

46. Man is created for the gods in Babylonian creation myths but in Genesis 1 and 2 man is created as servant of God and also prince or sons and daughters of God with freedom and responsibility (Du Toit 1971: 92).

47. Different than in the Babylonian creation myths the Enuma Elish spends two full tables on the rest after the creation (Du Toit 1971: 92-93). The Annunaki build after the completion of the universe the Esagila or temple of Marduk with its temple tower. When it is completed the gods gathered in it to celebrate a festival. It is the culmination point of the Enuma Elish and the whole purpose of the Enuma Elish (Du Toit 1971: 93).

In the Genesis report the Sabbath ends the creation and in this lies the following: time and the kingly call of man in time stands in the center, not any space or any object in the space (Du Toit 1971: 93).

48. Man is placed in Genesis 1 and 2 as the crown of Creation and placed in history. In man the work of God's creation culminated. There is no cosmological importance of the Creation report and no mythical interest. Creation is God's first powerful deed in history. Of this Babylon knew nothing (Du Toit 1971: 93).

49. The language of Genesis 1 and 2 is calm and not polemic or dialectic (Du Toit 1971: 94).