The Divided House

Below is a commentary on the Babylonian account of creation vs. the Genesis account of creation.

Here is a link to the Babylonian Enuma Elish: http://www.crivoice.org/enumaelish.html
[Note: Due to different translations, the references to the text may not be 100% literal to the text provided by the link.]


Any culture’s account of humanity’s origin has determined who (or what) they believe God is, who man is, and how man should live. Because of this, Ancient Near Eastern writers often conflicted on the character of God (or gods) and the purpose of man in the annals of the birth of mankind. While the Genesis and Babylonian accounts of creation may have some similarities, further analysis reveals that the Sitz im Leben of the authors contradict each other in their theology and philosophy. The Babylonian account of creation differs most from the Genesis account in that it does not tell of a godhead that is unified under one mind or will, but rather, that they are divided and weak.
In the Enuma Elish, the author presents the first arc of tension in the fourteenth line when he introduces Anu to be the “rival” of his fathers. Here the reader learns that instead of being united, the gods struggle for power. Apsu and Tiamat, the father and mother of all, do not have complete sovereignty in which they command utter submission from the gods. The godhead Tiamat is not all-powerful, and if defeated, can be replaced.
This battle for power continues to rage and gives the gods “unrest”. As a result, Apsu asks Tiamat to join him in destroying the gods but the mother refuses and rebukes him. This implies that conflict not only lies between enemies, but also between two acquaintances (1). This division makes Apsu weak and a lesser god called “Ea” kills him. Angered by this, Tiamat confronts Ea’s son Marduk and they engage in combat.
In the sixty-first line, the author refers to Marduk as “lord” before the battle with Tiamat finishes. This referral to “lordship” (2) reveals two things: first, the reader knows that Marduk will be the victor, and second, the author expresses allegiance to the more powerful god. Because of this eternal struggle for power among the gods, an unchanging standard of morality does not exist. The King’s Word decrees what is “good” and as long as power shifts, what is morally acceptable will also shift. Instead of a consistent code of conduct, the reader finds that might makes right.
After Marduk slays his enemy and establishes his rule, he soon realizes the same problem that Apsu and Tiamat both experienced: restlessness still plagues the gods. They need someone to bring them peace because they cannot bring it themselves. Marduk executes Kingu who allegedly “contrived the uprising” and creates man out of the carnage. Here the reader learns that the chief end of man is to slave so that the gods may have rest. The gods made man because they were incomplete without man’ service.
The Enuma Elish describes the divine powers as being divided and always at war with themselves. This serves more to describe the history of the Babylonian reign and the transfer of power because it’s content describes human nature rather than Divine nature. The gods quarrel, never find peace, and need slaves to remedy their restlessness. In the Genesis account of creation however, God does not create man out of any need for Himself, but out of mere desire (Gen. 1:26 – 28). For the God of Genesis does not need the service of man to be complete. Unlike the Babylonian text, The Genesis account of creation offers a God whose unity and power cannot be parted (Gen. 1: 1-2) (3).

Notes

1. The text does not clarify whether Apsu and Tiamat were lovers or friends.
2. The text intentionally leaves the word “lord” without capitalization.
3. Although there is no simple reference in the Genesis creation account that says, “God was completely powerful and unified”, it is implied in the language. He merely speaks and existence obeys Him.