Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: Part II

This article was first published in a 4 part series, starting in the Winter 1996 issue of Bible and Spade. Man as the Image of GodClines offers a thorough discussion of “The Image of God in Man,” reviewing the history of interpretation. He concludes that: "Genesis 1:26 is to be translated “Let us make man as our image” or “to be in our image” . . . according to Genesis 1 man does not have the image of God, nor is he made in the image of God, but is himself the image of God" (1968).As for the image itself, Clines observes, with K.H. Bernhardt, that: "in the ancient Near East the primary function of the image was to be the dwelling-place of spirit or fluid which derived from the being whose image it was" (1968: 80–85).He also notes that in the ancient Near East the king is “the image of God,” and "the image of the god is associated very closely with rulerhood. The king as image of the god is his representative. The king has been created by the god to be his image" (1968: 80–85).In her recent treatment of the specification of human sexual distinction, P.A. Bird, like Clines, asserts that the selem ’elōhim ‘image of God’ in Genesis 1 is “a royal designation, the precondition or requisite for rule” (1994:341) and concludes that: "the genius of the formulation in Genesis 1:26 may be seen in its use of a common expression and image of Mesopotamian (Canaanite) royal theology to counter a common image of Mesopotamian (Canaanite) anthropology, viz., the image of humanity as servant of the gods" (1994:345) 1 Bird suspects a polemical intention also in the blessing of v. 28, “Be fruitful and multiply.” For, since “the power of created life to replenish itself is a power given to each species at its creation,” it is “not dependent upon subsequent rites,” that is to say, the fertility cult, “for its effect.” However, the “word of sexual differentiation [in v. 27] anticipates the blessing” since “sexual constitution is the presupposition of the blessing of increase.” Verse 27 as a whole, she holds, signifies that “unlike God, but like the other creatures, adam is characterized by sexual differentiation.” In other words, “adam is created like (i.e., resembling) God, but as creature, and hence male and female” (1994: 351).Genesis 2-3Adam and AdapaShea lists “principal parallels” between the “Adapa Epic" 2 and the account of Adam in Genesis 2–3: (1) Both subjects underwent a test before the deity, and the test was based upon something they were to consume. (2) Both failed the test and thereby forfeited their opportunity for immortality. (3) As a result of their failure, certain consequences passed upon mankind. (4) Both subjects qualify as members of the first generation of mankind. (5) Their names can be equated linguistically (1977: 39). However, among the differences Shea notes are these: (1) “Adapa was tested with bread and water while Adam and Eve were tested with the fruit.” (2) Though both were sentenced to death and “this sentence is even given in rather similar terms,” these terms have “quite different meanings in their respective contexts.” (3) Adapa’s choice was made in obedience to Ea, but Adam made his own free choice contrary to correct instructions. (4) “Adapa’s offense, in essence, was that he upset the course of nature, while Adam’s offense was moral in nature.” In conclusion, Shea suggests that “it is possible to view these two separate sources as independent witnesses to a common event (1977:28–35, 41). Niels-Erik Andreasen also thinks that “parallels do indeed exist between Adam and Adapa, but they are seriously blunted by the entirely different contexts in which they occur” (1981:192). However, the view that “the name Adapa is a secondary development from Adam” is not conclusive.As for the etymology of the word Adam, recently Sjöberg suggested that the Sumerian a-dam, which refers exclusively to people, is “a ‘Canaanite’, West-Semitic loanword in Sumerian,” since it has no “Sumerian” etymology (1984:223). The nearest cognate of the Hebrew “‘adam is, so far, the Ugaritic adm which appears in an epithet of the god El, i.e., ab adm ‘father of man’” (Hess 1990:1–15; 1993:14–19; Andreasen 1981:181 n. 9).Creation of Man“The most important single witness to Babylonian speculation on the origins and nature of man is,” as Moran says, “the description of his creation in the first tablet of the ‘Atra-Hasis Epic,’ especially lines 192–248” (1970: 48).3 In 1967, Millard first noted that the “Atrahasis Epic is more specific on [the making of man] than any other Babylonian Creation account.” In the Atra-Hasis Epic I 221ff., Man was created from the flesh and blood of a slaughtered god mixed with clay...Man’s earthy constituency is emphasized by both Babylonian and Hebrew (i.e., Gn 2:7) narratives, and his divine part equally...No hint of the use of dead deity or any material part of a living one is found in Genesis (1994:120). In 1969, Lambert and Millard discussed the account of man’s creation in the “Atra-Hasis Epic” in detail. The author used what was the generally accepted view...that man was formed from clay mixed with the blood of a slain god...‘Clay’ in this context is the material substance of the human body. This can be learnt from a number of passages that speak of death as a “returning to clay.” Exactly the same conception is shown in the Hebrew account of man’s creation...(Gn 3:19) (1969:21; see also Lambert 1980:73). As for the “blood,” Lambert and Millard speculate that “in all probability the Babylonians conceived of man as matter (‘clay’) activated by the addition of divine blood,” while on the other hand “the Hebrew account of creation in Genesis 2 explains that God imparted ‘the breath of life’ into man, and so animation began” (1969: 22).Eden StoryFor a long time the Eden story has drawn much scholarly attention4 and has recently been treated thoroughly by Wallace in his monograph (1985). Here, however, I would like to focus on comparative materials with respect to this story.(a) Enki and Ninhursag. The story has been compared with Sumerian myths such as Enki and Ninhursag, a Sumerian paradise story.5 Kramer summarizes it as follows: Dilmun is a land that is “pure,” “clean,” and “bright,” a “land of the living” which knows neither sickness nor death. What is lacking, however, is the fresh water so essential to animal and plant life. The great Sumerian water-god, Enki, therefore orders Utu, the sun-god, to fill it with fresh water brought up from the earth. Dilmun is thus turned into a divine garden, green with fruit-laden fields and meadows (1963:147–48). Kramer thinks that there are “numerous parallels” between this “divine paradise” myth and the Eden story. He suggests that the Biblical paradise, “a garden planted eastward in Eden,” may have “originally” been identical with Dilmun, “a land some where to the east of Sumer.” He also compares the “fresh water brought up from the earth” in Dilmun with the 'ed water in Genesis 2:6. He notes that: the birth of the goddesses without pain or travail illuminates the background of the curse against Eve that it shall be her lot to conceive and bear children in sorrow; Enki’s eating of the eight plants and the curse uttered against him for his misdeed recall the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge by Adam and Eve and the curses pronounced against each of them for this sinful action (1963: 148–49). Kramer holds that this Sumerian literary background would explain why Eve, “the mother of all living,” was fashioned from the rib of Adam.