By Stephen Arpee
July 1993
Summary:
1. Of course, a myth is not historically "true," but there are other kinds of truth.
2. The Babylonian Creation Myth was a world view contrived to justify the political status quo; and was historically "true" in that sense.
3. The Biblical Creation Myth was put together by the Priests of Israel in exile in Babylon; and is a revolutionary political statement.
4. The issues embodied in these two myths are very much relevant today.
Webster's first definition of "myth" is: "A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief or natural phenomenon." We assume that if something did not literally happen in a specific time and place, that it is not "true;" and if a story purports to be "historical," and we do not find that to be plausible, we dismiss the whole thing out of hand as being false--just a "myth"! This is very short-sighted of us. There are two other important questions here, even if we assume that the events described did not literally happen: (1) Was there a connection between the myth and an actual historical event or situation? If so, then the myth tells us something very important about what did happen, and is therefore very significant historically. (2) And if the myth does embody a world-view ( a way of seeing reality), is that world-view true or not? The truth or falsehood of the world-view is a far more important question than the historicity of the myth story. The fact that a myth is presented by the story-teller as "historical" indicates that it is intended to explain the meaning of history!
The Babylonian city-state was the dominant imperial power in the valley of the Tigris-Euphrates from about 612 to 538 BC. Its power depended upon the effective administration of the flood control and irrigation systems of the fertile lower valley, and the support of a large standing army. A highly centralized, authoritarian bureaucracy was necessary for this purpose. The Babylonian Creation Myth provided the religious sanction for the Babylonian monarchy, and reveals the process by which this form of government came into being. The story goes something like this:
In the beginning, there was chaos--two great formless bodies of water, fresh water (male), Apsu, and salt water (female), Tiamat. The union of the two produced the younger gods. These youngsters were a noisy bunch, and their carrying on was so annoying to their parents that war broke out. Normally, the gods (here read the Babylonian city council) made their decisions by debate and vote, but in time of war, they elected one of their number to act as War Chief, with the understanding that after the end of hostilities, he would give up his autocratic power. So, the gods elect Marduk (the god of Babylon) to be their Leader in battle. He confronts Tiamat (Apsu had already been murdered), and after a great struggle, kills and dismembers her. The war is over, but Marduk declines to resign his commission. So, having no alternative, the gods accept his sovereignty. There is, however, one problem.
With the Parents dead, there is no one to provide the catering service for the gods. Marduk invents the solution. One of the gods is arbitrarily selected as the scapegoat on whom the blame for the war is placed. Marduk then executes him, and from his blood creates humanity, whose task it is to feed the gods!
How's that for a justification of the status-quo? Tiamat, the chaos-monster, is female; so women, by nature, must always be subject to men and the recipients of violence. The role of the King is, continually, to bring order out of chaos, by violence. Humanity is the product of deceit and violence, and should expect nothing else; and, the purpose of mankind is to feed the gods (that is, whoever is in power in Babylon). Thus, privileged elites always seek religious sanction to protect their position. Priests are always much less expensive, and much more effective than the secret police.
The city of Jerusalem was taken by Babylonian troops in 587 BC, and most leading citizens, including the Jewish priestly class, were taken into exile in Babylon. During this time of exile, this body of scholars did the final revision of the Hebrew Scriptures, including the rewrite we call, "Genesis." They were not about to buy the Babylonian world view. No. They would have their own Creation Myth, based on their understanding of Yahweh, the God of Israel. They already had the story of Adam and Eve in their inventory; and, it was pretty good stuff: The Supreme God, not some petty Johnny-come-lately, creates humanity; and not because he wanted room service, but because he had made this lovely garden and thought there should be someone there to tend it and enjoy it. (It is interesting that the location of the garden is Babylonian territory.) And Eve, like Adam, is created by Yahweh. She is no chaos monster, but rather the cherished companion of Adam.
But just to make sure that everyone understood just how far off base the Babylonian myth was, the priestly writers made it quite explicit: In the beginning, nothing existed except Yahweh--not the waters of chaos, not the male and female principles. Nothing. Just God. And when He did decide to create the world, he did it in an orderly, peaceful way. No violence. And just in case you still didn't get it, He created both men and women, and both "in his own image." This is an amazing, sophisticated, humane view of reality. It is also a politically revolutionary statement, especially when seen in its historical context. We (Jews and Christians) just take it for granted; but it really is not all that obvious. That's why our faith ancestors have always said that this world-view is part of God's revelation of Himself.
What we have here are two opposing myths, the Babylonian Creation Myth and the Biblical Creation Myth. The Biblical Myth provides the literary context for the unfolding of the whole of God's revelation of Himself. It is very deeply True. On the other hand, The Babylonian Myth is False; and yet it has permeated most of the cultures of the world, including our own. We say we believe the Biblical account of the Creation; but do we really?
One of today's New Testament scholars calls the Babylonian Creation Myth, "the Myth of Redemptive Violence." We may have forgotten the Babylonian story, but we still accept the assumptions about reality that it expresses: For example, (1) problems can be "solved" by force. (2) Violence must be employed continually to bring order out of chaos. (3) The saving hero is the one who shoots fastest and straightest. (4) Women cause most of the world's problems, and its OK to use violence against them. (5) Society is to be ordered in such a way that the people at the bottom (most people) take care of those at the top. (Managers are entitled to the big salaries.) (6) The little people are expendable. (7) And the purpose of religion is to protect the status quo.
Unfortunately, during most of European history, lip service has been given to the Biblical view of reality, while in fact, the Babylonian view has been operative. It can be argued that the Myth of Redemptive Violence is by far the stronger influence in American culture today than the Biblical view of reality.
Based on ENGAGING THE POWERS, by Walter Wink.