A Plagiarized Bible

Enuma eli la nabu -ma-mu, ap-li am-ma-tum u-ma la zak-rat. This phrase, now
foreign to most of the world today, was the beginning of the most influential creation myth in
ancient Mesopotamia. This myth, known as the Enuma Elish, was believed in Babylonia, the
largest empire in the East during 17th century BCE. Parts of Babylonian mythology are
extremely similar to the religious texts of major modern religions, like Judaism and Christianity.
The relationship between these religious texts remains a controversial topic among religious
scholars today. Their creation myths, Enuma Elish and Genesis, are the most important stories
that link the religious texts. Could Genesis, a text that was supposed to have been told to Moses
by God, actually have been inspired by another religion? The answer to that could dent the
credibility of the most prominent religion today.
A majority of the informed scholarly community would agree that the events of the
Enuma Elish are too similar to those of the Genesis to have been a coincidence. Kenton Sparks, a
religious studies professor in Eastern University, proposes in Enma Elish and Priestly
Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism that the Priestly Writer was an avid student of
ancient texts and that his anthology of Israelite tradition was deliberately shaped to follow
patterns and motifs found in Mesopotamian literature.(2) In the case of the Enuma Elish and
Genesis, the world was created from some form of chaos, creation occurred by parting a body of
water, and humans were created from an image of a god. Even the order of the worlds creation
was the same: light, firmament, land, stars, humans, and a day of rest to finish it off. (3) Sparks
claim is well supported with undisputable similarities between the two works. Despite the
similarities, however, the Enuma Elish and Genesis are still different stories, and it would be

imprudent to ignore their differences. Just like how there were points where the two myths were
strikingly similar, there are points where the stories were completely inverted as well.
Some scholars who believe that Genesis was inspired by the Enuma Elish attributed
differences between the two to the differing principles of Babylonian religion and Judaism.
Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre, a professor at the Lutheran School of Theology,
offers an insight to the differences in the myths by highlighting the different perceptions
Babylonians and Israelites had of their gods in his Web article, Genesis Genesis: The Hebrew
Transformation of the Near Eastern Myths and Their Motifs. Israelites perceived their god as
perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient, while the Babylonian gods had quarrels, made mistakes,
were far from omnipotent. This resulted in the contrasting natures of the violent Enuma Elish,
where the world was created after a bloody fight between two gods, and the peaceful Genesis,
where the world was created after God willed it to come into existence. All in all, the Israelite
God seemed to be an entity that was completely and distinctly inhuman, while the Babylonian
gods still had human qualities (paragraph 19). In a way, the writer of the Torah took inspiration
from the Enuma Elish by purposefully inverting aspects that did not apply to Israelite
worldviews. Although Mattfeld y de la Torres claim is reasonable, differences in the texts can be
interpreted to counter his claim as well.
Not all scholars agree that Genesis was derived from the Enuma Elish. Jared Wellman, an
author for the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, suggests that the similarities
between the Enuma Elish and Genesis are nothing more than coincidences in his Web article,
Does the Genesis Creation Account Come From the Babylonian Enuma Elish? Wellman states
that the similarities in the two texts are due to coincidence and geological features that happened
to be in both Babylonia and Israel. He explains that the waters parted in the Enuma Elish were

the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, while the waters parted in Genesis were the sea and the horizon
(paragraph 7). Wellman does not attempt to draw a connection between the differences in the
texts; he claims that the nature of the religions are completely different, so it is natural for the
texts to be different as well. Perhaps the most interesting argument is the claim that the Enuma
Elish was published after the Genesis (paragraph 8). Since the texts are from religions hundreds
of miles and centuries apart, their differences are free to interpretation, so scholars must be wary
when using them as evidence to support their claims.
I strongly believe that the Torah and the Bible were either heavily inspired by Babylonian
mythology or derived from a common ancestor. Although both texts have their share of
similarities and differences, their relationship is difficult to definitely prove. Focusing solely on
similarities would leave the differences unaddressed, but the differences could be too
controversial to use as evidence. Therefore, scholars should focus on not just the similarities and
just the differences, but patterns in the ways both texts are similar and different. The characters
and events in both creation myths are either extremely alike or completely opposite; there is no
middle ground. Therefore, despite their differences, I believe that there can still be a clear
relationship between the two stories.
Genesis shares extremely specific common events and theme with Babylonian
mythology, while details concerning the behavior and abilities of the divine powers are almost
always completely different. Although it is not uncommon for myths from different regions to
share plot points, it is notable that Genesis shares more similarities with the Enuma Elish than
any previously discovered mythological work (Enns, paragraph 8). Although Mattfeld y de la
Torre and Wellman had different interpretations of the texts differences, they both agree that
Christianity and the Babylonian religion are distinctly different. Most of the differences between

the two texts seem to be related to the infallibility and omniscience of the Israelite God and the
humanity of the Babylonian gods. I believe that this recurring pattern is enough evidence to
prove the texts relationship.
The most well known part of Genesis, the tale of Adam and Eve, shares specific plot
elements with the story of Adapa, the human who nearly attained immortality in Babylonian
mythology. Both stories told of a food that concerned immortality. For Genesis, it was the apple
from the forbidden tree, and for Adapas story, it was any food that Anu, the almighty god,
provided for him. Both male figures in each story were ignorant and punished for listening to
someone other than the almighty god by losing immortality. Adapa lost his chance for
immortality when he obeyed another god, Enki, and refused to eat Anus food, while in Genesis
3:17-19, God said to Adam, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten
of the tree of which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of
you you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Immortality was tantalizingly out of mans
reach in both stories. Although man was tricked from obtaining immortality, man gained
forbidden knowledge. Adam obtained knowledge of good and evil, whereas Adapa received the
ability to stop wind. These thematic differences heavily imply that the two texts are connected.
The plot point that differs most significantly between the two stories is the entity that
tricks man into losing immortality. In Adams story, a serpent deceived Eve into persuading
Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. In Adapas story, a god lied to Adapa and caused him to refuse
the immortality-granting food. The difference in evildoers in these stories is consistent with the
theme of a perfect God in Genesis and imperfect gods in Babylonian mythology. The serpent in
Adapas story, Ningishnida, tried to help Adapa obtain immortality. Although the two snakes
serve completely different purposes in their respective stories, they may actually be related. John

Skinner, a Scottish reverend and a faculty member of what is now Westminster College,
Cambridge, suspected that "it is more probable that behind the sober description of the serpent as
a mere creature of Yahwe, there was an earlier form of the legend in which he figured as a god or
a demon."(71-72) in his book A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. If that is the
case, the serpent in Genesis is likely to have been inspired by Ningishnida. Ningishnidas
translated Sumerian name is lord of the good tree, and the serpent in Adams story resided
near the tree of good and evil. Both the serpent in Genesis and Ningishnida could walk and
speak, and revert to legless forms at a later point. If the serpents are indeed related, then there are
no more differing major plot points between the two myths to have the stories differ
significantly.
Like many religions, both Christianity and the Babylonian religion have a story about
divine retribution. Gods are often associated with nature, and natural disasters usually indicate
divine punishment. However, the similarity between Christianity, Babylonian religion, and most
other religions stop there. D. Haripriya, a professor at CMS College, states in his article, Echo
Criticism, in the International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and Studies that the
Babylonian flood story bears strong resemblance to the story of Noahs Ark from the Bible. In
both these instances, one can trace the correlation man has assumed between Gods and Nature.
(348) Unlike other religions, both the Babylonian flood story and Noahs story present a flood as
a form of divine punishment to all mankind, while a virtuous human is empowered by a divine
being to survive the punishment and become mankinds savior. Not surprisingly, both stories
have similar specific plot points as well. In Genesis, God flooded the world, and left Noah to
gather up all the animals, build a boat, and survive. In the Babylonian story of Utnapishtim, the

god Enlil also decides to flood the world and Ea tells Utnapishtim, a farmer, to do the same thing
Noah does: gather up animals, build a boat, and survive.
Unlike the stories of Adam and Adapa, the story of Utnapishtim and Noahs story have
more in common than just themes. Utnapishtims vessel was made from his reed house, whereas
Noahs ark was made from gopher wood. Although gopher wood is only mentioned once in the
Bible and has not been found to exist today, the Jewish Encyclopedia translates the Hebrew for
gopher wood as reed (Adler, 45). Furthermore, both vessels were sealed with pitch.
However, in Noahs story, the word for pitch was not commonly used in Hebrew, but was
closely related to the word used in Utnapishtims story. The vessels that they built also had
similar physical appearances: they both had four corners, multiple compartments, a single door,
and a window to look outside from. Square ships appear as artwork in Mesopotamian tablets
(Moyer, paragraph 10), but rectangular ships have not been mentioned in Biblical texts outside of
Genesis, making it likely that the similarity between the ships was not just a coincidence. After
the flood, Noah landed on Mt. Ararat, while Utnapishtim landed on Mt. Nisir. These two
mountains are relatively close, with Mt. Ararat being roughly three hundred miles north of Mt.
Nisir. The two stories had more than just plot points in common; some of their similarities were
archaeologically traceable. This provides stronger evidence to their relationship than similar plot
points, as archaeologically traceable similarities cannot be disputed.
Although the plots were extremely similar, the divine reactions to the flood were
completely different. The Biblical God believed that a purge was necessary before and after the
flood, while the Babylonian gods were filled with immediate regret after the flood started. The
god who warned Utnapishtim had to do so in a dream since he was the only one who believed
the flood was unjust before it had happened (Heidel 230). Since the Biblical God lived in heaven,

it had nothing to fear from the flood. However, the Babylonian gods resided on Earth and could
have been affected by the flood. According to the Kovacs translation of the myth, the gods were
frightened by the Flood, and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu. The gods were cowering
like dogs, crouching by the outer wall. Ishtar[goddess of fertility] shrieked like a woman in
childbirth(Kovacs, lines 120-121). As the Biblical God was omnipotent and righteous, the
massive toll of human life was completely justified. The Babylonian gods were more human,
so they were affected by the flood and felt that the loss of life was not justified. These differences
in the text do not necessarily mean that they are unrelated. In fact, this complete inversion of the
gods behavior is consistent with Mattfeld y de la Torres claim that the writer of the Torah
purposefully inverted parts of Babylonian mythology that did not directly apply to the Israelite
perception of God. Although the texts are different, they are consistently different in that aspect.
Therefore, the differing divine reactions can strengthen the relationship between the texts.
In conclusion, the recurring patterns in the similarities and differences of the two texts
highly suggest a relationship between them. There are too many similarities and the differences
for the texts to be coincidentally related. If the texts are related, their relationship is significant to
more than just religious scholars today. Christianity and Judaism, the first and twelfth most
popular religions in the world (Adherents.com), both claim that Moses wrote Genesis based on
the word of God. The relationship between Genesis and Babylonian myths shows that claim to
be false. This raises the question: how much of Christianity and Judaism can be conclusively
proven false? Sadly, there is no satisfactory answer, as that topic is still fiercely debated by
religious scholars to this day. However, proving the relationship between Genesis and
Babylonian myths is certainly a step towards answering that question.
Works Cited

Adler, Cyrus. Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906, Web.
Enns, Peter. Genesis 1 and a Babylonian Creation Story. BioLogos. BioLogos, 18 May 2010.
Web. 14 May 2016.
Haripriya, D. Echo Criticism. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and
Studies 1.6 (2014): 343-353. Web.
Heidel, Alexander. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. Chicago, Illinois:
University of Chicago Press, 1949. Print.
Kovacs, Maureen G. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Academy of Ancient Texts, 2001. Web. 14 May
2016.
Lambert, Wilfred G. Babylonian Creation Myths. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2013.
Print.
Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents. Adherents.com. n.p. 9 August
2007. Web. 31 May 2016.
Moyer, Ernest. Mesopotamian Boats. Egypt Origins. n.p. n.d. Web. 15 May 2016.
Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. New York: Scribner, 1910.
Print.
Sparks, Kenton L. Enma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism.
Journal of Biblical Literature 126.4 (2007): 625-648. Web.
Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre, Walter Reinhold. "Genesis' Genesis, The Hebrew Transformation
of the Ancient Near Eastern Myths and Their Motifs. Lutheran School of Theology n.p,
20 September 2002. Web. 26 April 2016.