The number one myth that hinders Christianity isn’t the creation account, or the Garden of Eden, or the fact that most Christians don’t consider them myths. The number one myth is that in order for Christianity to be true it must be an original concept. It must be a unique revelation of the truth by God.
The syllogism that many believers buy into is that 1) truth is contained in primary, or original, concepts, and that 2) all truth comes from God and therefore 3) God’s revelations of truth to his people must be unique from the world around them.
Belief like this makes Christianity a brittle faith. One need only to find a truth not revealed in the Bible—or one that runs counter to the Bible’s claims, or one that was written before the Bible was written—and one has disproved God.
Defensive = Offensive
Taking stock in this type of logic morphs Christianity from a progressive ideal into a defensive dogma. If we continue to believe this notion then Christianity will always be at a great disadvantage when faced with historical facts, science and everyday reality.
Since the discovery of the Enuma Elis, the Gilgamesh Epic, the Ugarit, the Code of Hamurabi, and many other ancient documents that appear to predate the Torah, along with the progress science has made over the last century in dating artifacts and reconstructing the origins of life, we believers are starting to realize we need to face a new truth:
We have pagan roots and they are starting to show.
But, I don’t think that makes what we believe in any less true or authentic.
The proof is in the primordial pudding
To put it simply, I think that the creation account in Genesis is a derivative of the Babylonian and Sumerian accounts. The Jewish nation emerged from these people groups and naturally they took these stories with them and evolved them as they became their own culture.
The establishment of a culture is a daunting task. It involves establishing a world view, establishing a system for tracking and relating important events throughout time, establishing a way to explain natural and unnatural phenomena, and asserting a good reason for that culture’s primacy in the world. All with the good faith that it is true.
This is why I think many cultures share the same types of creation myths. They are all seeking the truth and therefore are all borrowing what is perceived to be true from one another. They are claiming another culture’s truth as their own, and seeking to improve and refine the understanding of that truth to make better sense of the world around them.
In the (borrowed) beginning…
Gen. 1:1-2: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
Reading this today we probably conjure up the image of the white-haired, bearded, father-figure-like-God of Michelangelo’s imagination floating around in space and time with a creative sparkle in his eye. But to the original audience this story it already had a familiar imagery associated with it. Sumerian and Babylonian imagery.
The first name for God used in the Bible is “Elohim” which is a Babylonian word for the pantheon of gods under El, the chief, father, creator god. Sure, the author of Genesis is treating it as a singular name, but he is still borrowing the name, or more likely the concept.
This would be the equivalent of me writing the first verse today as, “in the beginning the IRS created…” or, “in the beginning Sponge Bob created…” or, “in the beginning Microsoft created…” These are known identities, known concepts in our culture. I may be looking to redefine them by my usage, but they are by no means original.
The borrowing from Sumerian myths and culture continues from there:
- The separation of the waters in verse 6 matches the ancient world view that the world was made up of three disks. The ground, or earth was one disk, then beneath the earth was a disk of water (the deep), and up in the sky was a disk of water, as well (the sky).
- A supreme god overcoming chaos as the first act of creation (in Babylonian El conquering Tiamat, the dragon, in Hebrew Elohim hovering over Tehom, the deep).
- The creation of man by combining dirt and divinity (in Genesis God breaths his spirit into Adam who is formed out of dust, in Babylonian culture Ea kills Kingu and mixes his blood with the dirt to make mankind).
There are a dozen points of overlap in these culture’s creation myths, just as there are a dozen points of divergence. But how much was borrowed isn’t nearly as important as why.
Creation as an evolving story
The seven days of creation isn’t intended to explain how fast God created the world, it is meant to explain why the world works in seven day cycles. This isn’t science, it’s logic. It’s a rationalization for the natural cycles of time. The Babylonians associated their days of the week to the planets, the Romans and Greeks to the gods, the Jews to the acts of God.
Mankind being formed from the dust of the ground just isn’t true (we share more similar material connection to vegetables than minerals), but mankind being a combination of the elements of this world and the divine is.
Do we need to defend the creation account in Genesis as science? No. It isn’t science. (The invention of day and night three days before the creation of the sun and moon? Really?).
Do we need to justify it as original or as 100% truth? No. It isn’t. It is a borrowed story that was gleaned from the cultures around it and improved upon.
The creation account in Genesis is a myth meant to explain a world view, a way to frame the story mankind is in.
And to that end, it is a great story because it addresses man’s fundamental quest. Not for power, food or sustenance, or even eternal life (as the Gilgamesh epic aspires to). No, Genesis relates man’s quest to reconnect with God.
The truth behind the truth
We’d all like to think our belief system came fully revealed and neatly packaged starting in chapter one of Genesis. In reality, Noah and Abraham probably wouldn’t have seen eye to eye on their belief; and Abraham probably wouldn’t have recognized Moses’ beliefs as his own; and Moses wouldn’t have looked on Paul’s belief as the exact same as his; and Paul would have a hard time figuring out what the heck the 21st century American evangelical church was up to at times.
Our perception and understanding of truth evolves over time. As we grasp one part of it, another comes to light. We take what we know from the culture we’re in and apply what we have experienced and know of God and mix the two. When a thread of truth is found, the next generation latches on to that and improves it.
All of us Christians need to get over the notion that what we believe in is unique and original. What we believe is true. And truth can, has, and will continue to be discovered by many other people independent of God’s direct revelation.
God’s revelation is no myth
As I see it, God never set out to reveal truth, per se, his aim has always been to reveal himself. Look at the beginnings of our faith. Abraham was met by God. Moses was met by God. Judges and kings of Israel were confronted by God through prophets and dreams. Jesus was God in the flesh.
Our faith isn’t about knowing all the truths of the world—like how amino acids work, and whether or not Jupiter’s orbit has an effect on our emotional state, or how life began—it is about knowing the Creator and what he thinks about how the world is run and how much he likes you.
Truth in the Bible isn’t meant to be scientific fact, it is meant to reflect the true nature of God’s efforts to have a relationship with mankind.
How do I know this is true? I have a relationship with God. I have met him. He has met me. And this makes the world make sense.
God wants to have a relationship with you. This is the structure of the world. This is the truth behind the creation story.
