The Superiority of the Genesis Record

A. R. Millard, in the “Tyndale Biblical Archaeology Lecture for 1966, concludes his survey on this new Babylonian Genesis story as follows:

All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion which cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing. . . . Careful comparison of ancient texts and literary methods is the only way to the understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. Discovery of new material requires reassessment of former conclusions; so the Epic of Atrahasis adds to knowledge of parallel Babylonian traditions, and of their literary form. All speculation apart, it underlines the uniqueness of the Hebrew primaeval history in the form in which it now exists.

The more we study these ancient records the more we are impressed with the superiority of the magnificent presentations of Scripture.

We have looked at the very great differences between Babylonian accounts of creation and that found in the Bible. The similarities do suggest a common source — clay is associated with the creation of man, possibly the fact of seven tablets has some relationship to the seven days of creation in the Bible, especially as the creation of man appears on the sixth of the Babylonian tablets and man is created on the sixth day in the Bible story. But on purely academic grounds, if we are to choose an original from these two old documents the Bible record will be selected. It does not allow for polytheism or crude mythology or grotesque amoral activity, as in the Babylonian epic, and it can be strongly argued that the simple yet magnificent Bible record uniquely bears the spiritual imprint of the holy God.

The comment of Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool is relevant as a conclusion at this point:

The common assumption that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplified version of the Babylonian legend (applied also to the Flood stories) is fallacious on methodological grounds. In the Ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa. In the Ancient Orient, legends were not simplified or turned into pseudo-history (historicized) as has been assumed for early Genesis.¹

And so George Smith’s “Chaldean Account of Genesis” did not finally destroy the Bible after all. “That Incredible Book” has again shown itself capable of withstanding attack and turning defence into attack. The Chaldean records have been revealed at their true worth —grotesque distortions which are clearly inferior to the records of Genesis.