Babylonian Creation of Man

Man was created to build sanctuaries for the gods, feed them and make sacrifices to them. Like the Sumerians, to be slaves and to wait on the gods.

While in the contradictory Babylonian myths:

In "When Anu had Created the Heavens", the last line before the tablet is broken away says:

The god who is doing the creating is of course different, but the reason for man's existence is the same. To be a servant.

"The Creation of Man" seems to be a mix of the Sumerian myth "Birth of Man" and the Enuma Elish. On the reason for man's creation, it states:

Man is to "bear the yoke" and "fear the gods". As with the other tales, man is not to rule creation, but to bear its burden.

We have a creation account from Ashur (Assyria) dating from about 800 BC. It seems to be a blend of the Sumerian and Babylonian. Some of the reasons why man was created in this myth:

Lastly, we have "Atrahasis", the Babylonian story of the flood. This myth seems to be a combination of Sumerian myths along with native (i.e. Semitic Babylonian) elements. It also includes a creation account, and the reason for man's creation:

Once again, man is to be nothing but a slave. Interesting that Ellil said the burden was too much for the Igigi (gods) but okay for man.

In every myth man is to be a servant of the gods. He was put on the earth for this specific purpose. Compare that with the Genesis account:

Man was to be the ruler of the earth. Not so with the Babylonian accounts. To the Babylonians every thing was created for the benefit of the gods. The gods not only ruled over heaven and the underworld, but also the earth, the animals, the plants, the rivers, the seas, the mountains, etc. Even the cities were created for the gods, for they were to house their sanctuaries. Every thing under creation had its own god. In the Enuma Elish Marduk appoints 300 gods to rule over the earth. Contrast this with Psalms 115:16: "The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth He has given to the sons of men." Quite a difference.

Now let's revue the accounts of the creation of man.

From the Enuma Elish:

Although man was created from the blood of a sacrificed god, Enuma Elish does not tell us how. It only states that it was an ingenious plan of Marduk's and that it was beyond human understanding. The third century BC priest Berossus said that man was rational and partook of divine understanding because he sprang from a god. While the Babylonians may have considered man "divine" because he was created from a god's blood, he did spring from an "evil" god and servitude was imposed on the very next line.

Now the contradictory Babylonian myths:

We have from the First Babylonian Dynasty (c.1894-1595) the "Creation of Man". It appears to be a blend of Sumerian and native Semitic elements:

We have the older Sumerian elements (mother goddess, clay, Enki/Ea instructing Nintu) along with the Semitic (blood of a slain god).

Next we have an account of man's creation from the city of Ashur dating from about 800 BC. This tablet record's the first mention in Mesopotamian literature of the two first humans and their names:

Ulligarra and Zalgarra are the Assyro-Babylonian Adam and Eve. Not only is this the only mention of the first pair's name, it is also only one of two times that the woman is mentioned in the various creation accounts. Man is again made from the blood of slain gods. This probably is a fractured amalgamation of different myths.

From a myth from Eridu:

Marduk and his wife are now the creators, but again we do not know how.

From "When Anu Created the heavens", we have one line that may refer to the creation of man:

This is a reference to the "Creation of Man" or the Sumerian tale.

From Atrahasis we have another, more detailed, account of the creation of man. It appears to have been taken from the fragmentary "Creation of Man", which itself was an amalgamation of Sumerian and Semetic elements:

According to this myth man was created from the flesh and blood of a god who had personality and a spirit and clay mixed together, along with the spittle of the gods. The mention of spirit and the spirit proclaiming "living man" seems to imply the belief that man has a soul, unlike animals, for this is never mentioned when animals are created. Atrahasis is also different in that seven pairs of humans are created. The creation of women is mentioned, which is only mentioned in one other tale. It appears that the clay creations were then put into womb goddesses for nine months, after which they give birth. Another interesting line is the mention of Mami using incantations (magic) to help the process along.

We have a couple of myths that seem to be about either the creation of man or the first man. I will include them here for reference and comment. From Nineveh we have a very fragmentary text called "The Creation of Living Creatures". While it is severally damaged, what remains is interesting:

The myth may be saying that Ea created two little ones, i.e. the first two people. After all man is a servant of the gods, they would be young, and they are called "more glorious than all other creatures". But on the other hand, the term "creatures of the city" may refer to man, so they may not be the first. Also the "which in all of my family" line may refer the a man's family, so the little ones may just be servants of Ea. Unfortunately we may never know since a more complete version has yet to be found.

Lastly we have the famous "Adapa" myth, the so-called Babylonian Adam. Adapa was the servant of Ea/Enki in his temple in Eridu. The myth comes from numerous tablets, the oldest dating from the fourteenth century BC.

Why Adapa may be the Babylonian Adam:

• Adapa is from Eridu, the first city according to Sumerian tradition and near the traditional site of the garden of Eden.
• He is given wisdom but not eternal life. A possible allusion to the tree of knowledge and the tree of life in Eden.
• The tale takes place in the distant past-"at that time, in those years".
• One translation says that Adapa was "the model of mankind" and "the seed of mankind".

Why Adapa may not be the Babylonian Adam:

• "The leader of mankind" implies that there are already men around.
• "The seed of mankind" may well mean the same thing as "the human offspring", i.e. merely that he was human.
• The myth also mentions other humans, such as bakers in Ea's temple.

It seems to me that Adapa is not Adam. He was either created by Ea or elevated to be a leader among men. Man was already created.

Comparisons:

• Enuma Elish, Creation of Man, the myth from Ashur and Atrahasis all use the blood and flesh of a slain god. Genesis does not.
• Creation of Man, the myth from Ashur and Atrahasis do use clay, like Genesis, but it is mixed with the blood. Genesis is different.
• Enuma Elish uses the blood of an evil god. The others require "human" sacrifice, i.e. the murdering of a god or gods. There is no evil in the creation of man in Genesis.
• In most of the myths the god who conceives of the plan and the actual creator are different. In Genesis they are one and the same.
• The various myths actually have different creators in them. The Babylonians could not agree on who created them. Genesis does not have this problem.
• All of the myths require at least two gods, and often more, to create man. The God of the Bible required no help.
• Out of all the myths, the creation of woman is mentioned in only two: the myth from Ashur and Atrahasis. However, her creation is mentioned in the same breath as that of man's. She was created at the same time. Genesis alone has the creation of woman as seperate.
• The gods used magic to help in the creation of man in at least one myth. God did not.
• Genesis says that God breathed into him the breath of life. No Babylonian myth has this.
• The idea of taking part of a man to create another, as in the creation of Eve, is unique.

So the only similarity between Genesis and the various myths is the use of clay. When you look at myths such as Enuma Elish and Atrahasis how can anyone say that the Hebrew's borrowed from them? Gensis is original and unique.