Creation as Divine Might
The first Biblical model of creation Mark Smith explores in The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 [1] is creation as divine might, which looks at how creation emerges as a result of God’s victory of cosmic enemies. Smith notes that the best example of this model of creation is found in Psa 74:12-17 [2]
Yet God my King is from of old, working salvation in the earth.You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.You cut openings for springs and torrents; you dried up ever-flowing streams.Yours is the day, yours also the night; you established the luminaries and the sun.You have fixed all the bounds of the earth; you made summer and winter.
Also of relevance is the narrative in Psa 89:8-13
O LORD God of hosts, who is as mighty as you, O LORD? Your faithfulness surrounds you.You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them.You crushed Rahab like a carcass; you scattered your enemies with your mighty arm.The heavens are yours, the earth also is yours; the world and all that is in it—you have founded them.The north and the south—you created them; Tabor and Hermon joyously praise your name.
You have a mighty arm; strong is your hand, high your right hand.
A missing beginning in Gen 1? Further differences between the creation narratives
Two things are readily apparent when we look at these creation narratives. The first is that these narratives being with God subduing a violent ocean and destroying sea-creatures such as dragons, Leviathan, and Rahab. This opening is conspicuous by its absence in the two creation narratives in Genesis, and definitely requires an explanation. The fundamentalist belief that there is only one creation narrative in the Bible, already under considerable strain from the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 in length, duration and order of creation events is stretched to breaking point by the need to explain the profound difference in opening between the Genesis and Psalms creation narratives.
The second is that as Smith notes, creation “in this context hardly uses verbs of making, and it does so only at the very end, in verse 17. Instead, the focus falls on God's power.” [3] Differences such as this are hardly trivial as they indicate the main theological significance the writer intended to convey in the creation narrative. Differences such as these are of far more significance than the acknowledged differences in creation order, length, and duration as seen in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Smith also notes [4] that this motif of divine power over the sea and its inhabitants such as the mysterious Rahab is widespread in the Old Testament:
Job 9:8 “who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the Sea”Job 26:12-13 “ By his power he stilled the Sea; by his understanding he struck down Rahab. By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent.”Job 38:8-11 “Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb?— when I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors, and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stopped’?Psa 104:6-9 “You cover it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke they flee; at the sound of your thunder they take to flight. They rose up to the mountains, ran down to the valleys to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.”Jer 31:35 “Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— the Lord of hosts is his name:”
The pervasiveness of this motif of creation being associated with divine mastery of a turbulent ocean and destruction of sea-dwelling entities not only shows that the model of creation by divine power was the best-known model in ancient Israel, but also quite likely the oldest. Understanding both why these two creation narratives in Psalms begin with YHWH subduing the seas and destroying mysterious sea creatures, and the pervasiveness of this motif in the Bible requires identifying who these mysterious sea creatures were.
Who were the cosmic sea monsters?
Critical to understanding this conflict and destruction motif is recognising that the entities being destroyed are mythological or cosmic in their scope. This should not be surprising given that Job 41:18-21 refers to Leviathan as a beast that is clearly mythological:
Its sneezes flash forth light, and its eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn.From its mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap out.Out of its nostrils comes smoke, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes.Its breath kindles coals, and a flame comes out of its mouth.
Leviathan is the Hebrew version of a mythological monster associated with the sea, well known in ancient Near Eastern mythology. John Day notes that Leviathan is “[t]he name of a mythological sea serpent or dragon, personifying the chaos waters, mentioned in the Ugaritic texts, in the OT, and in later Jewish literature. Etymologically the name means “twisting one,” as befits a serpent.” [5]
In ancient Near Eastern texts, it is significant that the deities there also smite Leviathan. Day notes how:
Mot alludes to Baal’s defeat of Lı̄tān as follows, “Because you smote Lı̄tān the twisting serpent, (and) made an end of the crooked serpent, the tyrant with seven heads, the skies will become hot (and) will shine.” In the Baal epic we also find the goddess Anat (Baal’s consort) claiming to have defeated Lı̄tān (though he is not mentioned by name), amongst other mythological creatures: “Surely I lifted up the dragon, I … [and] smote the crooked serpent, the tyrant with the seven heads” (KTU 1.3.III.40–42 = CTA 3.III.D.37–39). This event seems to be described briefly in KTU 1.83.3–10 (= UT 1003.3–10) and KTU 1.82.1–3 (= UT 1001.1–3), the former passage ascribing the defeat of the dragon to Anat and the latter to Baal. [6]
The word dragon in Psa 74:12 is the Hebrew tannin, which apart from referring to snakes (Ex 7:9,10,12; Deut 32:33; Psa 91:13) possibly crocodiles (Exek 29:3; Exek 32:2 [7]) and possible generic sea-creatures (Gen 1:21 [8]) refers to entities that resist classification as aquatic creatures known to humans:
Job 7:12 “Am I the Sea, or the Dragon, that you set a guard over me?Psa 74:13 “You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.”Isa 27:1 “On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.”Isa 51:9 “Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon?Jer 51:34 “King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon has devoured me, he has crushed me; he has made me an empty vessel, he has swallowed me like a monster”Ps 148:7 “Praise the LORD from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps”
Turning to the ancient Near Eastern literature, we find that tannin likewise features in its mythology. G.C. Heier notes:
“tnn is found eight times in the Ugaritic corpus (R. E. Whitaker, A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature [Cambridge 1972] 619). Twice it is apparently part of a personal name (KTU 4.35:13 and 4.103:42). The other occurrences are in mythological texts. Three link Tunnanu with the great sea monster(s) defeated by →Anat (KTU 1.3 iii:40 and 1.83:8) or, apparently, →Baal (KTU 1.82:1), while the remaining three are in fragmentary contexts (KTU 1.16 v:31, 32, where tnn is apparently mentioned in connection with something created by →El to assist the ailing King Keret) or subject to disputed interpretation (KTU 1.6 vi:51, where J. C. L. Gibson would read “In the sea are Arsh and the dragon” [Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh 1977) 81], while K. Aartun has “On the day of the kindling and the ascension of the smoke” [UF 17 (1986) 38–39]). As for the monster’s appearance, KTU 1.83:8 may suggest that Tunnanu had a double tail, while the syllabary text indicates an equation with the ideogram for “snake” (muš = ṣēru).”[9]
Unlike Leviathan and Tannin, no extra-Biblical reference to date for Rahab has been found, but given both the association of Rahab with Leviathan and Tannin, two mythological beasts with clear ancient Near Eastern parallels, there is no doubt that it too has a mythological referent. As K. Spronk points out:
“The reference to Rahab in the OT should be read against the background of ancient Near Eastern mythology describing creation as based on victory over the powers of chaos, viz. the primordial oceans. These powers are represented as monsters. The best known example is the Babylonian myth Enūma eliš describing →Marduk’s creation of the kosmos by defeating the chaos monster Tiamat with her helpers. In the Ugaritic myth of →Baal there are references to a primordial battle between Baal or his consort Anat against the god of the Sea Yam and other chaos monsters (KTU2 1.2 iv; 1.3 iii; 1.5 i). The same myth tells us that this battle did not stop with the creation of the world: the powers of chaos remain a threat which has to be confronted again and again. A ritual text (KTU2 1.82) describes how these forces can afflict human life and how they can be exorcized.” [10]
“In the OT texts relating Rahab to the sea its original character of chaos monster is preserved. They also point to a conception of a battle between →Yahweh and →chaos preceding the creation of →heaven and →earth. Job 26 describes the steadfast order of the universe preserved by God after having struck down Rahab (cf. also Ps 89:7–13). Job 9:13 mentions Rahab’s helpers. This has a parallel in the army of monsters siding with Tiamat according to Enūma eliš I 125ff and also in ‘the Big Ones’, monsters supporting the sea god Yam, the adversary of Baal and Anat in KTU2 1.3 iii:38ff. the ritual text KTU2 1.109:21 mentions helper-gods among a number of gods residing in the netherworld (TUAT II/3, 317). [11]
Rahab in the singular occurs six times in the Bible, of which four refer to the motif of conflict:
Job 9:13 “God will not turn back his anger; the helpers of Rahab bowed beneath him.”Job 26:12 “By his power he stilled the Sea; by his understanding he struck down Rahab.”Psa 89:10 “You crushed Rahab like a carcass; you scattered your enemies with your mighty arm.”Isa 51:9 “Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD! Awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago! Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon?
The other two have a geopolitical referent, with Psa 87:4 likely referring to Egypt:
Psa 87:4 “Among those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon; Philistia too, and Tyre, with Ethiopia— “This one was born there,” they say.Isa 30:7 “For Egypt’s help is worthless and empty, therefore I have called her, “Rahab who sits still.”
The Egyptian reference arguably has the earlier creation via power / conflict with divine enemies motif in its background. Isaiah 59:10 clearly alludes to the deliverance from Egypt, “was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep; who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to cross over?” suggesting that the author was linking the deliverance of a new nation out of bondage with the creation narratives in which taming the ocean and smiting the sea-monsters preceded the creation of the universe. The fact the author of Ezekiel would compare Pharaoh with the Tannin-dragon (suggesting this equation was well-known in ancient Israel)
Ezek 29:3 “I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon sprawling in the midst of its channels”Ezek 32:2 “You consider yourself a lion among the nations, but you are like a dragon in the seas”
underlines both the parallel between creation and the Exodus deliverance, and the cosmic significance of the Rahab name for Egypt.
The Hebrew word for sea – yam – also has cosmological parallels in the ancient Near Eastern literature as Yam is a sea god who is a representation of chaos as well as the enemy of Baal. F Stoltz notes:
In mythical contexts (KTU 1.1–6), the sea is represented by the anthropomorphically shaped Yam, the enemy of →Baal. Obviously Yam is not only the deity of the sea, but also of the rivers (he is often called zbl ym ṯpṭ nhr, ‘prince Sea, ruler River’). In this context, the rivers are to be construed as destructive powers. Yam is closely connected with Il (‘son of Il, beloved of Il’); but, whereas Il represents the cosmic aspect of the primeval water, Yam reflects its chaotic aspect…Various monsters occur together with Yam (and were possibly sometimes identified with him): Lotan (→Leviathan), a seven-headed serpent; Tunnanu (→Tannin); Arishu and ʿAtiqu. The conflict between Yam and Baal is complex. A crucial question is which of the two should be allowed to have a ‘house’. This might reflect a historical conflation of the cults of two different gods (Baal seems to be a newcomer in Ugarit), with Yam representing the ousted deity. Furthermore, Yam represents the power of chaos which appears in the sea and the rivers. [12]
Keeping this this ancient Near Eastern background in mind helps place the battle between YHWH and the Sea in its original context:
In cultic literature, the cosmogony is clearly depicted as a fight between →Yahweh and the personified power of the sea…It is difficult to know whether at an early time the cosmological battle was conveyed in a tale (a myth in a restricted sense of the word) or whether it was even enacted in a cultic drama. In the tradition as preserved, the battle concept is only a complex of mythological elements within the context of hymns, prayers, etc. The most detailed accounts of the fight can be found in Ps 74:13–14; Ps 89:10; Ps 18:16; Nah 1:4). Yahweh ‘rebukes’ the sea (possibly an anthropomorphic interpretation of the thunder emanating from the weather god); he smites the heads of the enemy; he delimits the realm of the sea or makes the water dry.) [13]
What we can clearly see here is that the references in the Psalms creation narratives to YHWH taming the sea and destroying Rahab, Tannin, and Leviathan before creating the earth are participating in an ancient Near Eastern motif of the deity smiting the Sea, the force of chaos and the cosmological enemies that dwell in it before creating the universe.
A shared wordview rather than copying
One of the best-known examples of an ancient Near Eastern story that employs this motif is Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth. In this story, the goddess Tiamat (identified with the cosmic waters) seeks to avenge the murder of her consort Apsu by the younger gods. Fearing Tiamat, the younger gods meet and choose the warrior-god Marduk as their champion. Marduk eventually prevails against Tiamat, carves her body into two pieces from which he makes the universe. The centre of the newly-created world becomes his palace and temple on Earth.
Claims that the Israelite creation narrative was merely a demythologised version of Enuma Elish can be readily dismissed, if only because there are many creation narratives, and it is hard to imagine why the various authors of those creation narratives in Genesis and the Wisdom Literature changed an original source text to arrive at their differing versions. Enuma Elish was written quite likely in the late 2nd millennium BCE to legitimate the promotion of Marduk to the position of supreme deity by Nebuchadnezzar I. [14] While this is early enough to theoretically influence the creation texts in the Old Testament, one would plausibly need to show how Enuma Elish would reach ancient Hebrew scribes and their motivation for modifying that text into the multiplicity of creation texts and references that we see in the Old Testament. It is far more likely that all these creation texts in the ancient Near East drew on similar motifs, and that we have national variations on the same underlying motifs of conflict by the deity with the ocean (a primal force of chaos), and the mythological sea-monsters dwelling in them, followed by creation.
Strengthening this assumption is the fact that as Smith points out [15], similar use of the cosmic conflict motif is seen in texts in the Levantine world (Mari, Ugarit, Egyptian Canaan). In particular, in the Levantine world, it was the storm-god (Baal being the classic example here) who was promoted as the one who battled Sea and Death. A writer to Zimri-Lim, a king of the ancient Semitic city-state of Mari located in eastern modern Syria notes how he “I brought you back to the throne of your father and I handed you the weapons with which I battled Sea” The Amarna Letters, a collection of correspondence dating from the 14th century BCE between the Egyptian vassal-kings of Canaan and Egypt compare Pharaoh with “Baal in the Heavens”. The kings of the Ugarit, a Canaanite state located in what is now north-west Syria sponsored the Baal Cycle, with Baal’s enemies (Sea, Death, Leviathan) mirrored those of the king.
Smith notes that another aspect of these ancient Near Eastern creation myths is that apart from praising and exalting the deity who was able to vanquish Sea and its resident monsters and create the universe, they also served to advance the status of the king who patronised the deity:
“On these two levels, the god and the king mirror one another in status and power, and both face hostile enemies who threaten the kingdom.”[16]
This comparison of the king with his patron deity went well beyond a figure of speech, but deliberately linked the power of the king with the power of the god.
We’ve seen that the creation texts in the Old Testament draw on the basic motif of the deity vanquishing Sea and the Sea Monsters then creating the universe. Specifically, the conflict between storm god and the primal enemies also became part of the cosmological worldview that shaped Israel. Smith notes that
The political use made of the conflict between storm god and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal's cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death, and Tanninim (see Ps. 74:13-14; Job 3:8, 26:12-13, 41:1; Is. 25:8, 27:1). Baal's home on Mount Saphon is identified with Zion in Psalm 48:3. God's titles, "Rider in the heavens" and "Rider of the Steppe" (for example, Ps. 68.4) are also echoes of Baal's own title, "Rider of the Clouds.”[17]
Given the intense rivalry between Baal and YHWH that appears in the OT, this can also been seen to be a polemic stab at Baal, where YHWH is seen to be the Rider of the Clouds and the true defeater of the Sea and the sea monsters.
Creation through Divine Might and a Royal Theology
Also passing into the theological language of Israel were the ANE parallels between human and divine rulers. Smith cites Psalm 89 as an example of an Israelite version of this ‘royal theology.’ [18] Verses 5-18 outline God’s victorious power, with an explicit allusion to creation and the destruction of cosmic enemies in verse 10-13:
You crushed Rahab like a carcass; you scattered your enemies with your mighty arm.The heavens are yours, the earth also is yours; the world and all that is in it—you have founded them. The north and the south—you created them; Tabor and Hermon joyously praise your name. You have a mighty arm; strong is your hand, high your right hand.
while verses 19-37 outline the favour extended to the king, including an assurance that human enemies of the king will be crushed just like the divine enemies of the deity as verses 22-23 state:
The enemy shall not outwit him, the wicked shall not humble him. I will crush his foes before him and strike down those who hate him.
A little further, in verse 25 God invests the king with power over the sea and rivers (the cosmological nature of Sea and River is clearly apparent given the earlier references in this Psalm to the destruction of the cosmic enemy Rahab), which shows God’s power over his cosmic enemies is likewise extended to the king. As with the examples seen in extra-Biblical literature, this association of YHWH with his anointed was not just a mere figure of speech, but was clearly a linking of the power of YHWH with the king. Sea and River, the ancient enemies of YHWH were also the enemies of the king who likewise had the mastery of them.
Smith notes that this mirroring of divine and earthly enemies not only is found in other OT texts but extends this cosmic imagery to describe not just regal enemies, but enemies of the righteous, [19] with the wicked compared with a personified underworld, complete with al all-devouring mouth, an image which likewise is part of the cultural inheritance Israel acquired from the ANE. This image echoes Mot, the insatiable god of death of Ugaritic myth that has a mouth extending from Heaven to Earth:
“The main characteristic of Mot is that he is a voracious consumer of gods and men. He has an enormous mouth and an appetite to match. His gullet and appetite are frequently mentioned. At one point he defends himself against Anat thus: “My appetite lacked humans, my appetite lacked the multitudes of the earth” (KTU 1.6 ii:17–19). KTU 1.5 ii:2–4 pictures his mouth: “A lip to the earth, a lip to the heavens, … a tongue to the stars! Baal must enter his stomach, Go down into his mouth.” It is dangerous to get too near to him, “lest he make you like a lamb in his mouth, and like a kid you be crushed in the crushing of his jaws” (KTU 1.4 viii:17–20).” [20]
Passages which demonstrate the extension of to enemies of the righteous as well as those of the kign, as well as employing the motif of all-devouring Death common to the Levantine world include:
Ps 124:2-3 “If it had not been the LORD who was on our side, when our enemies attacked us, then they would have swallowed us up alive, when their anger was kindled against us”.Hab 2:5 “[The arrogant] open their throats wide as Sheol; like Death they never have enough.Prov 1:12 “like Sheol let us swallow them alive and whole, like those who go down to the Pit”Isa 9:20 “They gorged on the right, but still were hungry, and they devoured on the left, but were not satisfied; they devoured the flesh of their own kindred.”Pss 69:15 “Do not let the flood sweep over me, or the deep swallow me up, or the Pit close its mouth over me.
Surviving the fall of the Monarchy - Divine Power, Apocalypse and the New Creation
The model of creation through divine power not only managed to survive the Babylonian destruction of the monarchy, but was transformed, with the idea of divine conflict and destruction of enemies in the past being projected into the future. [21] Two passages highlight this transformation of an ancient motif lying behind the model of creation via divine power:
Isa 27:1 “On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.Isa 25:6-8 “On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained clear. And he will destroy on this mountain the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the sheet that is spread over all nations; he will swallow up death forever. Then the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces, and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken.
Given the transformation of this divine conflict motif to a future context, it is not surprising to see apocalyptic texts such as Daniel and Revelation make use of the idea of cosmic enemies from the sea threatening and ultimately being destroyed by God
Dan 7:2-3 “I, Daniel, saw in my vision by night the four winds of heaven stirring up the great sea, and four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one anotherRev 19:20-21 “And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed in its presence the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were killed by the sword of the rider on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.”
The ancient motif of a warrior-creator deity defeating his cosmic enemies (including Sea), building a palace-temple and entering into his rest extends to the end of the Bible as Rev 21:1-4 indicates. Highlighted words show the presence of this motif:
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them as their God; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away.”
As Smith notes, “The political link between these beasts and world empires was not a late invention. It echoed the old mirroring of divine and humm1 kings and the cosmic and human enemies. Throughout Israel's monarchy and even over the centuries of domination by several political empires, the model of divine power endured. Divine power not only expressed the political fortunes of Israel's monarchy; it also expressed hope through Israel's times of trouble and powerlessness”[22]
Conclusion
The first model of creation through divine power after a triumph over enemies is arguably the oldest, given that it draws on ancient motifs spreads throughout the ancient Near East. The power of this model lies not just in the fact that it was so readily adapted by the ancient Hebrews as seen not just in how they repurposed this motif as seen in the creation narratives in Psalms but in its use to construct a royal theology. Finally, the idea of creation through divine power and subsequent creation showed its incredible utility in helping create an apocalyptic worldview where the ancient triumph over cosmic enemies was projected into the future with a new creation following after the final destruction of the enemies of YHWH.
References
1. Mark Smith The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (2010: Fortress Press), p17
2. Unless otherwise specified, all quotations are from the NRSV
3. ibid, p 17
4. ibid, p 18
5. John Day, “Leviathan,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 295.
6. Ibid, p 295
7. Though the context here presupposes an entity with more gravitas than a mere Nile crocodile
8. Given the reference to mythological beasts both in the Psalms creation narratives and elsewhere in the OT, it is likely that this is a trace reference to this earlier tradition which the priestly author, or the sources from which he drew had demythologised
9. G. C. Heider, “Tannin,” ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 835.
10. K. Spronk, “Rahab,” ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 684–685.
11. Ibid p 685.
12. F. Stolz, “Sea,” ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 739.
13. F. Stolz, “Sea,” ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 740.
14. W. G. Lambert, “Enuma Elish,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 527.
15. Smith, op cit, p 19
16. ibid, p 19
17. ibid, p 20
18. ibid, p 20-21
19. ibid, p 21
20. J. F. Healey, “Mot,” ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 599.
21. Smith, op cit. p 21-23
22. ibid, p 22-23
