Literary Borrowing, Shared Tradition, or Polemic?

 

When readers notice similarities between the Old Testament and older Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Canaanite texts, the first reaction is often to ask, “Did the Bible copy this?”

That question is understandable, but it can be too narrow. Ancient writers did not always create stories from scratch, and they did not always borrow in a simple, word-for-word way. They often worked with ideas, themes and literary patterns that had been circulating for generations.

There are at least three useful ways to understand these similarities: literary borrowing, shared tradition and polemic.

Literary Borrowing

Literary borrowing happens when a writer seems to know a particular earlier text and adapts it for a new audience.

This is more than two stories having a similar theme. It usually involves a close sequence of ideas, matching images, unusual wording, similar structure or a strong historical connection between the two cultures. The more specific the similarities are, the stronger the case for borrowing.

A good example is the relationship between parts of Proverbs and the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope. Both texts advise readers to avoid greed, respect boundaries, treat the poor fairly, stay away from hot-tempered people and listen carefully to wisdom. The order of ideas in some sections is also very similar.

Most scholars agree that the connection is too close to dismiss as coincidence, although they still debate exactly how the influence happened. The author of Proverbs may have known an Egyptian wisdom text directly, or may have inherited it through an intermediate scribal tradition. Either way, the biblical writer did not merely repeat the Egyptian material. He placed it within an Israelite religious framework, especially the belief that wisdom begins with reverence for God.

Literary borrowing, therefore, does not necessarily mean intellectual laziness or lack of originality. Ancient writers often borrowed because they believed a tradition was valuable. Their creativity lay in how they revised, reorganised and reinterpreted it.

Shared Tradition

Shared tradition happens when different cultures preserve similar stories, symbols or motifs because they belong to a wider cultural environment.

In the ancient world, people travelled constantly. Traders crossed borders. Armies occupied foreign lands. Royal courts exchanged letters. Captives were relocated by empires. Priests, scribes and officials moved between cities. Through these contacts, stories could spread across languages and regions over many centuries.

Sometimes, however, there is no need to prove that one writer directly read another writer’s text. A story may have existed in oral form long before it was written down. Different communities may have inherited different versions of the same old tradition.

Flood stories are a good example. Mesopotamian texts such as the stories of Ziusudra, Atrahasis and Utnapishtim contain a great flood, a chosen survivor, divine warning, a boat, animals and survival after disaster. Genesis shares many of these features in the story of Noah.

The similarities are important, but the exact relationship remains debated. Genesis may depend on a particular Babylonian text, or it may belong to a much older and wider flood tradition known across Mesopotamia and the Levant.

Shared tradition is especially useful when there are broad similarities but no clear evidence of direct textual contact. It allows us to recognise cultural connections without forcing every resemblance into a copying argument.

Polemic

Polemic happens when a writer uses familiar ideas but changes them in order to challenge, correct or reject the beliefs associated with them.

This is one of the most interesting possibilities when reading the Old Testament. Biblical writers may have expected their audiences to recognise stories, symbols or religious claims from surrounding cultures. Instead of repeating those ideas, they may have turned them upside down.

The clearest example is Genesis 1 when compared with Babylonian creation traditions such as the Enuma Elish.

In the Enuma Elish, creation begins with conflict among the gods. The storm god Marduk fights and defeats Tiamat, a powerful sea goddess associated with primordial waters and chaos. He then splits her body and uses it to form the heavens and the earth. Human beings are created later to carry out work for the gods.

Genesis 1 also begins with water and darkness. The earth is described as unformed and empty, while the deep covers the surface. God then brings order by separating light from darkness, waters above from waters below, land from sea and living creatures from their environments.

At first glance, the similarities are obvious. Both texts involve primordial waters, the ordering of the cosmos and the creation of human beings. Both also move from chaos toward a structured and habitable world.

But Genesis changes the story in major ways.

There is no battle between gods. The waters are not divine beings or enemies. God does not need weapons, violence or help from other deities. He simply speaks, and creation takes shape.

There is also no divine family drama, no rivalry between gods, no sexual conflict and no struggle for supremacy. In Genesis, God is already supreme before creation begins. Nothing challenges him.

The creation of humanity is also very different. In the Babylonian story, humans are created mainly to relieve the gods of physical labour. In Genesis, humans are created in the image of God and are given responsibility to care for and govern the earth. Their role is still connected to work, but it is framed in terms of dignity, responsibility and relationship with God.

This is why many scholars believe Genesis 1 may be doing more than borrowing Babylonian themes. It may be making a theological argument.

The message may be something like this: the world is not the result of conflict among many gods. Chaos is not a divine rival. Human beings are not slaves created to feed the gods. There is one God, and the world is ordered, purposeful and good.

That does not mean every detail of Genesis can be traced directly to Babylonian myth. The evidence does not allow that level of certainty. But the differences are so deliberate that Genesis can reasonably be read as a response to the religious ideas of its wider world.