Canaanite mythology in Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Marsh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Daniel_Marsh

Guest
why is the prescence of canaanite mythology in the bible troublesome for bible believers or anti-catholics?

For example,

“Baal is described as the “rider on the clouds” in KTU 1.3 II 40. Interestingly enough, this description is also used of Yahweh in Psalm 68:5”

theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
 
Daniel Marsh:
why is the prescence of canaanite mythology in the bible troublesome for bible believers or anti-catholics?

For example,

“Baal is described as the “rider on the clouds” in KTU 1.3 II 40. Interestingly enough, this description is also used of Yahweh in Psalm 68:5”

theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
Click to expand...

I believe the Bible - and the presence of all that mythology helps to make the Bible far more interesting, and far more truly human, than the notion that the Bible is a parable-free, mythology-free, saga-free, rhetoric-free zone. Why should the Biblical texts be unique in giving the reader a dull, unhuman, body of texts ? Israel’s neighbours had myths - why should these be wholly undetectable in the Bible ?​

Elijah does what Baal does - which is presumably why he disappears in a chariot in 2 Kings 2: as so often, he beats Baal at his own game 🙂

IMO, the presence of these elements is theologically important, because it helps to show that what was alien to Israel’s faith in JHWH could be used to serve that faith. ##
 
I have no problem with canaanite mythology being there, it demonstrates that the bible was written within a cultural - historical context. I can’t understand why such is so threathening to bible alone people of fundamentalist stripes.

So, what other canaanite or other cultural mythology has anyone noticed in the scriptures?
 
Atheists use this to “disprove” Scripture. The argument goes something like this. The OT did not get put down into writing until the Babylonian exile. Because of their location, they picked up and adopted the myths of the people there. Obviously this means that the Hebrew Scriptures are 1) not their own, and 2) certainly not historical.

What they fail to take into account is that Abraham would have taken these myths with him. These myths have been with the Jews from the beginning, so their really is no problem.

Props to all those who appreciate the historical context of Scripture! That being said, if it confuses you or leads you to uncertainty, simply ignore it.
 
Daniel Marsh:
The Book of Tobit has some influence from the story of Ahiqar or Ahikar, which has an Assyrian or Babylonian origin.
 
There is no arguement that there are a number of parts of the bible which have roots in ancient myths of the middle east. The flood story, the tower of Babel, and the creation stories are three that come to mind. They are updates or retellings of old stories to fit the newer concepts of monotheism. The fact that they are based on ancient myths common to the peoples of the region does not destroy the truths which they convey about God and his relationship to his people.
 
I remember on watching a show on the discovery channel about excavations in the Holy Land. Archeologists found a small metal slab with a prayer engraved on it. It is prayer found in the book of numbers and the slab dates before the Babylonian exile. So the theory that the Jews did not begin writing down their history and faith until the Babylonian exile is slowly fadding away.
 
That cool Psalms. It is just fundamentalist logic escapes me.

It is like they will qoute a verse in Isaiah to prove that the bible is a science book that it teaches that the earth is round. When in fact the hebrew word they are depending on is not a sphere, but is in fact speaking of the dome above the earth.
 
All scripture was inspired by God! So, if some canaanite mythology is in the Bible, God wanted it there.
proverbs 25:2 says, “it is the glory of God to hide a thing and the honor of kings to seek it out”.

We should take comfort that while men wrote the Bible, it was under the watchful eye and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God reveals Himself in so many ways. And, just because the story of the flood comes from the babylon, doesn’t mean that it’s not true! If it weren’t, do you think God would have allowed a lie in His Holy Word?
 
Yes, Sue God even makes himself known in nature which is why I like my Christmas tree. I think it was luther’s love of nature that he brought a fir tree inside and put candles on it.

🙂
 
Daniel Marsh:
I have no problem with canaanite mythology being there, it demonstrates that the bible was written within a cultural - historical context. I can’t understand why such is so threathening to bible alone people of fundamentalist stripes.

So, what other canaanite or other cultural mythology has anyone noticed in the scriptures?
Click to expand...
  • The Ancient of Days in Dan. 7.10-13 seems to owe a lot to El, the supreme god in Ugarit
  • El dwells at twin water-sources - rather as the four rivers in Gen. 2 all flow out of the Garden of Eden.
  • The story about Dagon in 2 Sam. 5, from the same set of gods, looks as if it is making the point that he is falling on his face in worship; & so, acknowledging the superiority of Israel’s god
  • Asherah in 1 & 2 Kings (for instance) is Atirat, the wife of El.
  • The gods of Ugarit assembled on a holy mountain. Zaphon, “North” seems to be its Hebrew name - as for mentions of a mountain used for this purpose, it is behind OT references to JHWH’s [holy] hill/mountain", and to “the hill/mountain of the Lord”; as in Psalms 2, 15, etc.
  • the “sons of El/god/the gods” are this assembly
  • The title JHWH Sabaoth/“of Hosts” reflects the position of JHWH as the leader of this assembly in war: sometimes the hosts are stars, sometimes “angels”; sometimes the stars are a flock of sheep
  • The promise in Isaiah 7.14 is word for word the same as a line in a Ugaritic myth.
  • Psalm 29 ascribes to JHWH functions exercised by Baal (AKA Hadad, Ramman)
This is just a few, from Canaan only - if one looks at books devoted to the topic of parallels to the Bible, a great many more crop up. Given that Israel was not isolated from its neighbours, this is unsurprising.

The Edinburgh Ras Shamra Project

Ugaritic and Hebrew Parallels Project

includes:

Major Publications

Fisher, L.R., ed. Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. Vol. I. AnOr, 49. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1972.

Fisher, L.R., ed. Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. Vol. II. AnOr, 50. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1975.

Rummel, S., ed. Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. Vol. III. AnOr, 51. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1981.​

A lot of this work is printed in Roman sources - it’s not something unCatholic or suspect. This needs to be emphasised, I think. ##
 
It seems like people are saying different things in here. Am I to take from this topic that you all believe that the flood didn’t happen, that the tower of Babel never existed, etc?

Are you saying that God used popular beliefs at the time to contrast himself with the false God’s of other people? If that is the case, could you give an example? For instance, I always took the evidence that so many religions have a flood story (even the ancient Native Americans) as partial proof that it happened.

Are you saying that the flood was simply put in the Bible because other religions already had a flood story? If so, in what way does God make the story unique for Himself to illustrate His nature?

If all these stories came from other religions, in what way are they inspired?
 
40.png
dkward2:
It seems like people are saying different things in here. Am I to take from this topic that you all believe that the flood didn’t happen, that the tower of Babel never existed, etc?
Click to expand...

I can’t answer for the author of this thread :),​

Are you saying that God used popular beliefs at the time
Click to expand...

I think He does exactly that - because He takes us as He finds us: not as He intends us to be. I think this what the we seen in His dealings from Abram onward​

to contrast himself with the false God’s of other people? If that is the case, could you give an example?## Genesis 1 comes to mind - the striking thing about that, is that it shows us only one creator-God. He has only to speak the word (an idea known in Sumer IIRC) & what He names, comes into being. The difference between Gen. 1’s account of the creation of man & the same event as told in the Enuma Elish (AKA the Babylonian Epic of Creation) is especially interesting:

web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/enuma.htm

Tablet VI

When Marduk hears the words of the gods,
His heart prompts him to fashion artful works.
Opening his mouth, he addresses Ea
To impart the plan he had conceived in his heart:

-------------

…continued…]
 
…continued…]

“Blood I will mass and cause bones to be.
I will establish a savage, `man’ shall be his name.
truly, savage-man I will create.
He shall be charged with the service of the gods
That they might be at ease!
The ways of the gods I will artfully alter.
Though alike revered, into two groups they shall be divided.”

Ea answered him, speaking a word to him,
Giving him another plan for the relief of the gods:

“Let but one of their brothers be handed over;
He alone shall perish that mankind may be fashioned.
Let the great gods be here in Assembly,
Let the guilty be handed over that they may endure.”

Marduk summoned the great gods to Assembly;
Presiding graciously, he issues instructions.
To his utterance the gods pay heed.
The king addresses a word to the Anunnaki: (20)

“If your former statement was true,
Now declare the truth on oath by me!
Who was it that contrived the uprising,
And made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle?
Let him be handed over who contrived the uprising.
His guilt I will make him bear. You shall dwell in peace!”

The Igigi, the great gods, replied to him,
To Lugaldimmerankia*, counselor of the gods, their lord:

“It was Kingu who contrived the uprising,
And made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle.” (30)

They bound him, holding him before Ea.
They imposed on him his guilt and severed his blood vessels.
Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.
He imposed the service and let free the gods.

After Ea*, the wise, had created mankind,
Had imposed upon it the service of the gods…

=====

*= “King of the gods of heaven and earth”: a title of Marduk. Ea is his father.​

The status of man in Gen.1 is far higher than in that poem - & the Israelite God is sole creator, not one of several deities. He has no rebels to contend with. Nor is He wearied by His work, or afraid, or subject to human frailties. The ordinary Bible reader has no way of realising how different the God of Genesis 1 is from other gods - no way to see what a difference in tone there is between Genesis 1 and foreign texts on similar subjects. So he can’t see Genesis 1 against its background: so he looks for what the text does not say, and misses what it does say.

[continue]
 
…continue…]

The choice of Babylon (= “gate of gods”) as the holy city of Marduk follows the creation of man; logically enough - for if man is created to serve the gods, then the gods must dwell where he can serve them.

The physical “tower of Babel” was possibly the temple of Nabu in Borsippa, which used to be thought to be part of Babylon; or, one of two temples in Babylon: Etemenanki (= “House [which is] foundation-platform of heaven and earth”), or Esagila (= “House [which] lifts up its head”). This Esagila - there were two others - was a rectangular tower built in several stories, possibly with a shrine on top: quite unlike anything with which a Jewish peasant would be familiar.

The interpretation of “Babel” as “Confusion” is a pun on the Babylonian name of Babel, which is “Bab ili” - “Gate of [the] god” (the god being Marduk: the city had many names and epithets). The word for confusion in Hebrew is “balal”; which is also the Babylonian word. So it seems that the very name of the city is being satirised, in order to make a point about what happens when men seek security elsewhere than in the God of Israel: confusion results. This is one of several stories about cities in Genesis, all of them unfriendly to city life: Enoch in Genesis 4, Nimrod’s kingdom in 10, Babel in 11, Sodom in 13 & 19, Zoar in 19, are all scenes of evil to some degree. The cities where the Hebrew slaves laboured at thne beginning of Exodus are further examples.

The narrative of Genesis 11 looks very much like a parody of the scene in the Enuma Elish in which the assembled gods set to work building Babylon for Marduk:

Marduk, the king of the gods, divided
All the Anunnaki above and below. (40)
He assigned them to Anu* to guard his instructions.
Three hundred in the heavens he stationed as a guard.
In like manner the ways of the earth he defined.
In heaven and on earth six hundred thus he settled.
After he had ordered all the instructions,
To the Anunnaki of heaven and earth had allotted their portions,
The Anunnaki opened their mouths
And said to Marduk, their lord:

“Now, O lord, you who have caused our deliverance,
What shall be our homage to you? (50)
Let us build a shrine whose name shall be called
`Lo, a chamber for our nightly rest’; let us repose in it!
Let us build a throne, a recess for his abode!
On the day that we arrive we shall repose in it.”

When Marduk heard this,
Brightly glowed his features, like the day:

“Construct Babylon, whose building you have requested,
Let its brickwork be fashioned. You shall name it `The Sanctuary.’”

…continue…]
 
…continue…]

The Anunnaki applied the implement;
For one whole year they molded bricks. (60)
When the second year arrived,
They raised high the head of Esagila equaling Apsu.*
Having built a stage-tower as high as Apsu,
They set up in it an abode for Marduk, Enlil, and Ea
In their presence he was seated in grandeur.
To the base of Esharra its horns look down.

After they had achieved the building of Esagila,
All the Anunnaki erected their shrines.
The three hundred Igigi . . . . . . all of them gathered,
The lord being on the lofty dais which they had built as his abode, (70)
The gods, his fathers, at his banquet he seated:

“This is Babylon, the place that is your home!
Make merry in its precincts, occupy its broad places.”

The great gods took their seats,
They set up festive drink, sat down to a banquet.
After they had made merry within it,
In Esagila, the splendid, had performed their rites,
The norms had been fixed and all their portents,
All the gods apportioned the stations of heaven and earth.

========
*Anu is the father of Ea. Another thing the God of Israel does not have is any family conflicts: He has no wife, sons, daughters, or other relatives. That too makes Him different from alien gods - though the “Queen of Heaven” may have been popularly regarded as His wife, just as Asherah was the wife of El: JHWH has several features of El, the supreme god in Ugarit, so it would be unsurprising if a god like El was thought of as having El’s relatives. Since the king descended from David was JHWH’s “son”, for Asherah to be regarded as his divine mother would be unsurprising.

*That is, the Esagila was built as high as the Apsu - the ocean of sweet waters underneath the earth - is deep. It is a temple & a cosmic mountain - Tolkien’s Oiolossë is a semi-equivalent. Temples are often said to be as high as heaven, or to fill the whole earth, in Babylonian & Assyrian building inscriptions. The Esharra (=“House of the Universe”) here - there was another one in Assyria, belonging to Asshur, the patron god of Assyria - was a temple of Enlil. The god Asshur (compare Gen.10: 11 & 22) is interesting as being in origin a deification of the city Asshur - the personification of Jerusalem as the bride of JHWH comes from a similar way of thinking.

The Enuma Elish is interesting in its own right, not just as a text to compare with parts of the OT - this is worth emphasising. To appreciate it fully, one needs to take it on its own terms too: as with any piece of literature.​

It’s high time for someone else to get a word in… 🙂

…continue…]
 
Just for reference, I see the flood as being local in hebrew.

earth in hebrew simply means land.
 
Daniel Marsh:
why is the prescence of canaanite mythology in the bible troublesome for bible believers or anti-catholics?

For example,

“Baal is described as the “rider on the clouds” in KTU 1.3 II 40. Interestingly enough, this description is also used of Yahweh in Psalm 68:5”

theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
Click to expand...
It shouldn’t be. I am dissapointed to see many of the responses. It seems too many people take 20th century higher criticism way too seriously. It is a skeptics approach to scripture. Stick with the tradtional views of the father and orhtodox theologians who know what they are talking about. reinventing the wheel 2000 years later should give great pause to anyone who has studied scripture seriously.

Similarities between local cultures does not effect the truthfulnss of scriptures. Keep in mind that many of these pagan cultures co-opted the actual truth and incorporated into their own mythology. On an actual world wide flood could acount for the fact that completely isolated peoples have a gret deluge story of some sort. Such as the aborigines in Australia. Assume the text is literal (within it’s genre of course).

The fact the Canaanites have myths the may not at all predate the Hebrew reality is made way too much of. How do we know that scripture does not give us the true story they the pagans borrowed from? In fact we should assume that if we believe in the God of the Bible.

Higher criticism is a johnny-come-lately way of reading scripture is highly deficient. In no other area of literary study would higher-criticism ever be taken seriously.

Historical narratives may not have all the detail contained in them. But we should take them as historical not mythological unless it is clear that they are. And we have no reason to believe the flood story was. If we do we should assume Abraham never existed as well.

Remeber also. Jesus and the Apostles taught the flood and Adam and Eve etc. as actual historical people and historical events.

Don’t believe the hype of liberal “scholarship”.

Mel
 
Daniel Marsh:
Just for reference, I see the flood as being local in hebrew.

earth in hebrew simply means land.
Click to expand...
The textual account does not allow for for a local flood. Unless you assume falsehoods in the story such as the Ark settliing on Mount Ararat. Or that God did not in fact wipe out humanity say Noah and his sons. The Bible simply cannot be trusted if we ar going to put such a strain on the text.

Mel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top