The Old Testament Myth Or Truth Essay
, Research Paper
The Old Testament is a digest, and like every digest it has a broad assortment of subscribers who have their single influence upon the concluding work. Today, thanks to the rediscovery of ( antediluvian ) literature, it is possible to acknowledge that the Old Testament is in fact saturated with the popular traditional knowledge of the Ancient Near East 1 I will recite the influences these civilizations had on what we now know as the Old Testament.
Each civilization that existed before and during the authorship of the Old Testament lent their ain specific myths and some myths that were common to all civilizations such as the creative activity of the Earth. We see in the Bible that each of these civilizations has given to it a myth of their ain, whether the authors of the Bible utilize them as mentions or the footing to some of their narratives is unknown ; but one can see the analogues from the really get downing. First, one has to understand the people of the epoch of which we are speaking about.
To acquire a clear image of the manner the Book of Genesis may hold been formed, we must put it someplace in clip, and so specify the civilizations of that clip. The influences must be explained, and so we may pull our decisions. If we trace back to the first visual aspect of the Bible in written signifier, in its earliest interlingual rendition, we arrive at about 450 B.C. Two texts, constituents of the Pentateuch referred to as AJ @ and @ E @ texts, can be traced to around 650 B.C. The AJ @ texts refer to Yahweh texts, characterized by the usage of the word AYahweh @ or ALord @ in histories ; the AE @ texts refer to Elohist texts, which use @ Elohim @ , in its mentions to God. But 650 B.C. International Relations and Security Network & # 8217 ; t our oldest mention to the AJ @ and AE @ texts ; they can be traced, along with the other three strands of the Pentateuch, to at least 1000 B.C. However, our first digest of these strands existed in 650 B.C. Here, with the AJ @ and AE @ texts, is where one can get down to patch together the different co-occuring narratives of the Bible.
We have grounds of an Israelite folk, the Benjamites, in Babylonian texts. The Benjamites were nomads on the frontier of its boundaries, and surely came in contact with Babylonian thoughts: civilization, faith, and moralss. The early folk of Israel were mobile, taking with them the early traditions, harmonizing to external influences. The message remained changeless, but the context would subtly alter. In add-on to the Benjamites in Mesopotamia, there were folks of Israel in Egypt during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom period, which surely exposed these people to Egyptian civilization every bit good as Babylonian civilization as a consequence of trade between the two lands.
We can get down to understand the relationships with the male parent of the Hebrew people, Abraham. We can infer when he lived, and happen that he lived around 1900 B.C. in ancient Mesopotamia. If we take a expression at his universe and its civilization, we may happen the grounds behind certain mentions in Genesis, and the mythologies they resemble. The First Babylonian Dynasty had begun around 1950 B.C. and would last good into the late sixteenth century B.C. The Babylonians had merely conquered a land antecedently under the control of the Assyrians, and before that, the Sumerians. Abraham had lived during a clip of great prosperity and a unusually advanced civilization. He was ab initio believed to hold come from the metropolis of Ur, as given in the Bible as & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; the Ur of Chaldees & # 8221 ; . Earlier interlingual renditions read, nevertheless, merely & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; Land of the Chaldees & # 8221 ; ; subsequently, it was deduced that Abraham had come from a metropolis called Haran. AThe book of Genesis tells how Abraham & # 8230 ; traveling up the Euphrates every bit far as Haran & # 8230 ; @ 2 In any instance, he lived in a thriving and comfortable universe. Homes were comfy, even epicurean. Transcripts of anthem were found following to mathematical tablets detailing expression for pull outing square and regular hexahedron roots. The degree of edification four thousand old ages ago is singular. There is Aa good known sculpture & # 8230 ; demoing two weaponries raised in supplication & # 8230 ; @ 3 Through this and other pieces of graphics, one can infer that it was a comparatively stable and peaceable society ; its art is characterized by the absence of any militant activity.
Having placed Abraham and certain early Semites in this clip, one can now analyze the civilization they would hold known. In add-on to Babylonian influence, expression at the following taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which can be traced back to 3000 B.C. : & # 8220 ; I am Re.. I am the great God who came into being by himself & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; 4 Compare that to the familiar & # 8220 ; I am who I am. & # 8221 ; The similarities between the two are of secondary importance, nevertheless ; through this we now begin to see the divergences between the Old Testament and other earlier texts.
It is no surprise, so, that there exists certain analogues between the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian position of the creative activity of the universe, and the Book of Genesis, the first portion of the Pentateuch subdivision of the Bible. In fact, statements may be made that other Near Eastern texts, peculiarly Sumerian, hold had their influences upon Biblical texts. The extent of this & # 8216 ; borrowing & # 8217 ; , as it were, is non limited to the Bible ; the Enuma Elish has its ain roots in Sumerian mythology, preceding it by about a thousand old ages. This heroic poem of creative activity starts out Athat in the beginning, when there was neither heaven nor earth & # 8230 ; @ 5 Notice that this is the same gap used in Genesis. This is where the similarities between the two texts Begin.
The Babylonian Dynasty had as one of its first leaders a adult male known as Hammurabi. In add-on to being the universe & # 8217 ; s first known lawgiver, he installed a national God for his people named Marduk, Awho became the head of the Gods, and took over the properties which & # 8230 ; belonged to the old Sumerian deities. @ 6 Marduk & # 8217 ; s narrative is related in the Enuma Elish: It begins with two aboriginal animals, Apsu and Tiamat. They have kids, who are Gods. These kids became excessively noisy and riotous to Apsu, who wished to kill them. One of these Gods, Ea, kills Apsu foremost. Tiamat becomes enraged, and progressively baleful towards Ea and the staying Gods for killing her mate. One by one, the Gods seek to quiet Tiamat, but each fails. However, one God, Marduk, agrees to halt Tiamat, but merely if he is granted exclusive rule over all other Gods. They agree, and Marduk conflicts Tiamat, killing her and making the universe from her cadaver. In add-on, Marduk slays one of the Gods who allied himself with Tiamat, and from this dead God & # 8217 ; s blood, Marduk creates adult male.
A speedy scrutiny of this grounds would falsely take one to believe that the Bible is slightly a aggregation of older mythology re-written specifically for the Semites. In fact, what develops is that the writers of the Bible have addressed each myth as a separate issue, and what the authors say is that their God surpasses every other.
To the Hebrews, like other ancient peoples, creative activity wasn t a physical or philosophical thought ; to them it meant to give signifier to something antecedently without. On the surface, the Enuma Elish looks and sounds nil like Genesis. However, we can get down to pull our analogues as we go into more item. Notice the similarity in the following two transitions: & # 8220 ; Half of her he put in topographic point and formed the sky & # 8230 ; as a roof. He fixed the crossbar & # 8230 ; posted guards ; He commanded them non to allow her Waterss escape & # 8221 ; and from Genesis ( 1:3, 7:11 ) & # 8220 ; Then God said, & # 8216 ; Let there be a dome & # 8230 ; to divide one organic structure of H2O from the other. & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; All the fountains of the great abyss explosion Forth, and the floodgates of the sky were opened & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; These two citations from the Enuma Elish and the Bible severally, connote the same thought: how the Earth and Heaven were formed. Besides compare the creative activity of yearss and the particular significance conferred upon the 7th twenty-four hours: & # 8220 ; Thou shalt shine with horns to do six known yearss, on the 7th with & # 8230 ; a tiara. & # 8221 ; From Genesis ( 1:31-2:1 ) : & # 8220 ; Evening came and forenoon followed- the 6th twenty-four hours & # 8230 ; So God blessed the 7th twenty-four hours and made it holy, because on it He rested from all the work he had done in creation. & # 8221 ;
We can sum up the similarities l
Eisenhower so: each created the celestial spheres, dry land, the heavenly organic structures, and visible radiation ; and each makes adult male the crowning accomplishment. On the 7th twenty-four hours, God rests and sanctifies the twenty-four hours. In the 7th tablet of the Enuma Elish, the Gods remainder and celebrate. These similarities strongly suggest a common cognition of the Enuma Elish among authors of the Book of Genesis.
Besides creative activity myths, there are other analogues such as the inundation narrative. In 1872, George Smith, who happened to be analyzing tablets found in the now destroyed Library of Alexandria, found an heroic narrative strikingly similar to the inundation narrative of Noah found in the Bible ; this was the Epic of Gilgamesh. AOne of these fragments told about a boat & # 8230 ; a inundation & # 8230 ; and a bird seeking dry land, @ 7 Most critics recognized that here was the earliest version of Noah, and therefore doubting the originality of Scripture one time once more.
In the Biblical narrative of Noah, Noah built an Ark, survived a great inundation, and sent a bird out to seek dry land ; about precisely what is written in Gilgamesh. The older versions, of which merely a small is known, Tell, for the most portion, the same narrative with minor alterations due to civilization.
The Egyptian narrative of the inundation is found in The Book of the Dead. The God Atum announces his purpose of deluging wicked mankind the inundation submerges the full state. The lone subsisters are certain individuals who have been rescued by Temu. 8 Once once more, this narrative is inordinately similar to that of the Biblical and Mesopotamian versions.
Each myth or text that has a opposite number in the Bible merely serves to foster an of import thought among the Israelitess: there is but one God, and He is almighty and omniscient ; He is non of this universe, but above and beyond it, apart from it. The thought of a monotheistic faith is foremost revealed in recorded history with Judaism, and it is critical to see that alternatively of being an illustration of plagiarism, the Book of Genesis is a carefully composed papers that will put apart the Hebrew God from the others before, and after.
Not merely is at that place merely one Hebrew God, but he is almighty. A & # 8230 ; during the expatriate & # 8230 ; the disappearing of the state & # 8230 ; allowed Hebrew thought to recognize & # 8230 ; that Yahweh is the 1 and merely God of the universe and of all world. @ 9 So much so that he does non happen it necessary to wrestle with nature or licking mighty aboriginal Gods. He merely speaks and it is done. It is our first happening of Godhead will imposed upon the universe. Furthermore, it is a God without a predecessor, without creative activity. He is something apart from this universe. Tiamat and Apsu lived in a universe already created ; Yahweh, the original Hebrew God, did non.
For illustration, if Marduk is almighty, as the Hebrew claim their God is, why does he make conflict with Tiamat, when a word would do? For illustration from Genesis 1:3: & # 8220 ; Then God said, & # 8216 ; Let there be light, & # 8217 ; and there was visible radiation. @ And from Genesis 1:6: & # 8220 ; Then God said, & # 8216 ; Let there be a dome in the center of the Waterss, to divide one organic structure of H2O from the other. & # 8217 ; And so it happened & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; . God & # 8217 ; s word entirely is sufficient to render any alteration upon the universe that He wishes. This is a extremist invention in a universe where faith more closely resembles a super-powered household that doesn & # 8217 ; t acquire along really good.
Other thoughts borrowed from earlier times hinge on the description of the divinity. The Hebrew God, while resembling many old Gods, seems to surpass all predecessors. The Egyptian God Re may hold been self-created, but he is by no agencies almighty, and non at all the lone of his sort. Marduk is a warrior who can get the better of aboriginal snakes, but the Hebrew God has but to talk as can be seen in Psalms 33:9: & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; and it was ; He commanded, and it stood fast. & # 8221 ; The word of God is almighty. And here we begin to see our greatest goings. We have a monotheistic faith, the first of its sort, created amidst a civilization that, in the instance of the Babylonians, has up to fifty Gods.
There would be no point in reasoning that the Old Testament was influenced by the modern-day civilizations of its authors ; the facts clearly point to countless external beginnings of inspiration. But while we can admit these similarities, we must besides admit that the writers of the Book of Genesis are doing a extremist going from the normal positions: they have created the first monotheistic faith, and their God is almighty, beyond the appreciation of human comprehension, or any of the Gods before Him.
Typically, Gods are represented as something kindred to worlds on a grander graduated table ; the Hebrew God is merely non measured or scaled ; He is an unknown measure, set apart from the bounds of human cognition. to the authors of the Old Testament there were no two entities randomly identified with each other. The Absolute, the Principle of Nature and so forth were existences, non thoughts 10 By construing God as a being, alternatively of an thought, the Hebrews could associate to his thoughts and constructs more readily. These similarities serve a map as a contrast to the differences between these faiths.
It would look that the authors acknowledged these other earlier faiths, in fact, a great many minor traces from Canaanite faith among the Hebrews. The names of many heathen Gods and goddesses continued to be used in Hebrew, for spiritual and non-religious intents, merely as in English. 11 The writers of the Bible made certain to turn to each one by making a God that surpasses all others. The God that creates himself is one of many ; the Hebrew God stands entirely in his might. The God that created the universe defeated another God, and formed the Earth from the cadaver ; in Genesis, God speaks and his words transform into actions. God exists before the affair He shapes to His will.
The authors have so, in fact, minimized the actions of all other Gods in comparing to one almighty divinity such as this. By pulling comparings to other texts, the message can be lost in trying to happen the roots of certain thoughts. But the beginnings of the narratives are non about every bit of import as the overall message being stated, and while the thoughts they resemble may be old, the message is clear and alone: there is but one true God, and He is beyond all that is and of all time will be. His will alone suffices, and He predates even clip itself. And that message has changed the universe.
Therefore one can see the comparings of the Old Testament and earlier signifiers of spiritual literature. Subjects and thoughts borrowed from earlier faiths and faiths of the same period merely served to reenforce the thought of the Hebrew God being supreme. Furthermore, one can see the influence of Babylonian, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian mythology inherent in the Old Testament. This visible radiation from extrabiblical texts has
sharpened well the apprehension of the content of the Bible itself. 12
Bibliography
Albright, William. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Doubleday, 1968.
Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Harvard University Press, 1973.
Gaster, Theodor H. Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament. Harper and Row Publishers, 1969.
Guttmann, Julius. Doctrines of Judaism. Schocken Books, 1973.
Introduction. The Epic of Gilgamesh. By Robert D. Biggs. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1992.
King, L.W. A History of Sumer and Akkad. Greenwood Press, 1968.
Moorey, P.R.S. Biblical Lands. Elsevier-Phaidon, 1975.
Moscati, Sabatino. Ancient Semitic Civilizations. Putnam, 1958.
Patai, Raphael. The Myth of the Judaic Race. Scribner, 1975.
Pritchard, James Bennett. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. W.F. Albright, 1969.
Ringgren, Helmer. Religions of the Ancient Near East. Westminster Press, 1973.
Roberts, J.J.M. The Earliest Semitic Pantheon. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972.
Understanding the Sacred Text. Judson Press, 1972.
Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. Yale University
