http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=462
Pagan Mythology and the Bible
| by |
Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div. |
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God...” (2 Timothy 3:16).
What an affirmation! This verse claims that the Bible is the unique
literary product of divine origin, not the results of mere human genius.
As such, it rightfully would serve as humanity’s ultimate standard of
moral and religious authority. But, is this claim true? Through the
years, conservative scholars have marshalled evidence to support the
Bible’s claim of inspiration, while liberal theologians have attempted
to discredit its avowed divine authorship. The debate continues.
Archaeological discoveries have played a significant role in this
ongoing controversy. Some scholars feel that the discoveries of ancient
pagan literary texts provide effective ammunition with which to attack
the biblical claim of inspiration. Why? Philologists have identified
language and literary forms common to both extra-biblical and biblical
texts, which suggests to some that the Israelite religion—rather than
being the product of divine guidance—was adapted from surrounding pagan
religions. In particular, the texts uncovered at Ras Shamra, which date
to the fifteenth century B.C., are at the heart of this contention.
RAS SHAMRA TABLETS
Ras Shamra is the modern name of the ancient city Ugarit. Prior to
1928, archaeologists did not know the exact location of this city. In
the early spring of that year, a Syrian peasant was plowing in a field
just east of Ras Shamra. His plow accidentally struck a rock, which
proved to be a tombstone. The presence of this ancient cemetery
suggested to archaeologists that a city was nearby, probably hidden in
the tell (mound). Further investigations proved this assumption true.
Claude F.A. Schaeffer of the Strasbourg Museum, and his associate
George Chenet, began the systematic excavation of Ras Shamra under the
auspices of the French government. In May 1929, their team uncovered the
first clay tablets bearing unfamiliar cuneiform (wedge-shaped) writing.
Schaeffer, who was not a linguist, entrusted the texts to Charles
Virolleaud, an expert in the ancient languages of that area. Virolleaud
immediately recognized the significance of these texts. The cuneiform on
these newly discovered tablets was unlike any which he had seen
previously. Extant cuneiform texts prior to this discovery contained
several hundred different symbols. The Ugaritic tablets, however,
contained fewer than 30 distinct characters, which suggested to
Virolleaud that the tablets displayed a kind of cuneiform alphabet.
Virolleaud made little progress in deciphering the text in the first
few weeks. However, as a service to scholars, he published the texts,
providing both photographs and copies of inscriptions that his
colleagues examined. Hans Bauer, Professor of Oriental Languages in the
German University of Halle and skilled in the art of cryptanalysis
(code-breaking), succeeded in assigning phonetic values to about eighty
percent of the signs after only five days. Other scholars refined his
work, and from the summer of 1930 the Ras Shamra tablets recovered by
Shaeffer’s team could be translated and read (for a discussion of the
archaeological finds at Ras Shamra, see Craigie, 1983; Jackson, n.d.;
Kapelrud, 1962; Pfeiffer, 1975).
HEBREW/UGARITIC STUDIES
The archives of Ugarit have yielded literally thousands of tablets
containing several diverse languages and types of literature. The texts
which captured scholastic attention, however, were those containing the
alphabetic cuneiform. Linguists call the language of this script
Ugaritic, after the ancient city in which it was used. Ugaritic is a
Northwest Semitic language, closely related linguistically to Biblical
Hebrew. These Ugaritic texts have had a profound affect on religious
studies. Their significance arises, not only from linguistic relations,
but also from the literary forms common to both Ugaritic and Biblical
Hebrew.
Scholars almost immediately began to emphasize these similarities. In
1934, only four years after Virolleaud published the texts, J.W. Jack
cautiously highlighted parallels between the Ugaritic texts and the
Hebrew Bible. Other scholars followed suit. Such comparative literary
analyses eventually gave birth to a new discipline: Hebrew-Ugaritic
Studies. This discipline has had both positive and negative effects on
biblical studies.
Positive Effects
On the positive side, Ugaritic texts have illuminated our understanding
of obscure words, and pagan religious practices appearing in the Hebrew
Bible. For instance, these texts have assisted our understanding of the
term “shepherd” applied to Amos (Amos 1:1). The common Hebrew word for
shepherd is
ro’eh. However, the word describing Amos’ occupation is
noqed,
which appears only one other place in the Hebrew Bible (2 Kings 3:4;
see Harris, 1980, 1:1410). In Ugaritic texts, the cognate word
nqd
appears approximately ten times, and designates one in the sheep
business rather than a simple shepherd. It may be, therefore, that Amos’
occupation took him to the market places of northern Israel (to sell
wool or mutton), where he became involved in his prophetic ministry
(Craigie, 1983, 9[5]:73). Such linguistic insights help answer the
question of why Amos, from the southern kingdom of Judah, was intimately
familiar with the social injustices of Israel (cf. Amos 2:7; 4:1; 8:5).
Additionally, the Ras Shamra tablets have increased our knowledge of
Baalism, frequently mentioned in the Bible. These mythological texts
associate Baal with rain, storm, and fertility, and proclaim him as
“[the god] Haddu, lord of the Stormcloud” (Cross, 1973, p. 147; see
Kapelrud, 1962, 4:729; Pritchard, 1958, 1:92-118). Through rain, Baal
allegedly provided fertile ground which produced crops on which both
animals and men depended. Thus, Baal’s worshipers sought to maintain his
supremacy so that their life-sustaining crops could continue. Such
insights into Baalism provided by Ugaritic texts illuminate several
biblical narratives, particularly Elijah’s debate with Baal’s prophets
on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18; see Long, 1990). There, Yahweh (i.e.,
Jehovah)—not Baal—proved to be the controller of rain and storm (in the
form of lightning which “fell as fire”). These Ugaritic insights into
Baalism increase our understanding of that historical debate.
Negative Effects
Along with these valuable Ugaritic contributions to biblical studies
have come some negative results. Particularly, liberal scholars have
placed undue significance upon the linguistic and literary similarities
between Ugaritic mythical texts and certain portions of the Hebrew
Bible. This has led some scholars to object that “...in comparative
studies of Ugaritic mythology and Old Testament literature in general
too much emphasis has been given to similarity or ‘fact’ of sameness in
form...” (Tsumura, 1988, 40:27). Such inordinate emphasis has prompted
some scholars to conclude that the Israelite religion was a mere
“Yahwization” of pagan religions (i.e., attributing to Yahweh what pagan
religions attributed to their gods). These scholars argue that proof of
such adaptation appears in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in certain
poetic sections (cf. Cross, 1973, 1992; Malamat, 1988).
PSALM 29, A CLASSIC EXAMPLE
A particular biblical text—Psalm 29—has been subjected to extensive
Hebrew/Ugaritic comparative analyses. As early as 1935, H.L. Ginsberg
posited a Canaanite or Poenician background to this psalm (Malamat,
1988, 100[sup]:156). The present scholastic consensus is that Baal
worship, as portrayed in Ugaritic texts, served as the background for
Psalm 29 (Craigie, 1983, 9[5]:73). For instance, the late Mitchell
Dahood, who used Ugaritic extensively in his classic, three volume
commentary on the Psalms, argued that Ginsberg’s “recognition that this
psalm is a
Yahwistic adaptation of an older Canaanite hymn to the
storm-god Baal...” has been “...corroborated by the subsequent
discovery of tablets at Ras Shamra and by progress in the interpretation
of these texts” (1966, 1:175, emp. added). More recently, A. Malamat,
with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, concluded that this psalm
“...is derived from traditions harking back beyond Late Bronze Age
Ugarit, to Old Babylonian, or rather Amorite, times...” (1988,
100[sup]:160). Also, Frank Moore Cross suggested that Psalm 29 was a
“lightly revised Ba’al hymn...” and that it is representative of
biblical texts in which “raw mythology” survives (1992, 8[5]:19).
Similarities
Scholars base such conclusions regarding the background of Psalm 29 on
similarities between it and Ugaritic (and other) mythical texts.
Archaeologists have uncovered several small fragments of tablets
containing poetic mythological texts in which Baal and Anath (the war
goddess) play the feature roles. In one section, the pagan lyricist
mentioned that the building material for Baal’s palace came from
“...Lebanon and its trees, From Sirion its precious cedars” (Pritchard,
1958, 1:104). In another section, Baal appears as the storm-god, sending
lightning with thunder (i.e., “his holy voice”) to the Earth, which
causes his “enemies to quake.” This text emphasizes the power of Baal’s
voice, which “convulses the earth” and causes the “mountains to quake”
(Pritchard, 1958, 1:106).
Similar language appears in Psalm 29. This psalm, like the Baal hymn,
mentions the cedars of Lebanon and Sirion (v. 6). Further, the psalmist
emphasized Yahweh’s voice, which had a similar effect on the Earth as
that attributed to Baal (vv. 3-5,7-9). Psalm 29 states that Yahweh’s
voice “breaks the cedars” (v. 5), “shakes the wilderness” (v. 8), and
“strips the forests bare” (v. 9).
HELPFUL CONSIDERATIONS
Obviously, some similarities exist between Psalm 29 and the Baal hymn.
But, do such similarities imply literary and religious dependence of
Israel upon contemporaneous pagan religions? The following
considerations might be helpful in addressing this issue. These
suggested principles also will apply to other biblical texts in which
similarities to pagan myths exist.
Similarity, Not Dependence
First, the fact that some similarities exist between the Hebrew Bible
and some pagan myths implies neither dependence of the former upon the
latter, nor synonymous meaning. John Wheeler correctly observed:
The basic danger in comparing the Hebrew Bible...with religious texts from other cultures is that the Bible uses similar language to describe different
things. The Bible has the right to be interpreted by its own context,
just as any other literary work.... When one examines Psalm 29 carefully
in light of the rest of Scripture, the subtle errors that arise from
using an extra-Biblical framework to interpret the Bible can be seen
(1992, 5[1]:28, emp. added).
It is improper exegesis to force pagan beliefs into the biblical text
simply because of linguistic similarities. Further, as Leupold
accurately concluded: “One need not be alarmed by such discoveries if
one bears in mind that two slightly different types of Canaanite (or
Hebrew) language are involved. Least of all is the dependence of the
Hebrew production in such a case established” (1959, p. 17). The Bible
has the right to define its own words and concepts; pagan myths are not
the controlling factor of biblical interpretation.
No Single Parallel
Second, the parallels drawn between biblical and Ugaritic texts cover a wide range of literary forms. No
single
Ugaritic text parallels Psalm 29 in full. Some scholars leave the
impression that an extant poem to Baal parallels exactly Psalm 29,
except that Baal’s and Yahweh’s names are exchanged. For instance,
Theodor Gaster argued that this psalm was initially Canaanite, but the
psalmist modified it by
replacing the name Baal with the personal name of Israel’s God (1946-1947, 37:55-65).
However, Psalm 29 cannot be traced to one, particular Ugaritic text.
Similarities of language, vocabulary, and literary forms exist between
Hebrew and Ugaritic literature
in general. But, the idea that
Psalm 29 is a Yahwization of a hymn to Baal emerges from a comparison of
texts from different cultures, each with its own variation on the same
pagan theme (see Wheeler, 1992, 5[1]:28). In fact, the late
Ugaritologist P.C. Craigie observed that “...virtually all
Hebrew-Ugaritic comparative studies involve comparison of
different
literary forms” (as quoted in Tsumura, 1988, 40:25, emp. in orig.).
Thus, to suggest that Psalm 29 (or any other biblical text) is an
adaptation of a pagan myth has no evidential basis.
Common Cultural Milieu
Third, we should
expect some similarity of language and literary
style between extra-biblical and biblical texts due to common cultural
milieu (see Redford, 1987, 13[3]:27). In fact, if biblical language and
style were entirely
unlike the literature of its secular
contemporaries, the Bible’s authenticity would be suspect. Further,
familiar figures and literary style would facilitate Gentile nations’
understanding of the truth. Consistent with this observation, Alexander
Heidel argued that “since the Old Testament was intended also for the
gentile world, it is but natural that the biblical authors availed
themselves of figures of speech and imagery with which also Israel’s
neighbors were familiar, or which were at least easily understandable to
them” (1951, p. 138).
Additionally, the existence of these similarities argues eloquently for
the Bible’s integrity. In this vein of thought, John Wheeler observed
that such similarities “...
provide one of the chief evidences that the bulk of the Psalms were not written after the Babylonian exile.
Their language fits that used by Israel’s neighbors in the very time
our Hebrew Bible says the Psalms were written” (1992, 5[1]:28, emp. in
orig.) Thus, rather than militating against the Bible’s credibility,
these similarities buttress its integrity.
Polemic Possibility
Finally, we may explain some of these similarities as inspired polemics
against pagan beliefs. In other words, rather than adapting pagan myths
to Israel’s own flavor of religious bias, inspired writers
consciously rejected
pagan ideas, and argued Yahweh’s case (see Frymer-Kensky, 1978,
4[4]:37). Scriptural evidence indicates that the Israelites were
familiar with pagan religions. For instance, the Pentateuch contains
prohibitions from such specific idolatrous practices as human sacrifices
(Deuteronomy 12:31), and boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (Exodus
23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21; see Ackerman, 1993). In fact, Ugaritic
texts mention that the rite of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk was an
acceptable means of approaching a god (Archer, 1974, p. 179). The
mention of such specific religious rites indicates the Israelites’
familiarity with pagan practices, from which they were to abstain.
However, almost immediately upon occupying Canaan, the Israelites
became infatuated with Baal and worshipped him (see Judges 3:7). Such
apostasy occurred repeatedly in Israel’s history. Amos, for instance,
reminded Israel of her long history of flirtations with pagan deities,
which led to her foreign captivity (5:25-27). With Israel’s perennial
proclivity to abandon Yahweh, we would expect to find polemics against
these false deities in Israel’s religious literature. Such a polemical
statement directed against false gods appears in Psalm 96:5: “For all
the gods of the peoples are idols (
’elilim); but Jehovah made the heavens.” The Hebrew word
’elilim
(idols) describes that which is worthless and deficient—in
contradistinction to the creative power of Yahweh, the true God (see
Harris, 1980, 1:95). Further, Yahweh’s demonstrated supremacy over Baal
on Mt. Carmel is a vivid example of such polemics in Israel’s sacred
literature (1 Kings 17-18). Thus, the inspired psalmist may have
fashioned Psalm 29 as a polemic against Baalism. This, however, does not
imply that the psalmist Yahwized a hymn of Baal. He simply may have
been reacting to
commonly known concepts associated with that pagan deity.
CONCLUSION
We need not deny that some similarities exist between pagan and Hebrew
literature. But, these similarities do not imply that pagan mythical
texts
directly influenced biblical writers. The literary quality
of biblical poetry argues against such dependence. To illustrate,
scholars have identified at least one pagan modification of a Hebrew
Psalm (an Egyptian adaptation of Psalm 20, dating to ca. 125 B.C.), whose literary quality is far
inferior
to the original. This Egyptian document (written on papyri) was
discovered sometime before the turn of the century. Egyptian
philologists soon identified the script as demotic—a cursive kind of
hieroglyphic writing which came into use around 650 B.C. For years, however, its contents remained an enigma to experts.
Progress in deciphering the text occurred in 1940 when Professor
Raymond Bowman and Egyptologist George R. Hughes discovered that, though
the text was written in demotic script, the actual language was
Aramaic. The Egyptian document contains Jewish words such as
YHWH (i.e., Yahweh) and
‘adonay,
but it also mentions an assortment of pagan gods (e.g., Horus, Sahar,
Mar, and Baal). These features, and its familiarity of language and
composition to Psalm 20, indicate that it was adapted from the Hebrew
Psalm. The text, however, is riddled with scribal errors of such nature
that indicate the scribe did not understand what he transcribed (see
Shanks, 1985). Such is not characteristic of biblical poetry. Its
literary quality, according to some scholars, is far superior to that of
pagan stock (see Wheeler, 1992). This certainly would be one indication
of its originality.
Further, along with its distinguished literary quality, the Bible’s
ethical and spiritual concepts are unparalleled by pagan sacred
literature. For instance, the gods of pagan myths are guilty of
degenerate behavior of all sorts; the true God is infinite in purity.
Practitioners of pagan religions constantly worked to pacify their angry
gods; worshipers of Yahweh, Who was quick to forgive, received
undeserved blessings from His gracious hands (Psalm 32:1-5). Thus, the
similarities between biblical and pagan literature are eclipsed by the
enormous
differences. Actually, there is no better indicator of
the Bible’s inspiration than to put it side by side with its pagan
counterparts. Such comparative literary analyses bolster our conviction
that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God...” (2 Timothy 3:16).
REFERENCES
Ackerman, Susan (1993), “Child Sacrifice: Returning God’s Gift,”
Bible Review, 9[3]:20ff., June.
Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1974),
A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody).
Craigie, Peter (1983), “The Tablets From Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 9[5]:62-69, September/October.
Cross, Frank Moore (1973),
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Cross, Frank Moore (1992), “The Development of Israelite Religion,”
Bible Review, 8[5]:18-29,50, October.
Dahood, Mitchell (1966), “Psalms,”
The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva (1978), “What Babylonian Flood Stories Can and Cannot Teach Us About the Genesis Flood,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 4[4]:32-41.
Gaster, Theodore (1946-1947), “Psalm 29,”
Jewish Quarterly Review, 37:55-65.
Harris, R.L., G.L. Archer, and B.K. Waltke, eds. (1980),
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago:Moody).
Heidel, Alexander (1951),
The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Jackson, Wayne (n.d.),
Archaeology: The Ras Shamra Discovery, Research Article Series (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Kapelrud, A.S. (1962), “Ugarit,”
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon) 4:724-732.
Leupold, H.C. (1959),
Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Long, Jesse, Jr. (1990), “God Doesn’t Always Thunder,”
Gospel Advocate, 132[12]:32, December.
Malamat, A. (1988), “The Amorite Background of Psalm 29,”
Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 100[sup]:156-160.
Pfeiffer, C.F. (1975), “Ugarit,”
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 5:837-842.
Pritchard, James B., ed. (1958),
The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Redford, Donald (1987), “Similarity Between Egyptian and Biblical Texts—Indirect Influence?,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 13[3]:18-32, May/June.
Shanks, Hershel (1985), “Bible’s Psalm 20 Adapted for Pagan Use,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 11[1]:20-23.
Tsumura, David (1988), “Ugaritic Poetry and Habakkuk 3,”
Tyndale Bulletin, 40:24-48.
Wheeler, John (1992), “Who Wrote Psalm 29: David or a Canaanite?,”
Archaeology and Biblical Research, 5[1]:23-31, Winter.
