Same Masks, Different Faces

By: Jonathan Seidel

The discrepancy between the mythic past and the scientific present is not necessarily oblique. There is by no means a major issue at the heart of Yiddishkeit. Though traditional acceptance is a sign of validity there is also an additional measure of ancient articulation. If every ancient culture had a mythos especially similarities between them, then it would seem that either they copied one another or they had similar experiences. The lack of interaction between some of these cultures demonstrates a synchronic congruency. They experienced the same phenomena. Though the divergencies are relatively scarce, it comes down to appointing supernal rationalisation. To give but one example, both the Mesopotamians Babylonian and the Bible have a flood story. Humanity was wiped out by a massive flood except one man who saved the animals on his boat. Flood stories are also found in Greek, Norse, Inca and Aztec mythologies. One that does not include the biblical record is the creative sacrifice myth hailed by the Chinese Indian and Norse mythologies. A cosmic giant is killed to create the world. Though this can entirely be a transmission of sorts which of course means that the “copying” was an aligned experience. An event took place and each accorded it with their belief. Humanity originated in one place so it is not shocking that these myths passed on to different cultures. The irony of man is his sinful behaviour to his fellow despite his common ancestry. The tribal distinctions whether race or nation or religion are a mirage to hide the commonalities whether bodily or intellectual. 

The Bible has its own notions of fantastical creatures such as the dragon in Isaiah and Campbell’s hero’s journey is aligned with the Gideon and Samson narratives. Yet unlike other mythologies, the Bible avoids the celestial. Greek and Norse mythologies for example tell tales of their gods. Their supermen overloads are inspirational creatures to serve and live by. The biblical model realigns its purpose. To focus on the bible is to denote its prioritisation in the intervention of God and man, and God’s elevation of all men. The discrepancies point to ideological differences. Yet the nuanced differences alter the premise of the story as well as its plot and message. Either other mythologies are incorrect or the myth was recaptured according to a preordained philosophy. The bible has an agenda and will interpret the myth in accordance with its values. Thus it isn’t the historical ramifications but rather the philosophies that are integral. Could these stories be true but embellished to fit a narrative, yes. Yet, this position would demean the historicity of the biblical record as a later biased construction. It makes more sense to hold to the original less biased interpretation than a later replication. Though one could claim they motioned incorrectly. I more inclined to believe that these events either occurred and this was their interpretation or these were fictional events with religious underpinnings. The first does work for the flood example but not for the other similarities for creation or mankind myths. 

      

The theological aspects are designated by the ideological components. The valuational underpinnings divert the details of the myths to fit a certain kind of thinking. The ancient Near East was a synchronic evaluative clause, yet the comparative mythologies furthering beyond the Middle Eastern region implies a deeper connection. There is a wave of transmissive integrity. The Chinese and Indian traditions probably attained their myths from progressive travellers. The tradition passed on but given the language and culture emerging in the region circumstances forced change. It is similar to the telephone game. Knowledge is passed from one to another but within that transmission there are sublet alterations due to the the auditorial imperfection. In a world of more or less pure orality, this was bound to happen. In a specific place the collective knowledge of the people could retain a uniform congruency but once travellers settled elsewhere the journey and the new land endowed nuanced differences. There is rare mention of snow or frost in biblical literature yet in norse mythology it is apparent. Location is particularly relevant to the construction of mythology. Variables emerge from various angles. The biblical record has nothing to do with multiple realms or superhuman gods of the vikings. The Israelite culture was one of advanced monotheism. It is the events, their shared memory that corroborates the cosmological association. This is not to assert as far as Otto goes with the mythic maximalism. But it does suggest that the culture to be born whether by Abraham and/or by Moses constructs a linear paradigm of divine concern for man. 

This in a sense challenges the notion of religious integrity. Were these ideals added later? Who taught them? The biblical interpretation is that God told Moses all that occurred prior. Moses is the curator of Genesis. The master prophet dictated the origin of Judaism. Rashi asks why the Torah did not start with the first commandment of Rosh Chodesh and he answers that the creation of the world was necessary to teach that God promised the Jews the land to their forefathers. Moses even notes that the Deuteronomic version of the Decalogue is to remember creation. Moses’ incorporating Genesis via divine command prioritises an origin myth for the people. It is for this reason that medieval commentators were willing to allegorise as far as the first few chapters in Genesis. The cosmological stories were necessarily irrelevant to be squared with tradition. It was the later events that were genuine even if literarily embellished. The mythology begins with pre-mosaic investment. The rest of biblical literature is ill equipped to the traditional mythological structure. The narrativity is personalised and equated to a validated history. There is certainly embellishment to the books but it is probably not an invention of individuals. Campbell’s hero’s journey archetype does not take away from the famed characters. The style may follow the phenomenon but this is the way of the world as well as an embellished model. Due to its naturalistic tendencies to depict people and realistic identity measures to semi-historical individuals. The extent of accuracy is to be continuously debated but for now can accept their legitimacy.   

If myths are similar they are educationally apparent instead of religiously notorious. Though they may be the actual origin of the universe translated into various languages and cultures they also may hint to an esoteric wisdom that is couched in mythos. These stories teach about humanity. They are more than just historical events but empowering narratives and universal truths. Spero in a provocative argument pointed to universal lessons from creation, eden and the flood. These weren’t random stories but teachable moments for humanity. Soloveitchik accepted the scientific accuracy of creation of the universe and posed the biblical narrative as a demonstration of creation. Kook called eden an allegory. How far this goes is entirely arbitrary. There seems to a be a limit to the two parshiyot. The universal project presented in the first chapters of Genesis outline the development of the world in a narrational frenzy without much detail and much obscurity especially after the flood episode. The Abrahamic lineage is a little more historically regulated for the purposes of cultural growth. There are mythical elements, though allegorised by Maimonides, but most of the stories are rational and linear. Themes and motifs are regular whether barrenness or sibling rivalry, yet these natural occurrences point to educational lessons as well as realistic possibilities. The phrase “the actions of the fathers is a sign for the children” is directly connected to the forefather’s stories to us. The purpose of these stories are wholly educational yet retail a stain of historical measure for linkage. 

Berman has shown that much of the bible is an attack on ancient political thought. He demonstrates through the Exodus narrative the concept of out-pharaohing pharaoh. The goal is polemical in its own version of propaganda. The Bible in its structure parallels Hammurabi and the Hittite code. The ancient vassal treaties are ever apparent in literary configuration of revelation. The people sign such a treaty with God. Yet its polemical exercise by raising man as an equal tribe over the majesty of a chosen ruler is revolutionary. The laws are similar but it is the narration that deviates so much to dispense with the polytheistic pull. Even the common elements between cultures have ever subtle additions that divulge the polemical intent . The flood story though across cultures is aligned, the bible’s conclusion is vastly different. The Atrahasis Epic bemoans human reproduction post-flood while the bible praises it. The bible advocates the temporal sinful nature of man. Punishments are dealt to the sinners and then new pure generations emerge unlike the Mesopotamian ideal of eternal damnation replicated in christian theology. Revelation is to the entire community not just one man. All are chosen, all are holy not just the king or priest. The laws as well concerning slaves and treatment of others are ethically advanced due to the memorial experience of slavery in Egypt. The narration promotes freedom and individuality. There are metaphysical values that permeate the legal and social structure of ancient Israel as it separates from its peers.

The universality of mythology in the ancient world led to obvious similarities. Whether the myths are factional or functional events is less relevant. It is the undeniable wisdom and influence these myths affected ancient cultures. Yet, their differences mark an intentional division. Cultures altered story details to fit their philosophical model of reality. The bible emerges as a maverick to ancient change. Drawing on the old it adds valued elements to the overall narrative but also removes from the divine realms. The bible is concerned with humanity in the here and now. Instead of man looking to God, much of the bible is god looking for man. This ancient revolution produced its mythology in its own methodology. The bible is a perfect candidate of a culture indebted to its forbearers yet deviating according to their unique cultural model of society.