Comparative Mythology

Ishtar (with mace) and Shamash (on right) receiving worshippers

Much has been made of the the supposed similarities bewteen the Bible and ancient Near East myths. The Biblical stories of Creation, the flood, Eden, etc. all seem to have parallels in other culture's myths. In reality, the differences far out way the similarities as I will show. Still, how does one account for the similarities? There are four possible explanations, two that advocate a process of one culture borrowing from another: 1)The Hebrews borrowed from their neighbors, 2)The Babylonians, etc. borrowed from the Hebrews; and two that advocate an earlier source for the stories: 3)The known myths (i.e. Sumerian, Babylonian, Hebrew, Egyptian, etc.) all sprang from older legends, 4)The various myths are corrupted versions of actual events

Possibility one:
The Hebrews borrowed from their neighbors. This is the idea put forth by most scholars. However, as I will show the differences far out way the similarities. The difference are not trivial but important and many of the similarities are universal (i.e. man made from clay, heaven and earth separated). Chronologically the Hebrews could have known about the Sumerian myths via Abraham, the Babylonian through trade (while in Egypt)¹ and the Egyptian while in Goshen. However, I must once again state that the differences far outweigh the similarities. Just because the Hebrews may have known of the myths it does not automatically follow that they borrowed from them. No one has ever convincingly shown that they are related. The theory made sense originally. An ancient clay tablet is unearthed and sketchily translated. It describes the creation of the universe or man. It and the Bible must be related, right? However we have had 50-100 years to re-translate tablets and in many cases have found more complete copies of the myths. It is obvious to me that upon further review the theory no longer can stand.

Possibility two:
The Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, etc. borrowed from the Hebrews. This explanation is highly unlikely. The Sumerian myths have roots in older tales from c.3500-2500 BC., while most were written down in their known form sometime between c.2150-1750 BC. The Babylonians did borrow from the Sumerians. Their myths were written between c.1850-539 BC, but most, including Enuma Elish, by c.1200 or there abouts. The Egyptians have numerous contradictory myths. Some originate in ancient times (c.2800-2200 BC), while others, such as the famous "Memphite Account of Creation" may not have been composed until c.1200-1000 BC. I believe that Genesis was written down by Moses c.1400 BC., although it is possible that traditions were much older. Too late to have influenced the Sumerians and probably the Babylonians, at least in any meaningful way. As for the Egyptians, some myths are obviously much older than Genesis while some are definitely newer. The newer are closer to Genesis than some of the older and could have been influenced by the Hebrew sojourn in Goshen (as could have Akhenaten), but it is doubtful. It is entirely possible that it is merely the result of the evolution of native Egyptian religious thought. The Hebrews did not influence their neighbor's religious thought, at least not in any meaningful and lasting way.

Possibility three:
All ancient Near East myths sprang from an older source, in this case older myths. This theory, while almost never put forward by scholars, actually makes a lot more sense than the idea of the Hebrews borrowing from their neighbors. A few scholars do though, such as Prof. Ira Price who attributes the similarities to "a time when the human race occupied a common home and held a common faith."² Are all of the ancient myths memories from a neolithic past? If so the most ancient myths (Sumerian) should be the most accurate and then subsequent civilization's myths would invariably be corrupted by time and language. An intriguing possibility. Possibility four is a variant of this.

Possibility four:
The various myths are corrupted versions of actual events, instead of older myths. This theory postulates that the events in Genesis actually happened as described. That would mean that the oldest myths (Sumerian) are again more accurate as they were written closest to the time of the events, though they would still be corrupted by polytheism. Like possibility three, memories of the neolithic fueled the myths, however in this case it is actual events as opposed to ideas. For this theory to hold up the Sumerian myths would have to correspond to a certain degree with Genesis. The reason for this is that the myths from Sumer would be the oldest and Genesis was later revealed to Moses by God. However there should still be significant differences between them as the Sumerian tales are diluted by the time between the events and their being written down, and by paganism.

1) I reject the idea that Genesis was written during the Babylonian Captivity.
2)The Monuments and the Old Testament (Philadelphia, 1925), pp.129f. as quoted in The Babylonian Genesis, Alexander Heidel (Chicago, 1951), p.139