I know it is an inflammatory title. I am not saying God is not a real god. I am saying I think he has defined himself in the past in terms of satire. People talk about the creation myth in the Bible in response to scientific data, but it wasn't written to respond to that. Genesis uses the same imagery as other creation myths in Israel's sphere of influence. Similar ideas happen with the story of Noah's arc, the development of agriculture, the creation of kings, the necessity of the law, and the nature of man. Scholars point to these similarities and in some cases try to dismiss Yahweh because of them, or in the case of true believers explain them away. I think they are both wrong to try these tactics. My reason for believing this occurs when you look at the differences between theologies.
In most middle eastern, pagan myths, the world was created through an act of violence. Marduk slays Tiamat, Ba'al slays Yam, Θraētaona slays Aži Dahāka (Zorastrian). This type of chaoskampf occurs in a variety of pagan belief systems in the world and many of the systems would have interacted with the country of Israel. And what monster does Genesis offer? Nothing. The closest reference to any sort of chaos is tohu vabohu which is normally translated as "formless and void". Some scholars try to treat that as the primordial monster to better match up Genesis with its ancient peers. It doesn't quite work though. It is treated in Genesis as more of a side-note than an epic battle between the All powerful Yahweh and the primordial evil of the deep that is so paramount to other myths. When the topic is discussed extra-biblically the monsters were usually created by God and the battle was an attempt to set limits on a simple creature sort of like what God did with humanity at the tower of Babel. There is a point to this difference in theology but a few other stories and topics expand on this issue.
The Flood story which biblically is centered around Noah has counterparts in other mythologies. Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh epic, Ziusudra in the Sumerian Kings list, and Atra-Hasis in the Akkadian version are all versions of this. Most of the pagan flood stories have a few things in common. The flood is usually an attempt at population control or an attempt to cut down on the noise or similar ideas. One god circumvents another to preserve humanity in some way. In Gilgamesh, they Ea protects humanity because humans are the main food source of the gods and believed total destruction was a disproportionate punishment. Similar situations occurred in the Sumerian and Akkadian versions. The gods did not continue their slaughter because they realized they would lose their main food source and attempted to determine other means of population control. Then, there is Noah. Most of the same plot points at the other flood stories with a couple of differences. God does not try to do population control, he is trying to ensure justice. The organizer of destruction had every intention of ensuring redemption. The God of the Bible had a plan for human beings for the sake of human beings.
Sacrifice in the pagan customs was a means to feed the gods. In the bible, it was simply a redemptive act, entirely human in nature. They are not necessary in God's eyes in Isaiah it talks about God not needing sacrifices and preferring justice. Music, agriculture, technology, royalty, in pagan theology are all handed down from on high. In the bible, they are human creations. And most importantly, pagan theologies create humans as slaves of the gods and the leaders who represent them. The God of the bible creates all of humanity in his image. Same imagery, completely different worldview. In one, the divine is the foundation of an empire that is the universe and human beings are livestock. In the other, the divine is a gardener and the universe his masterwork and humans are his prize possessions that he is trying to cultivate into a beautiful image. The contrast is striking and I can only imagine how it would have been received when it was first written. Plus, I have a sneaking suspicion as to what inspired the writing in the first place. It might behoove the church to use similar strategies when attempting to infect the world with the kingdom of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment