An inadequate response

The first inadequate response is to posit YHWH as just one of the ANE “gang,” no more and no less. In this perspective, YHWH looks like “Chemosh and Com- pany” (and vice versa) simply because he is, like them, a deity from ancient southwestern Asia, and that’s just the way things were back then and over there. Strong and extensive family resemblances between the various Semitic gods exist, therefore, because these deities are of a piece geographically and chronologically, at the very least, in the same way that Norse gods or Greek gods are of a piece and, as such, not of a piece with the other types or with the Semitic variety. We can, of course, parse the gang out more finely: YHWH is not just Semitic, he is southern Levantine and also strongly northwest Semitic. And so it is that he looks a whole lot like Ugaritic Ilu and Balu, but also like Moabite Chemosh and Edomite Qaus, and maybe Ammonite Milkom to boot. Insofar as YHWH controls the storm, he favors that specific branch of the divine family tree, which includes Balu but also others, especially as one moves further north into Hatti and eastward into Mesopotamia. Insofar as YHWH is sometimes said to come from desert climes, he reveals his relationship to other family members; as a god of the mountains, he favors still others. Maybe even YHWH’s seriously depopulated pantheon—the fact that he often appears to be an austere bachelor mountain god—is further evidence of his affinity to certain regional subgroups.—Brent A. Strawn in Divine Doppelgängers: YHWH’s Ancient Look-Alikes, pp. 141–42

<idle musing>
As he said, an inadequate response. I would say a lazy response—and reductive. But, in the early part of the 20th century that type of research was rampant via the history of religions approach. The approach has merit, but at that time some of the caveats we now have weren't in place. For an example, read James Frazer's Golden Bough. It's great fun to read—as long as you realize that a serious reductionism is going on. The same with most of Joseph Campbell's stuff, and to a large extent Mircea Eliade, as well. Fun stuff to read and provocative thinking. But usually wrong.

Just an
</idle musing&gr;

Hold the water!

In the context of a world surrounded by water those Bible passages celebrating God’s setting of boundaries for the sea make sense. The sea was dangerous and should God ever stop holding these chaotic waters at bay the world would collapse.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 31

<idle musing>
We're starting a delightful little book today (with a hearty thanks to Wipf & Stock for the book!) by Robin Parry. If you know Robin, you know that he has a wonderful British sense of humor, which manages to slip into the book here and there—keep your eye open for it as we go along.

Enjoy the ride as we step inside the minds of the biblical authors and readers. I think you'll find it enlightening and scary all at the same time!
</idle musing>

Different paradigm

As far as Gen 1–11 protohistory was concerned, the Israelites “did history” in ways similar to other ancient Near Eastern cultures because it was part of their common cultural heritage—this common way of doing history was the result of the common ancient cognitive environment. The importance of this for our purposes is the way the ancients, and by association the Israelites (in this section of Genesis), did history was through the medium of myth. They “did indeed make it their practice to express their speculations about world forces and their situation amid them by means of very sophisticated compilations of mythological motifs and patterns.” In other words, the ancient mind tended to (as we would describe it today) mythologize their past. That is, they speculated about their past in mythological terms. Kitchen rightly observes that in the ancient Near East they “did not historicize myth (i.e., read it as an imaginary ‘history’). In fact, exactly the reverse is true—there was, rather, a trend to ‘mythologize’ history, to celebrate actual historical events and people in mythological terms.” Furthermore, our modern tendency to separate myth from history would be a completely foreign notion to them—that was not the way they “did history.” Again, all of this should make perfect sense in light of the values and concerns of ancient history writing discussed above. Mythological language was the perfect means by which to communicate the relevance of such weighty historical matters.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11 , pages 48-49

<idle musing>
We need to learn to let the text speak for itself. We have tried for too long to squeeze scripture into our Western, mechanistic materialism mold. It doesn't work!
</idle musing>

Myth defined

Myth is therefore more rightly defined as a reflection on the human world (immediate to the author) “by describing or imaging creative analogies between the circumstances and experiences of human beings in the world and beliefs about the world of the gods.” Here, we find the “analogical thinking” that Averbeck has mentioned. Mythological analogical thinking is the tendency of the ancient mind to relate their beliefs about the distant past (a usual subject of mythological writing) in terms more familiar to them. That is, they tended to analogize known elements from their world around them in order to explain the unknown (or lesser known) elements of their past.— Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11 , pages 46-47

<idle musing>
Or, as a seminary professor of mine said, "reasoning from the given to the divine." We still do that, but we don't call it myth anymore...
</idle musing>