Board index ‹ Christianity

[Dr. Derp]

The inheritance of Bronze Age Ugaritic mythology by the Iron Age Israelites is well documented in Biblical scholarship. For example, the cloud-rider Baal Hadad was said to battle against Yam, Nahar, and Lotan, and several hundred years later we find the Israelites telling the same story about the cloud-rider Yahweh battling Yam, Naharim, and Leviathan. It seems that no one outside the ivory towers ever talks about Ugarit, so if you've never heard of this before, I recommend spending some time Googling before coming back to this post.

In this post I want to summarize some surprising motifs that were handed down all the way to the New Testament. In particular, we will survey similarities between the Baal Cycle and the Jesus story. My thesis is that major elements of the Jesus story apparently originated in pre-Israelite religion.

1. "El", inherited from the Ugaritic, is one of the many Hebrew names/titles referring to Yahweh (Yahweh was originally a son of El as attested by Deut 32:8 in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Like Jesus, Baal Hadad is the begotten son of El. "Baal is our Lord: and there is none above him! We should all bring his chalice, we should all bring his cup. Groaning he cries to Bull El his father, to El the king who begot him." (KTU 1.3 v 35)

2. In all the Canaanite myths, only two gods are known as the rider/charioteer of the clouds: Yahweh and Hadad. In Daniel 7, this epithet is bestowed to the Son of Man; its otherwise unique application to the chief deity suggests divine status. From there the epithet is picked up by the Gospels and Revelation when Jesus is said to come with the clouds to battle the many headed sea dragon Satan and destroy the sea itself, just as Hadad battled the many headed sea dragon Lotan and destroyed Yam ("drank the sea to the dregs" and "dried him up"). In fact, Revelation is drawing on fulfillment of Isaiah 27, which almost quotes the Baal Cycle as it moves the chaoskampf from the primordial past to the eschatological future. Revelation even notes that the dragon had previously received a fatal head wound as Yahweh/Hadad specifically crush the head(s) of Leviathan/Lotan. I'd also argue that Jesus is identifiable with Michael, see below. (for further reading, check out how Exodus 15 paraphrases the Baal Cycle in relation to the Red Sea narrative; for even further reading, check out how this story of the sky god vs. sea serpent is found everywhere from Scandinavia to Japan to India to Egypt and maybe even the Congo).

3. The chief concern of the middle portion of the Baal Cycle is the construction of his temple: "Valiant Baal rejoiced: 'My house I have built of silver, my palace out of gold!" (KTU 1.4 vi 36) In the LXX Zechariah 6, it is said that the high priest Jesus (who is not to be understood as the historic high priest Joshua but "a symbol" see Zech. 3) will build the temple of the Lord, and of course Gospel Jesus says "I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands." While Christianity reinterprets the prophecy metaphorically, Jesus is temple-builder nonetheless.

4. Baal is killed by Mot, the god of death. According to Paul and other early Christian sources such as the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus was crucified by the "archons of this aeon" referring to Satan ("the god of this aeon") and his demons. Zechariah 3 features Satan opposing Jesus before he is re-clothed in white (a motif from the flood tablet of Gilgamesh, which also features Adad) while Yahweh brings about the end of all sin in a single day. Daniel 9 shows a dying Messiah. The sole line where Paul clearly attributes Jesus' death to earthly authorities (1 Thess 2) is overwhelmingly regarded as an interpolation: evidently, someone at sometime was bothered by the ambiguity.

5. Baal is "offered up like a lamb" (KTU 1.6 ii 21), the verb referring specifically to ritual sacrifice.

6. A group of women, including one known as the virgin, mourn his death, search for his body, and play a special role in the funeral rites.

7. Baal is buried and descends to the underworld.

8. Baal rises from the dead with the sun. Bart Ehrman points out the oddity that there is no actual resurrection narrative in the canonical gospels: the scene of Jesus rising is not depicted, he's just buried and next the tomb is empty. What's interesting is that what is depicted in Mark 16 is the women coming to the tomb "at the rising (ἀνατείλαντος) of the sun" (YLT) to be told "he did rise" (different verb in Greek). Luke 1:78, in a prophecy attributed to Zacharias, identifies Jesus as the sunrise (ἀνατολὴ) from on high. Focusing on the Zacharias tradition, back in the LXX, the temple-building high priest Jesus is given the name Rising (ἀνατολὴ) and he rises up (ἀνατελεῖ) from beneath. Philo of Alexandria quotes this (Confusion of Tongues 63, 146) and says that it is appropriate that he be called the ανατολή because he is the firstborn son raised up (ανέτειλε) by the father of all, also known as the divine image, Logos, celestial high priest, and ruling archangel of many names (Michael?).

9. Subsequently, both Baal and Jesus attain victory over death.

10. Baal ascends to eternal kingship by the blessing of El. So does the Son of Man in Daniel 7. So does the Jesus of Zechariah 6. So does Jesus in the New Testament.

[jimwalton]

The problems with this theory are multiple. There are so many factors involved that derivation is impossible to claim.

1. We would expect similarities of worldview and even terminology coming from the same language groups in the same cultural milieu. Abraham was of Sumerian/Ugaritic locality.
2. Similarity doesn't mean derivation.
3. Derivation can't be proved, but only speculated.

Specifically:

> "El", inherited from the Ugaritic, is one of the many Hebrew names/titles referring to Yahweh

Yes, "El" was as generic a name for "God" as they had in their culture, as "God" is in English. That they both called their deities "God" doesn't mean a whole lot and certainly doesn't speak to derivation.

> Like Jesus, Baal Hadad is the begotten son of El.

It's not like Jesus. Mythographies often speak of deities giving birth to other deities. This is different from Jesus, who is not described as having been "begotten" in the same sense that Baal is.

> In all the Canaanite myths, only two gods are known as the rider/charioteer of the clouds: Yahweh and Hadad.

Again, similarity doesn't mean derivation. We speak of God as powerful. Just because another religion may speak of God as powerful doesn't mean they got the idea from Christians, or that we stole it from them. Many cultures perceive God as powerful.

> Revelation is drawing on fulfillment of Isaiah 27, which almost quotes the Baal Cycle as it moves the chaoskampf from the primordial past to the eschatological future.

A worldview of order, disorder, and non order (chaos) was common to the cultures of ancient Near East. That Isaiah portrays YHWH as sovereign over cosmic evil. The point in Isaiah, as well as Revelation, is very different from the point of the mythographists. In Isaiah, YHWH is the Lord of moral order, and the forces of chaos have no control over him (41.33).

> Baal Cycle is the construction of his temple

Every god in the ANE built a temple. This point goes nowhere. Genesis 1 is a temple text, where God is building a temple fit for his glory, a temple not made with human hands. The cosmos was ordered by God to function as his temple.

> According to Paul and other early Christian sources such as the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus was crucified by the "archons of this aeon" referring to Satan ("the god of this aeon") and his demons.

You're speaking of 1 Cor. 2.8. Despite your assumption that the "rulers of this age" refers to evil angelic powers and Satan, in the context of 1 Cor. 2, earthly rulers are more likely (1 Cor. 1.26-28).

> Baal is "offered up like a lamb"

Yes, sacrificial lambs were common from culture to culture. Similarity doesn't mean derivation.

> Baal rises from the dead with the sun.

Various religions have resurrection narratives. Baal's resurrection is associated with the agricultural cycle, as his stay in the underworld corresponded to the hot and dry days of summer, while his emergence brought the life-giving waters of the rainy season. We are not to think this tale has anything to do with the resurrection of Jesus. Ball (Ezk. 8.14) is pointedly rejected in Scripture rather than being imitated or adapted.

>both Baal and Jesus attain victory over death.

Baal died every dry season and rose again every rain season. It is illegitimate to construe that this has any association with the biblical resurrection of Jesus.

[Dr. Derp]

On points 1, 2, and 3: There's a real mountain of evidence to go through on this topic and you're going to have to be open minded to appreciate it. Imagine if instead of these being written by the Israelites and Ugarites, if we were instead dispassionately comparing the literature of the Romans vs. Greeks or Akkadians vs. Sumerians. It should be pretty clear that we're reading the same stories retold, and the linguistic and archaeological evidence leaves no doubt as to who came first. For a strong example, look for my other comments in this thread on Habakkuk.

> Yes, "El" was as generic a name for "God" as they had in their culture, as "God" is in English. That they both called their deities "God" doesn't mean a whole lot and certainly doesn't speak to derivation.

El was indeed a generic word for God, but in Ugarit and in Israel the characterizations of El as supreme father god of the Elohim had a lot more in common than just the name itself. The Ancient of Days presentation in Daniel 7 is a particular example.

> It's not like Jesus. Mythographies often speak of deities giving birth to other deities. This is different from Jesus, who is not described as having been "begotten" in the same sense that Baal is.

A begotten son is a begotten son nonetheless. Obviously Baal wasn't begotten in the Greek philosophical sense (though you can find roots of the divine word concept in bronze age Egypt and even in Ugarit in a passage paralleled by Habakkuk where it finally becomes Logos in the Septuagint). You also have to look at the intermediate stage where Yahweh is a son of El (Deuteronomy 32:8 in the DSS, Psalm 29:1 are two examples).

> Again, similarity doesn't mean derivation. We speak of God as powerful.

"Charioteer of the Clouds" is a lot more specific than "powerful". We're not looking at just one or two similarities, we're looking at a whole collection of specific motifs. In addition to being cloud-charioteers, these storm deities also give forth thunder as their voice and shoot arrows of lightning. For one example, Yahweh lays down his bow after the flood - I'll let you guess which storm god brings the flood in Gilgamesh (Gilgamesh tablets have been discovered at Ugarit, btw).

> A worldview of order, disorder, and non order (chaos) was common to the cultures of ancient Near East.

The story of the weather god battling the chaos monster of the sea to attain kingship and (usually) create the world is actually common to just about every culture in Eurasia, going back to the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Jesus is a reinvention of Yahweh's chaoskampf and Yahweh is a reinvention of Baal's.

> Every god in the ANE built a temple. This point goes nowhere.

Gods built temples yes, but here we're looking at temple-building in association with eternal kingship and victory over the sea dragon. You have to consider the whole picture of chaoskampfic motifs. And Genesis 1 is absolutely relevant as a late, demythologized chaoskampf where the role of the chaos-waters is reduced to almost nothing (whereas Tehom is clearly personified in earlier Israelite poetry).

> Yes, sacrificial lambs were common from culture to culture. Similarity doesn't mean derivation.

It's notable because the other god killed in the cycle, Mot, has no sacrificial language associated with his death. Baal is specifically killed in a sacrificial sense.

> Baal (Ezk. 8.14) is pointedly rejected in Scripture rather than being imitated or adapted.

That's Tammuz, not Baal. Besides that, even though later writers polemic against Baal, the earlier syncretism is undeniable. Yahweh absorbed numerous elements of the Baal story and his epithets. Hos 2:16 possibly directly attests this: "It will come about in that day," declares Yahweh, "that you will call Me 'my husband' and will no longer call Me 'my Baal'".

> Baal died every dry season and rose again every rain season. It is illegitimate to construe that this has any association with the biblical resurrection of Jesus.

The various Greco-Roman mystery cults replaced communal salvation and cyclic resurrection with personal salvation and one-time resurrection. Christianity was part of the trend.

[jimwalton]

> There's a real mountain of evidence to go through on this topic

I know there is at least speculated evidence. As I have said, similarity doesn't require derivation. Proving the evolution of a thought or theology is difficult if not impossible, and that's where I take umbrage at the thoughts of these scholars that the similarities bring us to a firm conclusion, when it is not so. The similarities bring us to various theories, that's all.

> in Ugarit and in Israel the characterizations of El as supreme father god of the Elohim had a lot more in common than just the name itself.

Again, it is no surprise that a supreme deity would have supreme attributes, regardless of his cultural context. The true problem with the theory is the wide distinctions between Israelite and Ugaritic religion.

* Ultimate power. In the ANE, no entity possessed ultimate power, even El. Jurisdiction and authority were always shared. Not so with Yahwism (Ex. 20.3). There is no sharing of power, and YHWH is not accountable to any entity.
* Manifestation of Deity. The gods of the ANE were manifest in the heavenly bodies, the powers of nature, and the images in temples. In Israel, YHWH is never associated with any image (Ex. 20.4).
* Disposition of deity. The gods of the ANE had needs, shortcomings and weaknesses.
But YHWH is holy in all his ways. He is eternally consistent and self-sufficient.
* Autonomy. In the ANE, the gods were dependent for some things on humans: clothing and food, sacrifices and temples. YHWH was noncontingent (Ps. 50.7-15)
* Requirements. The gods offered no permanent revelation of their character. Humans were often left empty-handed. Pleasing one god might even offend another. Not so with YHWH (Dt. 10.12-14; Micah 6.8)
* Response: A wide variety of responses were required: bring food, ethical behavior, mystical medication, good deeds, etc. In contrast, YHWH required observation of the covenant by following the law.

> The Ancient of Days presentation in Daniel 7 is a particular example.

Daniel 7 is not a worthy evidence of your case. It was written anywhere from 600 - 300 BC, far removed chronologically and culturally from Canaan and Ugarit. It is recognized even by minimalist scholars that by 700 BC Israel had become solidly monotheistic. To use a reference centuries later as confirmation of an evolution centuries before is not convincing.

> A begotten son is a begotten son nonetheless.

Only true in one sense, but not in any important sense. Jesus was eternal God, only incarnated. There's a vast difference between him and Baal.

> Deuteronomy 32:8

Yeah, this theory has all kinds of problems. One of the key concepts in Deuteronomy is unity: There is one God, though he has many names (to show forth his majesty and glory). 'El is a common noun and not particularly an allusion to the Canaanite God 'El, known from Ugaritic myths as "father of the gods." YHWH was neither a father of the gods nor a son of the gods. YHWH is 'El Elyon. There is no convincing evidence that Elyon is the name of a deity in the ANE, but it is fairly common as an epithet for various gods, particularly El and Baal of Canaan. That still doesn't prove that the Israelites were just copycats.

> Ps. 29.1

Despite its similarities and connections to Ugaritic literature, there is no evidence as of yet of a Canaanite original from which this is copied. All of the elements that have been identified as Canaanite in nature also occur in other clearly Israelite settings, so they only show general similarities that obviously existed between Israelite and Canaanite language and culture.

And as far as the "sons of god," in Canaanite mythology they were lesser gods subordinate to El, the king of the gods. In the OT and Israelite theology, the phrase referred to angels who gathered in YHWH's heavenly court.

> We're not looking at just one or two similarities, we're looking at a whole collection of specific motifs

Let me try to put it this way. If you were to try to describe an ultimate deity, you may come up with all kinds of terminology familiar to your upbringing. And those descriptors may be remarkably similar to someone doing the same thing on the other side of the world, but that doesn't mean there was any collusion. We are all products of our era and cultures. Similarity doesn't mean derivation.

> Yahweh lays down his bow after the flood - I'll let you guess which storm god brings the flood in Gilgamesh (Gilgamesh tablets have been discovered at Ugarit, btw).

Oh my. A bow-wielding deity is a common motif in the ANE. He uses the bow to eliminate his enemies. YHWH is also a warrior (Ex. 15.3) who uses the bow (Hab. 3.9). But here in Gen. 9.13, in what is a radical departure from Gilgamesh and a supplanting of all ANE theology, the bow is not a symbol of combat but one of peace and wellbeing.

Now, it is possible that these two traditions evolved and diverged from a common theological core, but that's not the same as Israel copying Gilgamesh. The differences between YHWH and Ishtar are vast.

> Jesus is a reinvention of Yahweh's chaoskampf and Yahweh is a reinvention of Baal's.

This is an interesting invention, but there's no evidence for it. Derivation is as impossible to prove as correlation (check out this website for a good laugh: http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations).

> You have to consider the whole picture of chaoskampfic motifs. And Genesis 1 is absolutely relevant as a late, demythologized chaoskampf where the role of the chaos-waters is reduced to almost nothing

This depends, of course, on your authorship and dating of Genesis. The Wellhausen theory and its children have faced mounting criticism since the 1960s. Certainly we have no manuscripts prior to the DSS, though the LXX was prior (again, no copies). Even Wellhausen speculated that the J source may have been from 900 BC, the E source from 850, and the P source from 500 BC. But it's all speculation. There has never been a shred of material or textual evidence to support it.

> Baal is specifically killed in a sacrificial sense.

Sacrifice was common in the ANE. So what does that prove about your point? Nothing. Sacrifice was common. That doesn't mean Christology derived from Baalism.

> That's Tammuz, not Baal.

You're right. My mistake. But Baal is just as rejected as Tammuz in Scripture.

> syncretism is undeniable.

Syncretism was always a problem in Israel. Their syncretism was often derided by the prophets. What you are trying to show, however, is that it wasn't syncretism but rather derivation, which is impossible to prove. It's a theory but not anything proved or provable.

> Hosea 2.16

You'll notice that Hosea 2.13 condemns their syncretism with Baal. YHWH will allure Israel away from Baal, with whom they have prostituted themselves (2.2, 4, 7, 14). Culturally, the use of the term Baal in v. 16 is legitimate and without religious overtones. It means "husband." The wordplay is obvious, though. YHWH, as Israel's husband, doesn't want any form of "Baal" to be on their lips. Their syncretistic idolatry with Baal is reprehensible, and God will remove the names of the Baals from their mouths (2.17). You can't begin to claim that this text shows how "Yahweh absorbed numerous elements of the Baal story and his epithets."

> Christianity was part of the trend.

Christianity bucked the trend. I would challenge you to show me evidence where the mystery cults replaced the agricultural understanding of the deities with personal salvation and one-time resurrection. If you're talking about Mithraism, we can have that conversation, because Christianity didn't derive from Mithraism, which was an astrological religion. Certainly the religious marketplace of the Greco-Roman world was a crowded field. Christianity didn't arise in a religious vacuum, but it was anything but evolutionary and trendy.