How are Shared Myths Possible?
Did the Jews borrow from Greek Mythology — I’d bet they did, but literalist Christians vehemently disagree.
When one culture has very similar stories compared to another there are three things that could have happened – see my illustration to the right showing models of where Jews may have gotten their stories.
Either (b) they borrowed the story from the other culture, or (a) both cultures developed them completely independently. The third option is (c) the Judeo-Christian option that Yahweh shared the stories between cultures to help others eventually understand Israel’s truths.
Three Possible Shared Myths
Neil Godfrey just publish a short post on three similar myths shared between Bible myths and Greek myths (taken from West’s book, see below). To aid in reading Neil’s fine post, I have explored some of the time elements below. You can see that the answer is not easy.
(1) Greek Spy in Trojan War, Hebrew Spy in Fall of Jericho
Trojan War: recorded between 500s-800s BCE by Homer (and others) — oral tradition earlier. Dates range from 1100-1300 BCE.
Fall of Jericho: Joshua 6:1-27, possibly 1400-1500 BCE by literalist Christian archeologists. Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon claimed the walls of Jericho fell around 2,000 BCE before the Biblical story was created which was 800 years after the fall of Jericho. But all of this, as you can imagine, is controversial. And some feel that later penned story may be based on the Ugaritic Epic Poem from around 1500-1200 BCE.
(2) Arion & the Dolphin & Jonah & The Big Fish
Jonah: supposed prophet during 786-746 BCE
Arion: first mentioned 665 BCE
(3) Ereuthalion & Giant, David & Goliath
Ereuthalion: Mentioned in Homer: 500-800s BCE — perhaps much earlier
David & Goliath: 1 Sam 17. Goliath came from Gath (destroyed in 800s BCE). David traditionally lived around 1000 BCE by literalist Biblical scholars. However, Biblical minimalists see the story and historicity as contrived.
Conclusion
It goes unspoken that of the Myth Semblance theories, I only give credibility to the Shared or Independent theories. For literalist Christians, exposing that their Bible stories were borrow or stolen from other cultures is very threatening. The apologetics to counter these charges are amazing. Chronology is the biggest fight: which myth came first. Keeping track of the archeology, vested interests and all the various shared myths is tough stuff. Way over my pay grade. But I hope this post makes Neil’s post a bit richer for you.
Related Books:
Books that discuss the Greek Myth & Bible Story connection include:
- Gaster, Theodor (1969): Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament: a comparative study. $10 Amazon
- West, ML (1999): The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. $89 Amazon
- Wajdenbaum, Phillippe (2011): Argonauts of the Desert: Structural Analysis of the Hebrew Bible. $62 Amazon
Triangulations 
You forgot an important variation in your original model (b). They also could’ve both borrowed it from a third culture (say Greeks and Hebrews borrowed from Mesopotamia). A further variation on that: an earlier proto-myth existed in a no longer existing “parent” culture and as the two “child” cultures drifted over time, the original myth varied over time in the two new cultures, but maintained some similarities.
With that said, I’m not buying these examples. I find most of the similarities weak and mostly coincidental, plus there seems to be some problematic sourcing.
Exellent post Sabio. Perhaps, since you have used “maps” to present these cultures, it might have been a good idea to put them on an actual map showing how close by to each other the Greek, Jewish and Egyptian culture existed. Waterways were not so much a barrier as they were a connection between these cultures. The Jews were least maritime of these three, so already from the beginning, they would have been least aware of the similarities of their stories in comparrison to stories told in other areas around the Mediterranean wether they were borrowed, or not.
On the other hand, humans do tend to invent similar stories all around the globe. However, a dolphin helping a man in trouble at sea, is a lot more likelier to be the original story when compared to a story where a god sends a big fish to swallow a man in distress. Why? Because it requires no supernatural, or otherwise unnatural explanation.
Stories morph and are always absorbed into newer mythology. The Babylonian tale of King Sargon of Agade is the root of the Moses character. It’s of course not possible, but I’d personally love to hear to first tale; the first yarn fashioned around the burial of a King with grave goods.
Scholarship generally accepts that cultures swapped stories. When seeking to understand what the myths meant in their contexts, the differences are more significant than the similarities.
Nice posting, thanks for that.
Somewhat related to this let’s recall that Christianity, especially after Paul, borrows a lot from Greek religion. The role of women in Judaism before and after Paul, apparently, has been studied a lot. Women-figures were important to Greeks. So when Paul was preaching to them he couldn’t just preach the all-male Judaism. He had to introduce women. Unfortunately, I have no sources for this now.
Orphism, in particular (as survived through Pythagoreanism) has been very influential for Christianity.
I think Jesus did not need to borrow any myth from the Greeks. He neither believed any myth nor did he teach any?
It was Paul who preached myths; and might have borrowed as well.
I’ve actually been told that similar stories that predate the ones in the Bible are prophetic, hinting at the true story to come.
@Mike aka MonolithTMA
That is also a possibility.
Another reason is that the Truthful Religion and the One-True-God are for all the human beings and the people of the world.
God conversed with the righteous persons in all parts of the world. Since the source is the same (One-True-God Allah Yahweh Ahura Mazda Parmeshwara ) hence the similarities.
Do you mean to say that the gods of all monotheistic religions (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam–maybe there are more, I don’t know) are identical? Interesting. OK, let’s accept this (since you say so) and refer to this unique god as G.
But how about polytheistic religions? For example, Hinduism. Consider, for instance, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Your posting behooves me to ask you the following:
Question 1 : Is any of them identical to G?
Question 2 : Or they are all different from G?
Since Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu are distinct, it follows that not all can be identical to G. What do you, therefore, deduce about such religions? Which god conversed with the righteous persons?
I think paarsurrey is saying that the source behind these god concepts is the same, not that the gods themselves are identical. I could be wrong.
This cannot be right. We are OBVIOUSLY speaking of different concepts when we refer to Apollo and Yahweh. But let paarsurvey reply to the specific question I posed, let’s give him a chance.
Quoting from comments of Mike aka MonolithTMA
01/09/2014 at 12:10 pm
“I think paarsurrey is saying that the source behind these god concepts is the same, not that the gods themselves are identical.”
You have understood me correctly; I agree with you.
Thanks and regards.
Quoting from comments of Takis Konstantopoulos
01/09/2014 at 1:06 pm
“This cannot be right. We are OBVIOUSLY speaking of different concepts when we refer to Apollo and Yahweh. But let paarsurrey reply to the specific question I posed, let’s give him a chance.”
Thanks for giving me a chance.
Since the Word revealed on righteous persons by (the One-True-God Allah Yahweh Ahura Mazda Parmeshwara) in different regions of the world was transmitted verbally from generation to generation hence it did not reach us verbatim in the original language ; it got diluted but in most cases it did not lose entirely.
Like a building built many centuries ago it might have lost its original grandeur; nevertheless from the ruins the original is renovated by the experts and most of its grandeur is restored, if not all.
If Apollo had the same attributes as Yahweh in the original revelation and in the original language revealed on the recipients of revelation; then it is the same Personage; and the difference is only due to the languages of different people.
Quoting the words of Takis Konstantopoulos
01/09/2014 at 12:06 pm
“Do you mean to say that the gods of all monotheistic religions (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam–maybe there are more, I don’t know) are identical?”
Whichever the revealed religion is and in whatever part of the world it is located; I mean all of them.
Religions of Krishna or Buddha are also included in the concept of the Truthful Religion.
You are welcome. Thanks for replying. Unfortunately, I don’t understand what you are saying. Is it true then that Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Apollo and Yahweh are identical?
@ Takis (& paarsurrey),
paarsurrey is a theist (albeit a broadly inclusivist sort) who is talking to a bunch of atheists (most of my readers) as if we believe in a theistic god and we don’t. I think his form of Islam believes that all other religions but his religion has corrupt scripture (actually, this is orthodox Islam too), but he is willing to say the original teachings of the ‘great religions’ is true but now corrupt. That way they can pretend to be inclusive, but they really aren’t. A very tricky more, in my book. But either way, us atheists don’t find any traction in any of the theist arguments: inclusivists, pseudo-inclusivists, or exclusivists. I would like to see paarsurrey talk to us as if he recognizes our beliefs — whether he disagrees or not.
The original revelation on Krishna could be entirely different from what people now believe; one should not be mislead by that.
This is due to the verbal transmission.
Jesus was a Jew and concurred with Moses on belief in One-True-God Yahweh; yet the modern Christians don’t follow Jesus’ teachings and believe in Trinity invented by Paul.
It is not difficult to understand, I think.
@ Sabio Lantz 01/09/2014 at 4:05 pm
I think I am already talking. Am I not?
I think I understand. There is one god, let’s call her (or him?) G. This G revealed “the truth” to “the righteous ones” at “some point of time.” But then his (or her) message was corrupted and people started revering all kinds of deities. Because of the passage of time, the diversion became greater and greater. This is why, at the present time, there are mutually incompatible beliefs.
OK, I get it.
Please let me know if my syllogism is a correct interpretation of your last post.
But then, I have a further question. I arrive at this world endowed with no religion and no beliefs whatsoever. At some point in my life I decide to pick a religion. Which one should I pick?
I think you have understood me correctly.
You should search yourself and join the Truthful Religion wherever you find it:
[29:70] And as for those who strive in Our path — We will surely guide them in Our ways. And verily Allah is with those who do good.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=29&verse=69
So, I can pick anything? But this does not make sense at all. If religions have reached us (1) in corrupted form and (2) with huge differences from one another then no matter which religion I pick I will be making a mistake. For example, the passage you linked is, if I’m not mistaken, from the Quran. But then this is corrupt too, right?
Quoting the words of Takis Konstantopoulos
01/03/2014 at 7:45 pm
“Nice posting, thanks for that.
Somewhat related to this let’s recall that Christianity, especially after Paul, borrows a lot from Greek religion. The role of women in Judaism before and after Paul, apparently, has been studied a lot. Women-figures were important to Greeks. So when Paul was preaching to them he couldn’t just preach the all-male Judaism. He had to introduce women. Unfortunately, I have no sources for this now.
Orphism, in particular (as survived through Pythagoreanism) has been very influential for Christianity.” Unquote
Humans are said to be social animals; there is no blemish in borrowing concepts from one another; but one should do it honestly , sincerely and truthfully.
Indeed, thanks for quoting my original reply to Sabio’s posting.
But what about what I asked? I repeat. You agreed that
religions have reached us (1) in corrupted form and (2) with huge differences from one another.
Therefore
no matter which religion I pick I will be making a mistake.
For example, the passage you linked is, if I’m not mistaken, from the Quran. But then this is corrupt too, right?
To clarify: I don’t mean to say that the particular passage from the Quran is corrupt–that I don’t know–but that, for sure (you agreed on that), there are corruptions in the Quran or whichever other texts Muslims use. Right?
@Takis Konstantopoulos 01/09/2014 at 4:58 pm
Quoting your words:
(you agreed on that) Unquote
Please quote my words.
paarsurrey: Please excuse me, but I am really having difficulties following you. Let me repeat.
A. I wrote: There is one god, let’s call her (or him?) G. This G revealed “the truth” to “the righteous ones” at “some point of time.” But then his (or her) message was corrupted and people started revering all kinds of deities. Because of the passage of time, the diversion became greater and greater. This is why, at the present time, there are mutually incompatible beliefs.
B. You replied: I think you have understood me correctly.
C. And then I continued: You agreed that
religions have reached us (1) in corrupted form and (2) with huge differences from one another. Therefore no matter which religion I pick I will be making a mistake. For example, the Quran has mistakes.
Do you agree? I mean that of course you agree that C is a correct statement, if A is correct (which you acknowledged to be correct–see B).
Are you now saying that A is not correct? If not, which part of it is not correct? Please explain.
@ paarsurrey:
Am I understanding it correctly that you are not interested in discussing and, especially, not interested in any logical argument, but, rather, you wish to believe arbitrary things, make mutually incompatible statements, and not care about it?
This is your decision, entirely, and I respect that. However, in this case, you are not able to discuss with people who try to use logic and understand what’s going and what you are talking about.
Your stance is like “I stated this, it is correct because I (or my god/s) say so, I don’t have to argue about it, even if it contradicts logic; I just choose to ignore reason and logical discussion.”
Fine. As I said, it is your decision. But then please don’t ever say again that you are interested in discussion. Discussion, among humans, involves using your brain and is not like discussion between chicken or horses. In the latter two cases, they make arbitrary noises, most of the time stemming from some very basic biological need, but, as far as we know, animals, other than humans, do not engage in thoughtful discourses.
I knew it, but I wanted to make a little experiment, and it worked.
I knew that paarsurrey was not willing to engage in discussion. Indeed, Sabio, as you said,
You see, although he believes that his religion is the only one which is not corrupt and that his god is the only true god, and although he believes that other religions were once correct but have now become corrupt, he is unwilling to acknowledge this. He simply stated that “religions have become corrupt”, without explicitly saying excluding mine. He does not want to state this openly. Because, he knows that, if he does, he is taking sides. And his general “philosophy” is that “all religions are correct”, that “there is only one god”, but avoids to tell us, clearly and loudly, that it is only his religion which truly represents the true god.
I think he doesn’t do that on purpose (although I’m not 100% sure–see below). He, simply, is unable to reason. His logical faculty has been contaminated by his beliefs.
He reminds me of many other people. Intelligent designers, for instance. Although they are clearly promoting one kind of religion (fundamentalist Christianity), they will never explicitly say so. Rather, they will find all kinds of (weak) arguments to hide it.
But I’m not so sure that he is as naive as he appears to be. To wit, in a posting in his blog, he reproduced part of our discussion above. But he failed to copy my last questions to him. In your blog, and in his, he simply ignored them. So, someone visiting his blog and seeing only part of the discussion, may form a different opinion. So, I’m not sure that paarsurrey is the naive, friendly, all-embracing theist.
P.S. I also replied to him, by trying to post two comments in his blog, but he didn’t publish them.
P.P.S. Experiment successfully completed.
@ Takis,
I agree.
He also tries to steal away conversations to his blog.
I disengaged discussion with him because I could see it would go nowhere. He is on a holy mission, and he’d let nothing interrupt it — including reason.
IMO, the closer a story is to the Jung/Campbell monomyth, the more likely it is that it was independent. By this measure, independent development (“convergent evolution”) is far more common than a lot of people think.
Oh, while I think of it, there is another option, which is that one of the “myths” is reported inaccurately. This is undeniably true in the case of alleged parallels between Jesus/Horus, and very likely true in the case of Jesus/Mithras. (The primary source for the alleged parallels in the case of Jesus/Mithras is the Christian apologist Tertullian claiming that Mithras is a demonic counterfeit, and much of what he claimed that Mithraists believed appears to be contradicted by archaeological evidence.)
@ decourse,
That was interesting criterion for convergent evolution of myth — it would be cool to see how you would flesh out “closer to Jung/Cambell monomyth” — what counts as “closer”.
And that was interesting about Tertullian (though not surprising) — did he change the Mithras stories to be more like Christian ones, or less?
@ Takis Konstantopoulos
Quoting your words:
“P.S. I also replied to him, by trying to post two comments in his blog, but he didn’t publish them.”
Yet I didn’t delete your comments.
I intend to reply points raised by you in separate posts on my blog in a spirit of discussion rather than a debate.
Thanks
You may view, please:
I don’t debate for the sake of winning or losing, but for the sake of reason.
So, let me ask you again, in case you are interested in discussing.
1) You claim that all religions have reached us in a corrupt form. Yes or No?
2) You claim that only the Quran is perfect, and that Islam is the only non-corrupt religion. Yes or No?
@ paarsurrey,
You are welcome to discuss here using reason.
You may continue, don’t worry about going off thread — better than trying to drag conversations always over to your blog.
One may like to read the following post on my blog:
My god! Why can you not answer directly? Is it a problem with English? You are so slippery! Really.
Anyway, I clocked on the your page and read:
So, the answer to my question
is YES.
What about
Broadly speaking all were given the same concepts in the original revelations from the One-True-God; now the comparison could be made in the attributes. Quran is very clear in this connection:
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=20&verse=0
Thanks for your query
I think I replied it earlier; nevertheless I repeat:
Quran mentions in the very beginning of it while describing the merit and excellences of the believers/seekers:
[2:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[2:2] Alif Lam Mim.
[2:3] This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous,
[2:4] Who believe in the unseen and observe Prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
[2:5] And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee, and that which was revealed before thee, and they have firm faith in what is yet to come.
2:6] It is they who follow the guidance of their Lord and it is they who shall prosper.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=2
The believers/seekers have to be open-minded; and they must confirm the Truth in other scripture as much as it is in them; and the corruption done by scribes has to be pointed out if there is found any. This is what I do; and this is what Quran teaches one to do.
Quran is a perfect book and it claims it with reasons; other scriptures don’t claim it and give no reasons.
Quran mention it in the very beginning of it:
The Holy Quran : Chapter 2: Al-Baqarah
[2:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[2:2] Alif Lam Mim.
[2:3] This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous,
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=2
Other scriptures don’t claim it and also don’t provide any arguments like Quran does.
Thanks
@paarsurrey,
Stop flooding.
I was just replying to the comments by Takis Konstantopoulos. There is no edit button; if it had been there; I would have given the reference of his comments.
Thanks
paarsaray:
Thanks for replying. I found it really exhausting trying to squeeze your response from you, and, like in all previous exchanges, your responses were convoluted, semi-incoherent, lackluster, self-contradictory, and lacking logical flow. But, anyway, by removing the contradictions in your responses, I managed to piece them together and verify that, indeed, your response is (see how easily I can state it!):
Your proof is: The Quran says so.
Actually, I disagree. My thesis is:
My proof is; The Avesta says so.
Please tell me how someone can decide who is right. Me or you?
Please quote from Avesta for the claim and the reasons and arguments given by it.
@ Taki,
Well said. But unfortunately, your point went right over paarsurrey’s head.
@paarsurrey:
I think I see your point. I searched and searched, and even used a computer program which searches many religious archives. But the only religious text which calls itself perfect is the Qur’an! Indeed,
@ Takis,
I am reading several versions of the Mahabharata now. There we are told that it is “the greatest of compositions [well, that was a thousand years before the Qur’an]. It promises those who hear it will be “freed from his sin — even from the sin of abortion.”; “will conquer the entire earth and defeat his enemies” and it is the best way “to secure the birth of a son”. Listening is guaranteed to be “the greatest road to prosperity.”
“Those who hear without complaint… need have no fear of sickness, much less of the next world…”
But according to Muslims, that won’t work any more because the text is corrupt.
Excuse me while I chuckle at both of them for a minute or so!
Sabio,
I think that paarsurrey’s point is that the Quran was the first religious text to call itself “perfect”. Mahabharata calls itself “greatest” (maha..). Only god could have thought to write a book calling itself “perfect”. This is why paarsurrey tells us that Islam is the perfect religion. Every other religion has reached us in a corrupt form. I think he is right. Who, but god, could have thought of using the adjective “perfect”?
I am in Washington DC, at the moment. In my hotel, there is a copy of the Bible. And a copy of the Book of Moron. (Perhaps Mitt Romney stayed here, I will look to see if there is special underwear somewhere.) I spent the whole night reading the Book of Moron, and nowhere did I encounter a phrase declaring the book perfect. I therefore conclude that Morons do believe in god, but in a corrupt form.
@ Sabio Lantz | 01/19/2014 at 7:46 pm
“Excuse me while I chuckle”
You are welcome to chuckle; it is good for health and removes the stress.; and of course one comes out of anger.
Thanks
@ Takis Konstantopoulos | 01/20/2014 at 10:35 am
“Quran was the first religious text to call itself “perfect” ”
For other scriptures the time had not come to be perfect code of life; the societies of the world were not closely connected; and hence those revelations were specific for the people these were sent.
Quran mention the guarantee of the One-True-God for its protection; other scriptures before it neither claim it nor give reasons for it:
[15:10] Verily, We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation, and most surely We will be its Guardian.
[15:11] And We sent Messengers before thee among parties of ancient peoples.
[15:12] And there never came to them any Messenger but they mocked at him.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=15&verse=9
Please see the verse [15:10] above.
Thanks for your appreciation.
Regards
paarsurrey:
I now understand your reasoning. Let me repeat. You have convinced us, by giving references to the Qur’an that:
Therefore your conclusion is:
I daresay the conclusion is correct. Thanks for taking the time to make that clear. Perhaps one difficulty is that my native language is Greek (albeit I can express myself fairly decently in some other languages), but your native language is something else (Urdu? Arabic? I am not sure.)
@Takis Konstantopoulos | 01/20/2014 at 12:01 pm
My native language is Urdu.
Quran is not specific for Arabs, it is a wrong notion. Quran is for the entire peoples anywhere in the world. It was sent down by the One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parameshawara Eshawara) at a time that could be described as the dawn of enlightenment; it upholds the reason and hence Quran mentions claims and reasons on all important issues that confront humanity in the ethical, moral and spiritual realms; yet the secular realm has not been infringed upon and has been left free to be dealt with by science and other relative physical and material fields to inquire into as per their search and research.
Thanks and regards
http://takiskonst.wordpress.com/2011/04/
I happened to visit your blog at the above link.
There are only some posts there. Why don’t you write there?
paarsurrey:
1) This is not a real blog. It’s just a TEST. My real blog is http://randomprocessed.blogspot.com/.
2) Why should I respond to your comments, the ones you made in connection to Sabio’s posting elsewhere? What kind of request is this?
OK
Quite by accident I came upon this post “DID JEWS BORROW GREEK MYTHS – 3 EXAMPLES” dated 01/01/2014, while doing a timeline research of the Greeks and Jews (which culture is recognized as being in existence first).
First, I’d like to express my appreciation to Sabio Lanz of triangulations.wordpress,com for this remarkably thought-provoking website. Well done and with intelligence and wit!
Second, I’d like to say how terribly impressed I was in reading the dialogue of thought/opinion/belief that occurred between Takis Konstantopoulos and paarsurrey. The exchange was intelligent, intriguing, stimulating, articulate and exceptionally civilized! How very refreshing!
I’m a storyteller and curious seeker of history so make no pretense to being anywhere near the parlance of academia your followers so deftly express. However, from my most very limited realm of knowledge I have to ask… Would the One-True-God truly reveal/designate one particular people and one particular religion above all others?
The Holy Quran : Chapter 2: Al-Baqarah
[2:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[2:2] Alif Lam Mim.
[2:3] This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous,
I daresay that seems a bit presumptuous, definitely selective, even for the One-True-God especially considering He/She made man/woman in His/Her image and then through free-will, made it possible for all the other religions to bloom and flourish. Are we not all God’s children, corrupt religions et al?
The Qur’an is the first religious text to call itself perfect and provide the perfect code of life. It was revealed to a specific people (Arabs) and not to others. It is true because it mentions the One-True-God as its guarantor. And it gives reasons for it and these reasons are in [15:10–12].
A religion calling itself ‘Perfect’ does not necessarily mean the religion is perfect but only the first to claim as such. In a perfect religion, women would not be stoned. Still, Mohammed was one helluva a marketing genius and while the Jews did think to claim the ‘Chosen’ moniker, I bet the Jews are really annoyed they didn’t claim the ‘Perfect’ moniker first as well!
Which, brings us back to the One-True-God and His/Her very human sense of humor!
Many thanks for a wonderful, thought-provoking read.
@ Victoria:
A little hard for me to follow your point(s)? Some say, “One of the religions has to be right”, but more obvious to me is that “it is more likely they are all critically wrong” — but that don’t mean people won’t buy the marketing!