Nothing makes you feel quite as old as seeing a documentary where the names of the experts are unfamiliar to you because they’re too young.So it was when I watched PBS’s Ancient Skies episode “Gods and Monsters.”They had me at “Monsters” although I know that when paired with gods the term generally refers to Greek mythology.This documentary had a pretty cool rendition of Marduk battling Tiamat that would’ve left many a Babylonian quaking in his or her sandals.Ranging across the world, it showed the earliest efforts to understand astronomy, and then went on to contrast it with how the ancients nevertheless still believed in gods.It was a striking kind of condescension, I thought.Many scientists today still believe in a deity, although it’s no longer the fashion.
That sharp dichotomy, that either/or, bothers me a bit.It’s not that I have a problem with science—I’ve always supported the scientific method.No, it’s the idea that everything is explained that bothers me.We understand so little about the universe.Yes, we’ve made great strides over the past millennia, but we’ve not even been out of the cosmic neighborhood yet.And I wish we could acknowledge that even on earth life is still a mystery that can only be solved with poetry as well as reason.“Gods and Monsters” made the point that the ancients realized the explanatory value of stories.Myths weren’t just idle constructs to pass the time.They were ways of understanding how this universe works.Some people take their mythology too seriously, of course, but that doesn’t mean that no stories are required to make sense of it all.
It was the inherent conflict implied between science and religion, I think, that bothered me the most.Not everything in life comes down to an equation.That doesn’t mean that equations are wrong, just that they’re not everything.One of the points Ancient Skies makes is that people of bygone eras had a very sophisticated understanding of the sky.It featured the builders of the great pyramid of Khufu, those who constructed Stonehenge, the Maya, and the Babylonians.They all knew much of the math that would only be formulated in Europe much later.And they all assuredly believed in gods.It didn’t prevent them from complex thought in either architecture or astronomy.Our modern dilemma is the razor burn left by standing before the mirror too long with Occam.You don’t have to shave to support science.
As a refresher on my own ancient history, I picked up Tammi J. Schneider’s An Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian Religion.This was one of those books that spawned several internal conversations simultaneously as I realized just how much modern lenses color our perceptions of past societies.Before commenting on that, however, a few necessary points must be made.Our knowledge of Mesopotamia is in its infancy.There are only a handful of universities around the world that have the resources to prepare young Assyriologists adequately.Once prepared, those young folk will be introduced to the job market of those with far lesser education because there are practically no jobs in the field.Seems a poor way to treat the civilization that invented wheels, arches, and beer.Or so I’ve read.In any case, many tablets in ancient languages have never been translated because there simply aren’t enough people to do it.Any conclusions, therefore, must remain tentative.
Ancient religion in western Asia was extremely political.From our perspective, this seems odd—although it’s happening again in real time.Ancient societies relied on the cooperation of religious and political leaders and each institution helped the other.They didn’t have the added complication of monotheism to deal with.In trying to keep all the gods happy, they simply reasoned that if things fell apart, another god had grown to a superior position.Certainly they believed the gods were there—we do too.We call them cash, the stock exchange, and commodities, but we still worship and adore.And they keep the government going.(I kind of liked it better when they were old-fashioned gods; at least they had sympathy for the human condition.)
After getting to know the gods, Mesopotamians recognized that humans were to do the work for them.Gods, after all, owned the land and priests and kings were powerful individuals.You didn’t want to cross them.Rituals were developed to ensure the smooth continuation of seasons and agriculture.As Schneider points out, we don’t have enough information to understand all of this.Our information comes from across millennia and from locations sometimes hundreds of miles apart.If this is a puzzle well over half the pieces are missing.We glimpse people like us, trying to survive.Gods are unpredictable, but you can try to read a liver or two to find out what’s on their minds.And some of the kings thought they were gods.The more things change, the more, it seems, they stay the same.
Some books are complex enough to require a slow reading.Alan E. Bernstein’s The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds is such a book.For those of us raised in a faith primarily geared toward avoiding Hell, the concept becomes a lifelong nightmare.It doesn’t help that, depending on your clergy you’re taught different, sure-fire ways of achieving that avoidance.Often it hinges on “believing” the “right” thing.Fundamentalists tend not to call it “doctrine” since that sounds rather Catholic, but the idea’s the same; it’s a tenet of faith.As Bernstein shows, however, Hell is an idea that developed over a very long time with several different views of what happens after death.There’s no single, linear progression, but rather a conglomeration of ideas from a variety of sources.
No single volume can cover all the background to Hell.Bernstein focuses on Egypt for the early material, as well as Babylonia.These early civilizations demonstrate that people have always wondered what comes next, and what happens to those who oppress others—the bullies of this life who don’t deserve the same eternal rest as the rest.Usually some form of punishment awaits, but not always.In the Hebrew Bible one of the great issues was the fact that everyone goes to Sheol, good and bad alike.As in classical Greece and Rome (on which Bernstein spends a great number of pages) the concept of the netherworld is gloomy, but not torture.Except in exceptional cases, of course.The Greeks had Tartarus as a place for those who dissed the divine.
Even early Christianity didn’t have a uniform view of it.The New Testament is decidedly divided on the topic.Revelation seems to be the last word, but it’s not.Later thinkers such as Origen and Augustine (who came to different conclusions) weighed in.Catholic Christianity lavished great love on the latter and Augustinian views became disproportionately influential.Reading his lack of compassion can cause nightmares, although he justifies it theologically.The one thing I missed in Bernstein’s lengthy treatment was the Zoroastrians.This religion of ancient Persia introduced a distinct dualism into the biblical world; it perhaps represents the first relatively developed concepts of Hell and Heaven.Zoroastrianism suffers from lack of documentation, however, and it is difficult to parse it as meticulously as Bernstein does the other cultures covered.This book requires much pondering as it’s read, and if you were raised believing this kind of thing it’s sure to bring back a nightmare or two.
“Storms are the embodiment of Mother Nature’s flair for the dramatic, and the words that we use to write about them are infused with that drama,”—the words aren’t mine, but they express something I often acknowledge.The quote comes from a Verbomania post about the word “brontide”—a noun for things that sound like distant thunder.Weather-related words are indeed part of the religious vocabulary as well.I wasn’t quite daring enough to suggest it in Weathering the Psalms, but it seems that thunder may be behind most basic religious beliefs.Well, that and bad luck.Think about it—most cultures have a very powerful storm-deity.That power is expressed in thunder.Even in the twenty-first century a sudden clap can made the sophisticated duck and cover.
We don’t know as much about ancient Mesopotamian culture as we’d like to, but it’s pretty clear that storm deities commanded major of respect.Eventually in the city-state of Ugarit, in what is now northern Syria, a god named Hadad (aka “thunderer”) became the patron of the city and was known mainly by his title “lord” (Baal).There may have been more than one lord, but the one in charge of day-to-day affairs was the one who controlled storms.We’ve entered another rainy season around here (something you tend to notice when the roof leaks), and my thoughts often turn to how very much the weather controls us.Interestingly, thunder hasn’t been much in the picture.We’ve lived in our house coming up on a year and I have been awoken by thunder (something that still scares me as much as when I was a kid) only once.Thunder is the approach of gods.
There’s drama about the weather.In fact, fiction writers have long known that one of the most effective ways to suggest the mood of a story is the meteorological method.Weather sets the scene.The sound of distant thunder has a naturally ominous, almost predatory quality.The growling, low and loud bursts from the sky sound so like human expressions of rage that it is only natural that they should be interpreted this way.Since the sky is (or used to be) out of the reach of humans, the sounds from above were from the realm of the divine.When gods approach the mood is threatening.We dare not meet them.That mythology has long informed our perceptions of meteorological phenomenon, acknowledged or not.Brontide is an underused word that brings the drama of both nature and the divine together. It could be a psalm word.
As someone always interested in origins, I reflect on how I’ve ended up the way I have.I mean, who plans to end up a Bibles editor?In the grand scheme of a universe with a sense of humor, it’s an odd job.I grew up reading the Bible, but lots of people do.Most of them end up with ordinary people jobs.Obviously, working on a doctorate in the field is admittedly strange, but then, my interests have always been to get to the truth.The other day I spotted a book on my shelf—the book that arguably started it all.The Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden.These days I would recognize this for what it is, a cheap reprint of a book published quite some time ago (1926 and 1927).No “value added content.”Just a reprint.But why did this book have such influence?
It was the first time I’d realized—and growing up in poverty with parents lacking college educations you have to teach yourself a lot—that there were other books about as old as the Bible.The idea fascinated me.Somehow my fundamentalist upbringing had convinced me the Bible was the first book ever written—after all, its author was God and how much more primordial can you get?Now this particular book (Lost Books of the Bible etc.) contains some apocryphal Gospels.Not having a strong grasp on the concept of canon, I wondered why these books had been excluded, or, to use the title conceit, “lost” and “forgotten.”In college I would learn about the canonical process.I’d hear more about it in seminary.There I would learn that even older sources existed.In the pre-internet days, in a rural town without so much as a public library, how would you find out about such things?
Helmer Ringgren’s Israelite Religion captured my imagination in seminary.Even there, however, nobody on the faculty seemed to know much about what had come before the Bible.Harrell Beck told us of ancient Egypt in our classes, but clearly there were further depths to plumb.I learned about James Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, which I bought at the Harvard Divinity School bookstore.Other texts went back beyond Holy Writ.Just how far would have to wait until the University of Edinburgh.I sometimes wonder if I might’ve taken a different turn here or there had anyone been able to answer my young, unformulated questions about the origins of the Bible and other ancient books.Now we just have to ask the internet.
The history of Israel and its neighbors has been appropriated deeply in the mindset of western cultures.Both the British and Americans, for example, have thought themselves the “new Israel,” for once a people is chosen so all people wish to be.I’ve been thinking about this in linguistic terms of late.To get to the main point, we need to read a little history—it’ll be painless, I assure you.Israel was a nation frequently conquered.The imperial powers to the east, beginning with Assyria and continuing through Babylonia and Persia, overran the land. This hostile takeover involved not only Israel, but its neighboring nations as well.These early, violent attempts at globalization worked themselves out linguistically, in part, by the necessity to communicate in a common language.
In the broad sweep of world history, the conquering nation tends to impose its language on the conquered.Think of Alexander of Macedon and the adoption of Greek as the “lingua franca”—the official language of empire.Ironically—and this is what captures my attention—when Assyria overran Israel, it also conquered “Aram.” (Aram was the area north of Israel, roughly what we think of as Syria today.Their language was Aramaic, which is closely related to Hebrew.)Instead of the Assyrian language being imposed on the defeated peoples, the invaders adopted Aramaic as the official imperial language.Some of this may have to do with the fact that Aramaic, being alphabetic, was much easier to learn to write than syllabic Assyrian (known generically as Akkadian, along with Babylonian and its dialects).It may have been the last time a conquering nation admitted at least some of the culture of the defeated was superior. (Ironically, the Romans felt that way about the Greeks. Those who have ears…)
Aramaic continued in favor even as the conquered adopted Alexander’s Indo-European Greek centuries later.Lingering into Roman times many of the people of what was left of Israel were bilingual, knowing Greek and Aramaic. The latter was the language of Jesus.Aramaic later survived in the form of Syriac, but the area was overrun by Arab invaders and Arabic became the lingua franca.Still, nestled in the middle of this linguistic history is that episode of the ascension of Aramaic to imperial levels.That’s the thing about globalization—it’s an exercise in compromise.Many distrust and hate it, and even today some sub-cultures fear they’re being wiped out by granting too much to those who “don’t belong.”In some ways it’s an understandable fear.Learning new languages is hard, especially for adults.There is perhaps a lesson in the survival of Aramaic, though, that might still come in handy when cultures collide.
Pseudepigrapha always struck me as a great name for a pet guinea pig.Neither members of the porcine family nor from Guinea, these rodents are remarkably companionable.But like the word pseudepigrapha, this post isn’t about guinea pigs.I’ve been reading various documents among this sprawling category of texts, and I can see the fascination they hold for scholars of Second Temple Judaism.My own specialization was on the earlier end of the spectrum—Ugarit had ceased to exist even before a first temple was built and provided clues to how this whole religion got started in the first place, but that’s a story for another time.The account of the pseudepigraphacannot be summarized easily.Some of the documents have been known to scholars for a very long time.Others have been (and continue to be) discovered, some quite recently.
Not a pig.
The documents classified as pseudepigrapha generally bear the name of someone who couldn’t have been their “author.”We now know that ancients didn’t think of writing the same way we do.They didn’t publish books like modern writers do, and scholars have been exploring how the category of “book” distorts even the Bible, let alone books that didn’t make the cut.None of this diminishes the intrigue of these ancient texts.The world into which Jesus of Nazareth was born contained many texts and traditions.There was no Bible as we know it today—it was still being written (or compiled)—and no canon, literally a measuring stick, existed to determine what was holy and what was not.
As discoveries in Mesopotamia have made clear, although few could read or write, writing itself was prolific, at least given the technological limitations.Today if one wishes to specialize the literature of one subsection of one time period, and probably even some subdivision of that, has to be selected.Universities don’t see the point, and much of this ancient material is understudied because there remains money to be made in looking at economically viable topics.The pseudepigrapha have nevertheless come into their own.Perhaps because some of the stories these documents contain have made their way into pop culture.Even as I make my way through many of these texts that are young in my eyes, I realize the proliferation of writing made such growth almost inevitable.There remains, however, a high-pitched squealing that demands attention, regardless of what the exact genus and species of the creature may be.