Context Clues – Polytheism Pt 6

Yes, you found me out. This was originally an idea for an essay, which I’ve taken and broken down into smaller, blog-sized morsels. Hopefully you’ve been enjoying this series? Feel free to leave a comment, like and/or subscribe. You’ll find links to all of these things at the bottom of each post, along with an option to donate, and a few links to recent posts. 

Here is part 6 of our exploration into the polytheism context clue. If you’re joining us for the first time, I’d suggest going back and reading the earlier parts of this series in order to better understand today’s post.

We’ve compiled some short lists of the culturally significant pantheons of the nations, tribes, ethnic groups and kingdoms surrounding the ancient Israelites, and we’ve briefly identified a few commonalities between these different religions so as to appreciate the theological landscape surrounding the ancient Israelites a little bit better.

I made a reference to John Walton in the previous post, citing his observation that “Like everyone else in the ancient world, the Israelites believed that everything that happened and everything that existed found its ultimate cause in deity.”

But where did this belief come from? 

There are several ways we could answer this question, but I think at least a part (maybe a large part) of the answer comes down the cultural beliefs and values of the world around them. In other words, Israel was heavily influenced by the religions and theology of the empires, kingdoms, nations and tribes surrounding them, and this influence undoubtedly penetrated into their own customs and practices. But to what extent?

To address this question, I’m going to reference John Walton once more. Mr. Walton is a Ph.D. and Old Testament scholar, who has written and contributed to several scholarly resources, such as the IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, and of particular interest to today’s discussion, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. This is an excellent book in my opinion, and one I would heartily recommend with one disclaimer: Mr. Walton writes at a scholarly level, and this book is essentially formatted like a doctoral dissertation. With that being said, it is also packed with fantastic information regarding the literature, religions and people of the ancient near east.

In the opening chapter of the book, Walton introduces the concept of “comparative studies,” which I will over-simplify as “the process of comparing similar or contemporary cultures in order to learn more about one or both cultures.” At the end of the chapter, he outlines an excellent list of ten principles of comparative study, which I will list below. Bear these principles in mind any time you compare two groups/cultures, such as the Israelites and the Canaanites, or any of the other groups whose pantheons we’ve been exploring in this series.

1. Both similarities and differences must be considered.
2. Similarities may suggest a common cultural heritage or cognitive environment rather than borrowing.
3. It is not uncommon to find similarities at the surface but differences at the conceptual level, and vice-versa.
4. All elements must be understood in their own context as accurately as possible before cross-cultural comparisons are made (i.e., careful background study must precede comparative study).
5. Proximity in time, geography, and spheres of cultural contact all increase the possibility of interaction leading to influence.
6. A case for literary borrowing requires identification of likely channels of transmission.
7. The significance of differences between two pieces of literature is minimized if the works are not the same genre.
8. Similar functions may be performed by different genres in different cultures.
9. When literary or cultural elements are borrowed they may in turn be transformed into something quite different by those who borrowed them.
10. A single culture will rarely be monolithic, either in contemporary cross-section or in consideration of a passage of time.

I suspect this book was written in part to answer the over-enthusiastic reductionists who claim that primacy in chronology equates to primacy in authority (in the case of religious texts), and that all subsequent texts are merely variations on the primary (first) source. If you or someone you know ascribes to such a view, I recommend reading Walton’s book in its entirety.

For the purposes of our theme in this series, however, I think these ten principles create an excellent filter by which to effectively answer our earlier question: how heavily/directly were the Israelites influenced by the surrounding people and cultures of the day? To borrow terminology from Walton, how much was borrowed, and how much was coincidental based on a common cultural heritage or cognitive environment? 

As we filter our question through the ten principles (especially number 4), hopefully you’ll begin to appreciate the enormity of our task. In an earlier post I mentioned that questions like these deserve hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of research in order to answer them effectively. With that in mind, I hope you’ll accept a simple answer to our question: “I’m not sure.” 

Even without access to the Bible, it would be a reasonable conclusion to make that the Israelites were not monolithic. In other words, they were influenced by the surrounding cultures. And as it just so happens, we do have the Bible, and we do see plenty of examples of the Israelites borrowing cultural practices and superstitions from the surrounding nations. However, Walton also offers the following assurance: “Just as it would be foolish to think that all Europeans share the same culture, it would be a mistake to suppose that Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, Israelites, and Sumerians all shared the same culture.”

In other words, every people group has their own unique culture comprised of several (or many) unique factors. 

This tension between the assimilated ideologies and practices of the polytheistic nations surrounding Israel and the one true God who was trying to build a genuine relationship with His chosen people helps to explain a lot of the confusing and seemingly contradictory passages in the Old Testament. 

So where does that leave us? Are there any actionable insights we can offer at this time? Of course! As a general rule, if an OT passage looks and sounds like Jesus (revealed in the NT), there’s a good chance that it’s an accurate picture of God, or an accurate transcription of something he instructed the Israelites to do. If an OT passage looks and sounds like the polytheistic beliefs and practices of the pagan nations surrounding Israel, there’s a good chance it’s not God, or not an accurate transcription of something God told the Israelites to do.

Alright, now that we’ve cleared that all up, let’s take a final assessment of the first form of Biblical polytheism, and then move on to the second.

• Context Clues – Polytheism Pt 6
• Context Clues – Polytheism Pt 5
• Context Clues – Polytheism Pt 4
• Context Clues – Polytheism Pt 3
• Context Clues – Polytheism Pt 2