You Cannot Escape Your Fate

When the Greeks do a tragedy they really do a tragedy. I guess that's fitting considering they did define what a tragedy is. If the story of Antigone and Creon has a moral (I haven't decided if it does) it's that, try as you might, you cannot escape your fate. Oedipus's father brought about his own fate in attempting to escape it by sending giving Oedipus to some one else to get rid of. In attempting to escape this same fate Oedipus brought it about. In the end even Creon learned fate is inescapable, though why the seer came so late is a point worth pondering.


Perhaps Sophocles was of the opinion that people were too stubborn? Was he hoping that the politicians viewing the play would take Creon's role to heart and question if they should do things differently? As he was a member of the ruling class he would have first hand experiences...

Homer- Analysis v Interpertation

Auerbach claims that "Homer can be analyzed... but he cannot be interpreted." In his Essay "Odysseus Scar" we read about how intensely Homer describes everything, from what people are thinking, down to which hands they use for things, such as when Odysseus grabs his nurse.

Auerbach points out a stark contrast to Biblical writers. In the case of Issac and Abraham, for example, we have no idea what God's motives are, it doesn't say how Issac or Abraham feel and there are no details about the journey itself, which I had not realized was a three day journey. With so few details, the reader is forced to "fill in the blanks".  This is where the interpretation comes in. Two people can read the same Biblical passage and come away with different impressions. For instance, when a father reads this story, he will think about what it would be like to give up his only child, but when a child reads this he or she is more likely to think what it would be like to almost be sacrificed.

Had Homer written the story of Issac and Abraham, I believe we probably would have seen God conversing with some one, perhaps other Gods, and telling them why he needs to test Abraham.  We would have read a lamentation by Abraham over the impending loss of his only son.  His son would have probably said something more than "where's the sheep". 

Is one style better than the other? Is Homer better because he explains everything? Is the Bible better because we can glean our own meaning? I'm not sure the Odyssey could survive a Biblical re-write. It would end up very short, that's for sure. The themes could still be present, the wife who waited when everyone else said "he's not coming back", the son's journey from boyhood to manhood, etc.I don't know that it would have had the staying power it did though.

Ah Ha! Now I get it.

When reading the Epic of Gilgamesh, where he was trying to find the secret to eternal life from Utnapishtim I didn't understand why Utnapishtim would set forth the challenge for Gilgamesh to stay awake. Sometimes I guess I just need to have things spelled out for me. Here, in what is a children's version of the story I got it. Sleep was considered a "little death".

The Sumerians were not alone in their opinion of sleep.  According toG. de Purucker, "Sleep and death are brothers, according to the old Greek proverb." He claims that sleep and death are virtually identical, death being the "perfect sleep." Framed with this belief I can see how staying awake would be a fitting test, though not very easy, or reasonable considering Gilgamesh's worn out state.

Greek Gods of Death and Sleep, Hynos and Thanatos

Here, Hypnos and Thanatos are describes as twins even. These beliefs have even made their way into Christianity in very interesting ways. " the Angel of Death Thanatos inherited from Zeus his role as a judge of who shall live and who shall die, and he did this by weighing the living on a balance scale. Centuries later Christians would depict St. Michael the Archangel at the Last Judgement wielding a sword in one hand and with the other weighing the souls of the dead in a similar balance scale."

 

Flood Myths

The three most important differences in the flood myth are:
1. The reason that Man was to be destroyed
2. The importance of dreams and
3. There is not promise not to flood the earth again in Gilgamesh but there is in the Bible.

In the Biblical flood story Man was to be destroyed because of  their sinful nature. God is quoted as saying "the end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth." In Gilgamesh, Enlil proclaimed "The uproar of mankind is intolerable, and sleep is no longer possible by reason of the babel." This passage also mirrors the Epic of Creation, when Apsu is annoyed at the noisiness of the younger gods.

In Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim is warned of the flood in a dream, but in the Bible, God speaks to Noah personally. This either shows a greater fear, or respect to the gods in ancient times or perhaps this was due to a greater belief in dreams. I also found it odd that Noah could save only his family but Utnapishtim was able to save all his servants as well. Would Noah's servants not have been righteous as well?

In the Biblical flood story God sets his rainbow in the sky as a promise not to flood the earth again. In Gilgamesh it seems as if the Gods regret the flood, stating, "Would that a lion had ravaged mankind... Wold that a wolf had ravaged mankind... Would that famine had wasted the world... Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood," but they make no promise not to allow it to happen again.

On a side note, I did find it interesting that the ship built by Utnapishtim was made in seven days. Was this intended to be a reflection of the time it took to create the earth or just because the number 7 was significant?

Passive Aggressive God?

Was it just me, or did it seem as if the God of the Exodus story was a little over aggressive? It seems to me that he felt the need to not just free the Jews, but also make the Egyptians suffer. Was this because the Egyptians with their many gods annoyed him? Perhaps it was that he knew the Jews would revert to Egyptian practices if not given a large enough show? In the end they did any way so really, what did it accomplish? If he had the ability to harden the Pharaoh's heart, why not soften it instead?

We see this again in Job when God feels the need prove that Job is righteous by testing him to his limit.Couldn't he have been able to just tell the satan that Job had been through enough after the first trial?  It's easy to see how the satan morphed into Satan. If Lucifer's job is to make men suffer, the satan seems to fill that role.

Speaking of Satan, isn't it interesting how people who sacrificed animals in biblical times were considered righteous, but people who sacrifice animals now are Devil worshipers? I wonder if that was due to an attempt to make Jews seem more evil.

The god of the flood story is a very stern, but merciful god. He says of his creations, “It repenteth me that I have made them.” In this way it seems as if the earth were an experiment gone horribly wrong and he is deciding it’s time to throw out the Petri dish, so to speak and start over.  To me this indicates a god who doesn’t necessarily know what’s going to happen.

At the same time, he shows mercy to Noah, because “Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation.”  This seems to indicate that perhaps he is still a merciful god, not willing to punish the righteous along with the evil.

He once again shows that he is merciful when he “remembered Noah…and made a wind to pass over the earth and the waters assuaged.”  Again he shows mercy in his promise that he “will never again curse the ground any more for man’s sake for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living as I have done”. This would lead me to think that perhaps he feels he acted hastily?

I would say that this god isn’t all powerful. He doesn’t have the power to act over men. He may be all knowing; perhaps he predicted that men would become evil? If that is the case, he may have known that men would become evil once again. I kind of wonder why he would be willing to let future evil live when he felt the need to eradicate it once. Of course he doesn’t say he’ll never destroy all creation again, jus that he won’t flood the earth. Being a stickler, he has left other possibilities open.  He has also left it open to flood just one city, or region if he should chose.

Musings

 

It's rather interesting to me that all the myths show men being born, Eve gave birth to boys, no girl's names were mentioned, all of Earth's children were male in Theogony. Only the castration of Ouranous creates a female child. Was this a product of a male dominated society or was it all part of making male dominated society acceptable? Perhaps these stories were accepted more because women were more content with their roles in society.

I think in a lot of way myths are art imitating life. In all of the creation myths we read, either a younger generation of gods or god creations (in the case of Genesis) seems to rebel against authority.  As any one with teen children can tell you, children always rebel against authority. Granted, there are always exceptions to every rule but they are few and far between. 

If we look at governments in history we see that people often rebel against government as well. Even our own government is becoming more controlling and we see people protesting the controls  more and more.  It's not a stretch to state that rebellion is human nature. Perhaps the authors of the myths of creation were attempting to explain where that rebellion stems from, as well as how the earth was made.

One another note, It's kind of amazing what the ancient people were able to determine with their limited understanding of the world. They knew there were planets, they knew the sun was the center of the universe, etc. Which I find interesting considering man later thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe. When Galileo therorized that the earth revolved around the sun, the church did not react kindly.Galileo v. the Church

Similaitities in different stories

To understand the myths of creation it is important to understand the purpose of myths. A myth was generally a way to explain something happening in nature that could not be explained, such as thunder being caused by God bowling (not a real myth, just something someone made up).

According to PBS, “In Search of Myths And Heroes”, “Myths are stories that are based on tradition. Some may have factual origins, while others are completely fictional” While some myths include moral lessons, some do not and I believe these ones do not.

In the beginning of both “The Epic of Creation “ and “Metamorphosis”  earth, the sky, the ocean etc. existed by had not yet been named. “The Epic of Creation” begins, “When skies above were not yet named” and “Metamorphosis” states, “Before the ocean was or earth or heaven”. This is the introduction of making order out of chaos.

“The Epic of Creation” at first creates order with the birth of more gods, the notes state that “After setting up the primordial order of deities, the poem describes the conflict between old and new generations.” This assigning order would be the creation of order from chaos. In Metamorphosis the order is created when “God, or kindlier Nature, / settled all argument and separated/ Heaven from earth, water from land”.

We can see that it doesn’t take long for conflict to occur. In “Metamorphosis” it occurs because, “These brothers brawl and quarrel; though each one/Has his own quarter”. In “The Epic of Creation “The gods of the new generation would meet together/ And disturb Tiamut.” It is interesting also that in both myths the downfall of orderly existence in the younger generation of gods.  Could this be because in human history it is often the younger generation which is not happy to maintain the status quo?