by David Leeming

I just finished this. I picked it up at a recent trip to the library where, predictably, I was trapped for hours in the stacks pulling book after book off the shelves and flipping through them. I enjoy reading too much to speed read (I taught myself how in grade school because I thought it would be a valuable skill in the future but quickly abandoned it; it’s like fast food: sure you can but why would you want to?), so I usually spend some time with a book before deciding to check it out (I rarely buy). The title of this one was simply too juicy to leave on the shelf, so it came home with me.

This is a relatively short (just under 150 pages) whirlwind tour of the pre-history, archeology, history, and mythology of the (major) peoples who populated “the area of the world that has been called, with varying degrees of inclusion and/or accuracy, the Middle East, the Near East, the Levant, and the Fertile Crescent” (vii). As such, it does not provide a lot of comparison or analysis. It’s also written for a popular audience by an academic. Which is to say that it’s scrupulously annotated and has a lengthy bibliography but it’s also a fairly easy/fast read.

Spoilers after the jump.

Leeming starts with a 25-page history of the area, introducing the general cast of characters (Semites, Egyptians, Arabs) and briefly describing their major interactions, invasions, migrations, and subjugations. Then we get to the juicy stuff.

Starting with archeological finds near ?áatal H?ºy?ºk (a fairly notorious site where evidence of goddess-worship has been found), Leeming goes through, as I said, the major influences on the region. Little of it was news to me, but I’ve made books like this recurring themes in the “pleasure reading” category since high school (I tried to make what his underlying thesis is my final thesis for the IB, thinking that (a) I could do it justice in 25 pages and (b) it was new territory…). What it does best, in my mind, is provide all of these myths in a setting and presentation that makes it clear what their similarities are. Many have remarked on the recurring dying-God theme or even the virgin birth theme underlying Christianity, but Leeming ends up going a little deeper and exposing the recurrent themes in less well-known myths as well as the less-obvious themes in the famous myths.

The theme of the journey to hell, for example, is found undertaken by not just Jesus but also by Ishtar/Innana, Gilgamesh, Osiris, Telipinu/Telepinu (the Anatolian Thor, I’d not heard any of the Anatolian myths before), and (after a fashion) Muhammad.

The infamous dying-god theme, according to Leeming, has motifs in addition to the well known dies-and-is-resurrected theme. Trees, for instance, are apparently recurring in relation to death-and-resurrection myths. Either involved in the act of killing the god (Jesus died “on the tree”), the death itself (Osiris’ corpse spends time in a tree or under it depending on the version), or of the resurrection (Isis needs the tree to revive Osiris). Worship at sacred trees is mentioned as being common but not deeply discussed.

While creation myths among the civilizations discussed vary greatly, each brings interesting insight into the civilization in question. Most, however, involve in some way the concept of the magical properties of naming. Gods are named by their children, causing those gods to become greater than their parents. Gods bringing the world into being by speaking it, or by it coming forth from their mouths/tongues. We are familiar with Adam’s naming of the creatures in Eden as evidence of humanity’s dominion over those creatures. Another recurring creation theme is the seperation: of waters (those above and those beneath), of earth from sky to provide room for creation, of day from night, &c.

The heros of the various mythological backgrounds are discussed along with their possible historical underpinnings. That is to say, it is likely that Enshukeshdanna and Enmerkar were both actually kings (of Aratta and Uruk, respectively) although the fact that they both claimed to have married Inanna is most likely either pure myth or a metaphor (53-54).

The story of the gods becoming displeased with humanity and resolving to destroy it and start over (Noah/Nuh would be the version we’re all familiar with) is also recurrent.

The sacred marriage, a recurring theme in many myths (where the priest/king/god’s consummation with a priestess/queen/goddess is necessary to ensure the fertility of the land), which can be seen in the Old Testament’s Song of Songs, is often seen (in what I’d read before Leeming) as ending there. Christianity’s virgin goddess doesn’t fit easily into any interpretation of a sacred marriage as such. Leeming, however likens the Gnostic concept of Sophia, the Jewish concept of Shekhinah, and even Mary as queen of heaven with a kind of spiritual fertility. The (philisophical) marriage of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god with its feminine counterpart ensures the fertility of the spirituality of its followers. Perhaps a bit of a stretch, but an interesting interpretation nonetheless.

Mythical seduction, which can be seen Biblically in the stories of Samson and of Judith, causing loss of power, is also a recurring motif.

As I noted above, the myths are presented in such a fashion that these similarities, while not discussed in depth (what does it mean? is there a proto-Myth from which these all descended? did such events happen historically and end up being retold as myth? are they allegories for some Truth of existance known to mystics of every stripe but unknown to common people?), are obvious to the reader.

This would be a great first book for anyone who wants an introduction to the many startling (at first) similarities of religious myths. It’s also a great book for introducing some of the lesser-known similarities and lesser-known myth cycles. The tone is dispassionate to all of the myths, which I find to be a wonderful way to approach this kind of subject. So often, myths are presented by an author who wears her biases on her sleeve. Leeming has his biases but I find that they are either so well in line with my own that they’re difficult to see, or that he has done well in removing them from the narrative of his tale.

Recommended without reservation to most audiences. Some may take offense at Leeming calling the stories of current religions “myths”, and those who would also would not like seeing the similarities those have to other myths.