What do you think?
Rate this book
The Sargon legend: A study of the Akkadian text and the tale of the hero who was exposed at birth
English
298 pages, Unknown Binding
Published January 1, 1980
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
September 22, 2008
This is an arcane book, probably not relevant for most people, or even on their radar. The book is out of print and copies sell for around $100. So it will be hard to get your hands on unless you find it at a library.
The book is a study of the seventh century BC text which purports to be an autobiography of the extraordinary birth of the famous third-millennium king, Sargon of Akkad. The text claims that Sargon's mother abandoned him on a river in a basket waterproofed with bitumen, he was pulled from the river by Aqqi the water drawer, adopted, and became a famous king. Similarities with Moses are seen.
The text was first published 1872, so it's not like scholars, both orthodox and liberal, are unaware of the story of Sargon. Its relevance is mentioned in many commentaries on Exodus.
Brian Lewis discusses many features of the text. For example, he explores questions of dating. All we can be confident of, he claims, is a range between 2039 BC and 623 BC. He goes over the evidence for late and early dates. I happen to think the evidence for a late date the strongest. The text was probably constructed by the 8th century BC king, Sargon II, as a way to legitimize his reign. There are many internal and external signs which point in this direction, but none of it is conclusive.
Lewis also looks at the exposed-hero motif, finding roughly 70 examples of this motif in various texts cross culture, time, and from around the world. The exposed-hero motif is what Sargon is an early example of. It's basically a sub-type of a rags-to-riches motif. After looking at many versions of the exposed-hero motif, Lewis comes up with a list of 7 motifs basic to the tale. Sargon and Moses share about 6 in common, according to Lewis.
Lewis then discusses the motif more and conjectures at what the Ur-form of the motif might look like, the ultimate archetype on which all exposed-hero tales are ultimately based. Lewis then discusses the relationship between the Moses birth story and the Sargon Legend for a few pages.
He concludes with areas for further investigation.
At the end of the day this was a good read purely for its esoteric and unique subject matter. It also was relevant for apologetics in that some liberal and minimalist atheologians will use the Sargon Legend to debunk the historicity of (at least) Exodus 2. But those who do have probably not read Lewis. Lewis offers some conjectural arguments, based on a lot of "possibles," and "seems likelies," but at the end of the day even he concedes that Moses might "just as easily" be based on another exposed-hero legend other than Sargon. In my conjectures, and given some of what Lewis states, I actually think a possible Ur-form to be the story of Noah's arc.
The parallels between Moses and Noah are many, and it is obvious that the author of Exodus is drawing our attention to Genesis and Noah. Some of the connections are: (i) the opening words of Exodus echo Genesis at several points. Exodus 1:1 recalls Gen. 10:1; 11:27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9, 46:8; (ii) The increase of peoples Exodus 1:7 brings to mind Gen. 1:28, 9:1; (iii) Both Moses and Noah are placed in an “ark” (tebah) waterproofed with bitumen; (iv) both Moses and Noah are selected to undergo a watery fate; (iv) both are vehicles through whom God “creates” a new people for his own purposes; (v) Moses’ safe passage on the Nile looks back to Noah’s safe passage, and ahead to the safe passage of God’s people through the red sea.
Furthermore, Noah has much in common with the "simpler story" Lewis hypothesizes makes up the Ur-form. Indeed, if the Bible is true, Noah is the original exposed hero. Noah was exposed, prepared for exposure, had a father listed in the royal line of decent in the Bible, “discovered” by God and allowed to come back on land, and had his accomplishments listed. The value my hypothesis has is that it explains the literary similarities between the Sargon legend and Moses, since both are based on the archetype.
This is all granting Moses is an example of the exposed-hero motif, of course. There's a lot of debate about the alleged similarities Lewis finds. For example Sarna states, “The supposed close affinities between this folkloristic composition and our Exodus narrative are fanciful. In fact, the story of Moses’ birth departs from the Sargon legend and from the genre in general in so many significant respects that one almost gets the impression of a conscious attempt on the part of the biblical narrator to disassociate this narrative from the features otherwise characteristic of foundling hero motifs” (Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel, Nahum Sarna, Schoken, 1996, pp. 30-31).
Another very interesting difference is noted by George Coats. Coats notes that “by having the sister watch over Moses and the mother nurse him, the family is fully present in contrast with that of Sargon’s family” (see Coats, Moses: Heroic Man of G-d, cited in The Birth Report Genre in the Hebrew Bible, Timothy Finlay, J.C.B. Mohr, 2005, p.237, emphasis mine). So this might not even be a real abandonment. What is important on this is that Lewis himself claims that the Egyptian story of Horus is “not truly a version of the exposed-hero tail” because, Horus has his mother present with him (Lewis, 265)!
For reasons like this (and there are many, many more), scholars like Finlay can note in his authoritative account of Hebrew birth stories, that “In light of the evidence, it is fair to say, that although dependence of Exodus 2 on some version of the Sargon legend is possible, it has not been definitively demonstrated” (Finlay, 238).
Furthermore, if I am right about the Sargon II date, and I am right about the dating of Exodus (early second millennium BC) then Sargon would not be the source for the Moses birth story.
And, even if Moses was an example of an exposed-hero tale, this doesn't mean it isn't historical. Why would this mean that Exodus 2 wasn’t based on historical fact? Even Lewis himself states that “one should at least consider that in the case of Sargon or any of the other historic heroes, the popular narrative of the unusual birth may have been based on some historical fact” (Lewis, 267). So the cash value for those who want to argue for Moses’ birth being based on some prior legend, and who point us to Lewis, aren’t establishing that what as reported was simply “myth.”
Second, we know many people who seem to fit the exposed-hero tale, yet their stories are real. For example, William Appes, abandoned by his grandmother, rescued by a commoner, and later became hero and leader to the Mashpee people. Malcolm X also has an exposed-hero story. Jean-Jacque Rousseau also fits the motif.
It was also quite popular to expose children in the Ancient Near East. And if exposed-hero tales, and tales of the popular Sargon, saturated the minds of the peoples back then, this is an example of God's providence in how he would ensure Moses would be safe. A mother knowing that people knew of an "infant-in-basket-floating-down-river" story, might be more apt to "risk" sending their child down a river that way of the only other option was death. And so I have no fear of myth. As another Lewis has said, Clive Staples, that is, in the biblical worldview God used myths to prepare peoples for his message. Though I'd quibble with some of the details here, it's something like this that I want to express:
"The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens — at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle" (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Eerdmans, 1970, 66-67).
This is just where I could go if all of Brian Lewis's conjectures, and the debunker's overreaching arguments, turned out to be true. Until then, I've still demonstrated that in Lewis's monograph on the Sargon Legend, there's nothing to fear for the orthodox take on Exodus. It's an interesting book, but it's not a hammer blow to the faith. Shoot, it's not even a blow. Indeed, it wasn't even meant to be a blow. Moses' birth gets two pages toward the end. Most the book is a study of the text and a study of the exposed-hero tale. On that issue, the work was a fine piece of scholarship.
The book is a study of the seventh century BC text which purports to be an autobiography of the extraordinary birth of the famous third-millennium king, Sargon of Akkad. The text claims that Sargon's mother abandoned him on a river in a basket waterproofed with bitumen, he was pulled from the river by Aqqi the water drawer, adopted, and became a famous king. Similarities with Moses are seen.
The text was first published 1872, so it's not like scholars, both orthodox and liberal, are unaware of the story of Sargon. Its relevance is mentioned in many commentaries on Exodus.
Brian Lewis discusses many features of the text. For example, he explores questions of dating. All we can be confident of, he claims, is a range between 2039 BC and 623 BC. He goes over the evidence for late and early dates. I happen to think the evidence for a late date the strongest. The text was probably constructed by the 8th century BC king, Sargon II, as a way to legitimize his reign. There are many internal and external signs which point in this direction, but none of it is conclusive.
Lewis also looks at the exposed-hero motif, finding roughly 70 examples of this motif in various texts cross culture, time, and from around the world. The exposed-hero motif is what Sargon is an early example of. It's basically a sub-type of a rags-to-riches motif. After looking at many versions of the exposed-hero motif, Lewis comes up with a list of 7 motifs basic to the tale. Sargon and Moses share about 6 in common, according to Lewis.
Lewis then discusses the motif more and conjectures at what the Ur-form of the motif might look like, the ultimate archetype on which all exposed-hero tales are ultimately based. Lewis then discusses the relationship between the Moses birth story and the Sargon Legend for a few pages.
He concludes with areas for further investigation.
At the end of the day this was a good read purely for its esoteric and unique subject matter. It also was relevant for apologetics in that some liberal and minimalist atheologians will use the Sargon Legend to debunk the historicity of (at least) Exodus 2. But those who do have probably not read Lewis. Lewis offers some conjectural arguments, based on a lot of "possibles," and "seems likelies," but at the end of the day even he concedes that Moses might "just as easily" be based on another exposed-hero legend other than Sargon. In my conjectures, and given some of what Lewis states, I actually think a possible Ur-form to be the story of Noah's arc.
The parallels between Moses and Noah are many, and it is obvious that the author of Exodus is drawing our attention to Genesis and Noah. Some of the connections are: (i) the opening words of Exodus echo Genesis at several points. Exodus 1:1 recalls Gen. 10:1; 11:27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9, 46:8; (ii) The increase of peoples Exodus 1:7 brings to mind Gen. 1:28, 9:1; (iii) Both Moses and Noah are placed in an “ark” (tebah) waterproofed with bitumen; (iv) both Moses and Noah are selected to undergo a watery fate; (iv) both are vehicles through whom God “creates” a new people for his own purposes; (v) Moses’ safe passage on the Nile looks back to Noah’s safe passage, and ahead to the safe passage of God’s people through the red sea.
Furthermore, Noah has much in common with the "simpler story" Lewis hypothesizes makes up the Ur-form. Indeed, if the Bible is true, Noah is the original exposed hero. Noah was exposed, prepared for exposure, had a father listed in the royal line of decent in the Bible, “discovered” by God and allowed to come back on land, and had his accomplishments listed. The value my hypothesis has is that it explains the literary similarities between the Sargon legend and Moses, since both are based on the archetype.
This is all granting Moses is an example of the exposed-hero motif, of course. There's a lot of debate about the alleged similarities Lewis finds. For example Sarna states, “The supposed close affinities between this folkloristic composition and our Exodus narrative are fanciful. In fact, the story of Moses’ birth departs from the Sargon legend and from the genre in general in so many significant respects that one almost gets the impression of a conscious attempt on the part of the biblical narrator to disassociate this narrative from the features otherwise characteristic of foundling hero motifs” (Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel, Nahum Sarna, Schoken, 1996, pp. 30-31).
Another very interesting difference is noted by George Coats. Coats notes that “by having the sister watch over Moses and the mother nurse him, the family is fully present in contrast with that of Sargon’s family” (see Coats, Moses: Heroic Man of G-d, cited in The Birth Report Genre in the Hebrew Bible, Timothy Finlay, J.C.B. Mohr, 2005, p.237, emphasis mine). So this might not even be a real abandonment. What is important on this is that Lewis himself claims that the Egyptian story of Horus is “not truly a version of the exposed-hero tail” because, Horus has his mother present with him (Lewis, 265)!
For reasons like this (and there are many, many more), scholars like Finlay can note in his authoritative account of Hebrew birth stories, that “In light of the evidence, it is fair to say, that although dependence of Exodus 2 on some version of the Sargon legend is possible, it has not been definitively demonstrated” (Finlay, 238).
Furthermore, if I am right about the Sargon II date, and I am right about the dating of Exodus (early second millennium BC) then Sargon would not be the source for the Moses birth story.
And, even if Moses was an example of an exposed-hero tale, this doesn't mean it isn't historical. Why would this mean that Exodus 2 wasn’t based on historical fact? Even Lewis himself states that “one should at least consider that in the case of Sargon or any of the other historic heroes, the popular narrative of the unusual birth may have been based on some historical fact” (Lewis, 267). So the cash value for those who want to argue for Moses’ birth being based on some prior legend, and who point us to Lewis, aren’t establishing that what as reported was simply “myth.”
Second, we know many people who seem to fit the exposed-hero tale, yet their stories are real. For example, William Appes, abandoned by his grandmother, rescued by a commoner, and later became hero and leader to the Mashpee people. Malcolm X also has an exposed-hero story. Jean-Jacque Rousseau also fits the motif.
It was also quite popular to expose children in the Ancient Near East. And if exposed-hero tales, and tales of the popular Sargon, saturated the minds of the peoples back then, this is an example of God's providence in how he would ensure Moses would be safe. A mother knowing that people knew of an "infant-in-basket-floating-down-river" story, might be more apt to "risk" sending their child down a river that way of the only other option was death. And so I have no fear of myth. As another Lewis has said, Clive Staples, that is, in the biblical worldview God used myths to prepare peoples for his message. Though I'd quibble with some of the details here, it's something like this that I want to express:
"The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens — at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle" (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Eerdmans, 1970, 66-67).
This is just where I could go if all of Brian Lewis's conjectures, and the debunker's overreaching arguments, turned out to be true. Until then, I've still demonstrated that in Lewis's monograph on the Sargon Legend, there's nothing to fear for the orthodox take on Exodus. It's an interesting book, but it's not a hammer blow to the faith. Shoot, it's not even a blow. Indeed, it wasn't even meant to be a blow. Moses' birth gets two pages toward the end. Most the book is a study of the text and a study of the exposed-hero tale. On that issue, the work was a fine piece of scholarship.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review