Rendered Relatable: Using Myth to (Re-)Read Hebrew Bible Landscapes

Landscapes often appear as backgrounds in scenes that tend to be regarded as mythic. Applying our revised myth theory means that these landscapes can gain more “weight” and our reading can produce new insights that alternate models of myth previously obscured. 

See also Personified Mountains in Ancient Canonical Narratives: Spatial and Mythic Studies of Mesopotamian, Greek, and Hebrew Bible Landscapes (Mohr Siebeck, 2024).

By Eric J. P. Wagner
Aquinas Institute of Theology
January 2025

1. INTRODUCTION

           Variously theorized, myth takes shape in many ways. As a matter of course, our theories get applied to ancient media, especially the Hebrew Bible. Ground-breaking approaches now emphasize “non-standard” accounts of myth.[1] That is, rather than emphasizing myth as stories about gods, newer approaches indicate that myth can be better “understood as an explanatory worldview employed by ‘natives’ to process and represent reality, past, present and future.”[2] Put differently, myth is cognitive – an “emotionally invested thinking model” comprised of elements or integers.[3] Myth, according to this theory, renders the cosmos more relatable, often more personal. 
           Theorized in this way, mythic analysis entails procedures that differ from those that have often characterized mythic analysis of the Hebrew Bible under the standard theory. Such analysis has tended to mean comparing (parts of) biblical narratives to “matching” ancient accounts of the gods. With the revised theory, mythic analysis amounts to discerning fragments, elements, or “integers” that coalesce into unified, emotionally invested patterns of thought – patterns we tend to recognize as offering explanatory power for events or realities without being burdened by certain traits and discursive processes typical of western (scientific) thought (e.g., objectivity, quantitative data, mathematical models and isolating of variables). In this sense, mythic analysis means discerning iconic patterns of thought rooted in intuitive categories that often get repeated unconsciously. With the help of Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), we can identify five such categories: persons, animate beings, living things, solid objects, and spatial entities.[4] Moreover, when these categories blend in simple ways – say ascribing a feature of a person to a solid object – CSR now tells us that such blending is the stuff of myth. These blended entities, or minimally counterintuitive concepts (MCIs) as they are called in CSR, amount to the mythic fragments we should attend to in mythic analysis. 
            In light of the refined myth theory now available, we might analyze some examples in biblical literature and thereby discern insights that emerge from a newly revised, myth-minded reading approach. For the present purpose we can focus on three mountains – Ararat, Rephidim, and Sinai. These examples restrict us to a do-able scope. And, as anthropomorphic mountains, these landscapes gather our attention as MCIs – mythic fragments – that mix features of persons with solid objects in clear but limited ways. Moreover, these landscapes often appear as backgrounds in scenes that tend to be regarded as mythic. Applying our revised myth theory means that these landscapes can gain more “weight” and our reading can produce new insights that alternate models of myth previously obscured. 

2. HEBREW BIBLE MYTHIC MOUNTAINS

          For our purposes, anthropomorphic mountains will be image integers – language one scholar uses to discuss myth.[5] Attending to their actions (motif integers) helps us identify the broader mythic patterns or symbolic matrices in which our mountains function. These matrices, we might also call mythic constellations.[6]

Mountains of Ararat
          Our first example comes from the biblical flood account – a story often recognized for its mythic affinities. The account begins and ends with mountains (הרים, Gen 7:19–20, 8:4–5). Gen 8:4–5 refers to Ararat’s peaks or “heads” (ראשׁי) – an anthropomorphism that permits us to regard “mountains of Ararat” as an integer whose related actions (those done to and by this integer) constitute symbolic matrices. Our most salient passage reads: 

And the ark rested on the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. And the waters continued to recede until the tenth month. In the tenth [month] – on the first day of the month – the heads of the mountains appeared. (Gen 8:4–5) 
 

ותנח התבה בחדשׁ השׁביעי בשׁבעה–עשׂר יום לחדשׁ על הרי אררט: והמים היו הלוך וחסור עד החדשׁ העשׂירי בעשׂירי באחד לחדשׁ נראו ראשׁי ההרים

Here the ark rests on the mountains of Ararat, signaling the support the landscape provides. By contrast, a similar scene in the Epic of Gilgamesh portrays Mt. Nimuš violently “seizing” (ṣabātu) Ūta-napištim’s boat. The difference highlights a distinctive, peaceful agency and a non-contest-based symbolic matrix: the mountains of Ararat support the ark. 
            Additionally, mountains of Ararat function as subject of the verb “to see” (ראה) in the niphal stem. Here, we have another symbolic matrix: mountains of Ararat appeared.[7] This verbal stem introduces ambiguity into this matrix. That ambiguity is strategic in this (P) version of the Flood account, which starts when “the springs of the deep split (בקע, niphal) and the windows of the sky open (פתח, niphal)” (Gen 7:11). It ends when the cosmic reservoirs close (סכר, niphal, Gen 8:2a) and the bow appears (ראה, niphal, Gen 9:14–15a). Rendering all these verbs in the niphal constitutes a pattern in which nature (or cosmic entities) obediently acquiesce(s) to God’s plan. Thus, our second symbolic matrix here can be articulated as “the mountains of Ararat obey God.” 
           So, our first mythic integer (and MCI) is mountains of Ararat. It occurs in two interconnected matrices: mountains of Ararat support the ark and mountains of Ararat obey God. A correlate in the Epic of Gilgamesh confirms our first matrix. Plus, both matrices – although mythic “fragments” – are further confirmed when we recognize them in similar second millennium Syrian and Anatolian iconography, where personified mountain deities support and obediently carry a superior deity – usually a storm god.[8] So, we may conclude that we have here an element in a mythic constellation. And, while conflict is absent in these “Ararat” matrices, our next example, which also draws upon storm god mythology, proves more conflict laden.

Hill of Rephidim
          Exodus 17:8–16 (esp. vv. 9–10) has Moses stand on a height (גבעה) in the wilderness of Rephidim and overlook Israel as they battle Amalek.[9] Repeated reference to the height’s “peak” or “head” (ראשׁ) anthropomorphize it, giving us the integer hill of Rephidim.[10] Our key passage reads: 

Moses said to Joshua, “Choose men for us and go battle with Amalek tomorrow. I will stand on the head of the height and have the staff of God in my hand.” Joshua did as Moses told him. They battled with Amalek while Moses, Aaron, and Hur were on the head of the height. (Exod 17:9–10)

ויאמר משׁה אל–יהושׁע בחר–לנו אנשׁים וצא הלחם בעמלק מחר אנכי נצב על–ראשׁ הגבעה ומטה האלהים בידי: ויעשׂ יהושׁע כאשׁער אמר–לו משׁה להלחם בעמלק ומשׁה אהרן וחור עלו ראשׁ הגבעה:

Initially, our integer – hill of Rephidim – is the entity on which Moses plans to stand (נצב) while holding God’s staff and Joshua (who suddenly appears here in the narrative) leads Israel in battle against Amalek (Exod 17:9). But, when we read further, we see that, after Moses, Aaron, and Hur ascend (עלה) the hill of Rephidim, Moses sits (ישׁב) and his companions support (תמך) his hands. As Aaron and Hur keep Moses’ hand(s) raised, Israel lays low (חלשׁ) the Amalekites.[11] Support characterizes this scene and recalls Ararat’s matrices. Plus, the name “Rephidim” comes from a verbal root meaning “to support” (רפד). Evidently, our story is an etiology for the toponym.[12] In any case, we can again identify a symbolic matrix of support: hill of Rephidim supports Moses.[13] But the purpose of this support differs from that of Ararat. Matrices here are of a military quality. 
           The hill of Rephidim is part of Moses’ battle plan – a plan that does not derive from a divine oracle, which raises questions about how military power gets mediated in this scene.[14] Indeed, Yahweh only first appears as the story concludes (Exod 17:14–16).[15] The battle mandate, strategy, and victory all derive from Moses who is to stand, ascend, or sit on the hill of Rephidim. Meanwhile the hill supports him. Individually and collectively these matrices signal a familiar myth. Whatever Moses’ raised hand(s) mean – “a belligerent act, [a] prayer, [an] oath” – the imagery contributes to a portrayal of Moses as a mythic stand-in for God qua storm deity.[16] In this instance, the image is militaristic. The strategy and military execution in this scene render our storm deity stand-in reliant on the hill of Rephidim as an ally in Israel’s (first) battle against Amelek. Thus, when we place the hill of Rephidim as the subject, our symbolic matrices become: hill of Rephidim supports Moses and hill of Rephidim contends for Israel against Amalek.[17] 
           So, both the mountains of Ararat and the hill of Rephidim appear in matrices of support and indicative of a storm god constellation. Their particular portrayals, however, highlight divergent meanings. One emphasizes a grammar of obedient collaboration (Ararat) the other (Rephidim) a grammar of contest. Our next anthropomorphic mountain appears in yet another “support” matrix, but, qualitatively, this one proves quite different.

Mt. Sinai
           Twice in Exodus 19:20 Mt. Sinai has a “peak” or “head” (ראשׁ), giving us our third anthropomorphic mountain and mythic integer: Mt. Sinai. Numerous actions, and thus symbolic matrices, associate with Mt. Sinai throughout the theophany account of Exodus 19–20. As theophanies, these chapters readily register as mythic.[18] Representative texts guide our discussion. 
           Moses repeatedly ascends (עלה, Exod 19:3, 20) and descends (ירד, Exod 19:14, 19:25) Mt. Sinai. God also descends (ירד, Exod 19:20, cf. 19:11) on it. Given the absence of conflict, here again we discern a support matrix: Mt. Sinai supports Moses and God. 
           Theophany preparations entail repeated actions on the part of Israelites, who must avoid ascending (עלה) or touching (נגע) Mt. Sinai (Exod 19:12–13, 23–24). Compliance gets assured by having the people and mountain “bounded” (גבל, hiph., Exod 19:12, 23).[19] These actions prepare for God’s theophanic descent, giving us another matrix: the people care (שׁמר) for Mt. Sinai (Exod 19:12). 
           Additionally, Mt. Sinai is subject of two verbs, resulting in significant symbolic matrices.[20] The relevant text reads:

And Mt. Sinai smoked – all of it – because the Lord descended on it in fire. And its smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln. And the whole mountain trembled greatly. (Exod 19:18)

ר סיני עשׁן כלו מפני אשׁר ירד עליו יה׳ באשׁ ויעל עשׁנו כעשׁן הכבשׁן ויחרד כל–ההר מאד

Here, our first matrix is Mt. Sinai smoked. The rare verb “to smoke” (עשׁן) associates closely with theophanies and seems to signify God’s anger, aggression, or power.[21] The second matrix Mt. Sanai trembled portrays the mountain as the subject of a more common, but ambiguous verb – “to tremble” (חרד). Typically, such trembling registers as a physiological expression of fear, anxiety, or trepidation.[22] Commentators differ on the meaning of the relationship between the mountain’s smoking and trembling.[23] Increasingly, however, the trembling (חרד, MT Exod 19:18) connects with that of the people’s (חרד, Exod 19:16) suggesting that the mountain may also fear (Exod 20:18–20) – a metaphorical match to the people’s fear response at the theophany.[24] Thus, Mt. Sinai’s trembling would further personify it.[25] A closer reading suggests, however, that another symbolic matrix appears here, one characterized by compassion. 
           While “to tremble” (חרד) may express fear (Isa 41:5; Ezek 26:18) – an emotion with a negative valence – alternate readings are possible.[26] Generally, “most occurrences [of חרד] refer to trembling from emotional agitation before an unusual circumstance,” which renders the nature and valence of the emotion in question ambiguous.[27] Sometimes it indicates a positive emotion. Elihu’s heart trembles (חרד) with delight at God’s wonderous presence in storms (Job 37:1). Returning from exiles, in Hosea, joyously “tremble like birds” (יחרדו כצפור, Hos 11:10–11). When foreign peoples “tremble” (חרד) on account of violence done against Judah (Ezekiel 26:16, 26:18, 32:10), they may manifest compassion for God’s people. And the Shunammite woman’s care for Elisha and Gehazi – also called “trembling” (חרדת, 2 Kgs 4:13) – must be positive. She expresses compassion. 
           Other examples are more ambiguous.[28] Characters caught in a power vortex during political upheaval and violence “tremble” (חרד, e.g., Judg 8:12; 1 Sam 13:7; 14:15; 16:4; 21:1; 28:5; 2 Sam 17:2; 1 Kgs 1:49).[29] Their trembling (חרד) conveys emotional processing characteristic of rapidly changing fortunes and the internal work of coming to grips with both good and bad outcomes. Such trembling connotes “the presence of the positive in the negative.”[30] Thus, “trembling” (חרד) in biblical Hebrew signals expressing an emotion of either positive or mixed valence, and it might best be characterized as the emotion scholars call “being moved” or “kama muta.”[31] 
           Kama muta – Sanskrit for “moved by love” – gets evoked when we experience intense communal sharing or observe such sharing (e.g., weddings, reunions, care of children or aged).[32] Kama muta tends to have a positive or mixed valence and “labeled with language-specific metaphors often referring to passive motion of or within the body, or bodily contact (e.g., moved, stirred, touched).”[33] Notably, kama muta can manifest in “warm feelings” (in the chest) or “trembling” (of the lips).[34] Further, “experiencing kama muta generates devotion and commitment to repair, sustain, strengthen, or engage in communal sharing relationships […] to act communally, with kindness and compassion.”[35] In short, kama muta is an emotion that physiologically manifests and fosters love, kindness, compassion. Mt. Sinai’s trembling in Exod 19:18, in my opinion, expresses kama muta.
           Mt. Sinai hosts and witnesses a (re)union of God and Israel and, despite emphasizing that the mountain not be touched (נגע, Exod 19:12), the (re)union includes both a worship ceremony at the mountain’s base in which God unites with the people (Exod 24:3–8) as well as a meal on the mountain shared among God, Moses, and the elders (Exod 24:9–11). So, as host to and witness of acute expressions of communal sharing between God and Israel, the warmth connoted in Mt. Sinai smokes coupled with the internal movement signaled in Mt. Sinai trembles, it seems these matrices express kama muta, or compassion. Consequently, we can say that an elegant synthesis of Mt. Sinai smokes and Mt. Sinai trembles in Exod 19:18 is the symbolic matrix Mt. Sinai manifests compassion.
           So, in Exodus 19–20 we have three significant symbolic matrices in which our mountainous landscape occurs: Mt. Sinai supports Moses and God, the people exercise care for Mt. Sinai, and Mt. Sinai manifests compassion. Like prior mountains, Mt. Sinai appears in a matrix of support. But no militaristic connotations can be detected. And while concerns of obedience arise, they prove secondary to care and compassion. Thus, Mt. Sinai emerges as a distinctive mythic entity.

3. CONCLUSION

           To close, we might take stock. Developments in myth theory offer creative new avenues for advancing our reading of the Hebrew Bible. As we relinquish our notion of myth as stories about the gods, and begin to regard myth as an emotionally invested thinking model rooted in standard, discernable cognitive structures, new procedures and insights emerge. Entities in the text that consist of simple blends of fundamental categories (e.g., persons and solid objects) stand out as mythic fragments (i.e., integers). As such, they attain the prospect of agency. They take on new life. We can attend not only to the actions done to them but those done by them. The case of anthropomorphic mountains in the Pentateuch proves illuminating. No longer relegated to background, our mythic reading of these entities – their roles and functions – make these mountains stand out. As supportive, obedient, contentions, and compassionate, these heights cannot hide in our reading. Rather, our mythic mountains are rendered relatable – more so than in other readings. And we might begin to detect the potential that our mythic reading could have for engaged approaches, such as eco-criticism.

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Assmann, Jan. Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re, Amun and the Crisis of Polytheism. Studies in Egyptology. London: Kegan Paul International, 1995. 

Assmann, Jan. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.

Bowling, Andrew. “735 חָרַד quake, move about, (be) startled, tremble, (be) afraid.” Page 321 in TWOT. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Chicago: Moody, 1980.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974.

Coats, George. Exodus 1–18. FOTL 2A. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.

Cova, Florian, and Julien A. Deonna. “Being Moved.” Philosophical Studies 169 (2013): 447–66.

de Hulster, Izaak J. “A God of the Mountains? An Iconographic Perspective on the Aramean Argument in 1 Kings 20:23.” Pages 226–50 in Image, Text, Exegesis: Iconographic Interpretation and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Izaak J. de Hulster and Joel M. LeMon, LHBOTS 588. London: Bloomsbury, T & T Clark, 2014.

Dozeman, Thomas. Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Feyerabend, Karl. Langenscheidt Pocket Hebrew Dictionary to the Old Testament: Hebrew-English. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1990.

Fiske, Alan Page. “Ways of Knowing Emotion, and What You Don’t Know about Your Own Emotions: The Case of Kama Muta.” Social Research 87 (2020): 171–95.

Frog. “Mythology in Cultural Practice: A Methodological Framework for Historical Analysis.” RMN 10 (2015): 33–57.

Grimm, Jacob. Deutsche Mythologie. Göttingen: Dieterich'sche Buchhandlung, 1843.

Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. Vol. 1. Translated by Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra. HCOT. Kampen: KoK, 1993.

Hyatt, J. Philip. Commentary on Exodus. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1971.

Jacob, Benno. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Translated by Walter Jacob. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 1992. [German original 1945].

Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumic, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York: Pardes, 1950.

Jeremias, Jörg. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. WMANT 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965.

Larson, Jennifer. “Nature Gods, Nymphs and the Cognitive Science of Religion.” Pages 71–85 in Natur – Mythos – Religion im antiken Griechenland. Edited by Tanja Susanne Scheer. Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 67. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2019.

Meyers, Carol. Exodus. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Miller II, Robert D. The Dragon, the Mountain, and the Nations: An Old Testament Myth, Its Origins, and Its Afterlives. EANEC 6. University Park: Eisenbrauns, 2018.

Najman, Hindy. Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Pfoh, Emanuel. “On Finding Myth and History in the Bible: Epistemological and Methodological Observations.” Pages 196–208 in Finding Myth and History in the Bible: Scholarship, Scholars and Errors. Edited by Łukasz Niesiolowski-Spaò, Chiara Peri, and Jim West. Sheffield: Equinox, 2016.

Propp, William H. Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

Rose, Mary R., Janice Nadler, and Jim Clark. “Appropriately Upset? Emotion Norms and Perceptions of Crime Victims.” Law and Human Behavior 30 (2006): 203–19.

Roter, Debra L. et al., “The Expression of Emotion through Nonverbal Behavior in Medical Visits: Mechanisms and Outcomes.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 21 (2006): S28–S34.

Savran, George W. Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. JSOTSup 420. New York: T & T Clark, 2005.

Segal, Robert A. Myth Theorized. Sheffield: Equinox, 2023.

Tanner, Hans Andreas. Amalek: Der Feind Israels und der Feind Jahwes. TVZ Dissertationen 6. Zürich: TVZ, 2005.

Wagner, Eric J. P. Personified Mountains in Ancient Canonical Narratives: Spatial and Mythic Studies of Mesopotamian, Greek, and Hebrew Bible Landscapes. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2024.

Waltke, Bruce and Michael O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Zickfeld, Janis H. et al, “Kama Muta: Conceptualizing and Measuring the Experience Often Labelled Being Moved Across 19 Nations and 15 Languages.” Emotion 19 (2019): 402–24.