This essay compares Roman, Greek, and Babylonian mythology through an anthropological lens, arguing that all three traditions share fundamental similarities at the macro level while differing in specific details. Drawing on Christopher Hitchens, Leonard William King, and Simone Payment, the paper explores how mythology functions as early humanity's attempt to explain the physical universe. It examines how oral tradition shaped all three mythologies, how societal structures influenced religious development, and contrasts specific deities—particularly the Greek Poseidon and the Babylonian Ea—to illustrate the distinction between surface-level differences and deeper structural commonalities.
In his book The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer, Christopher Hitchens makes the following observation: "By all means let us agree that we are pattern-seeking mammals and that, owing to our restless intelligence and inquisitiveness, we will still prefer a conspiracy theory to no explanation at all. Religion was our first attempt at philosophy, just as alchemy was our first attempt at chemistry and astrology our first attempt to make sense of the movements of the heavens" (12).
It should come as no surprise, then, that when one juxtaposes different religions and mythologies within the objective framework of science, anthropology, or sociology, certain fundamental commonalities emerge. Because humans are innately similar — pattern-seeking, restlessly intelligent — we have throughout our history created religions and mythologies, or more crudely put, "conspiracy theories," that are also innately similar in their scope and breadth. Roman and Greek mythology are, at the macro level, no different from Babylonian mythology. The differences between these traditions lie only in their respective literal details — that is, which gods are responsible for which phenomena or aspects of physical reality.
To unpack the notion that these mythologies are similar at the macro level yet different at the micro level, it is important first to examine the relationship between the structures of a society — government, language, law, and so forth — and the mythology or religion that both informs and reflects those structures.
In looking at Babylonian mythology, it is clear that the polytheistic interpretation of the physical universe was the product of a decentralized and fractured society — a society of individuals who shared creation myths, proto-scientific thoughts, and compelling narratives over the ages. This sharing of stories, thoughts, and ideas over time served as a filtering process for the many myths that comprise what survived of Babylonian mythology. Only the popular stories and, perhaps, the useful stories became embedded in Babylonian culture, while those deemed unpopular or useless were rejected. The evolution of these stories and myths happened organically and gradually over time.
The same can be said for Roman and Greek mythology. The myths were not originally codified by a governing body or a papacy; they evolved over time and were part of a long-standing oral tradition before anyone ever wrote them down.
One point of distinction should be made regarding the Romans: after the republic fell and Caesar took power, the empire moved in the direction of autocracy — not only in terms of government, but also in terms of religion. This shifted the Roman people's focus from the gods and the republic to a single, divinely endowed emperor. The resulting paradigm shift from plurality, in both government and religion, to singularity may help explain the emergence of the three major monotheistic religions. Judaism had already been established, but Christianity was conceived during precisely this kind of cultural transition.
"All three mythologies share explanatory and oral roots"
"Greek sea god versus Babylonian water deity contrasted"
"Micro-differences trivial; myths explain the unexplainable"
You’re 49% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.