showmeproof

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 14 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by showmeproof

• 
  129

  YHWH a minor pagan god: Ugaritic Texts and the Sons of El

  by DoomVoyager in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.

  pseudo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  showmeproof

  I typically stick to scholarly books in regards to this topic. However, there is a website which is informative and intersting from a theological perspective. Dr. Heiser runs The Divine Council website and in introducing the topic he spends much effort in fitting the facts into theology. This is something that you really don't see attempted in the scholarly books and something you don't see from theologians (not many are very familiar with this line of evidence). So it is quite refreshing to see someone attempt to get everything to mesh. While I agree that this is a crucial, yet misunderstood and often neglected part of both Old and New Testament theologies, I disagree that it can be done without making an a priori assumption that one's religion is true. He is right in pointing out that once you become familiar with this material you'll never look at your bible the same way again. The imagery anchored in this topic is profuse throughout the bible.
• 
  129

  YHWH a minor pagan god: Ugaritic Texts and the Sons of El

  by DoomVoyager in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.

  pseudo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  showmeproof

  That sounds like an interesting read, just for the merging and melding of mythologies. If you want talk about history a million years ago are you incorporating Homo erectus as opposed to Homo sapiens? Our origins has very great implications for the origin of relatively late human institutions, such as religion, and the validity they purport.
• 
  129

  YHWH a minor pagan god: Ugaritic Texts and the Sons of El

  by DoomVoyager in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.

  pseudo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  showmeproof

  Band on the Run,

  If you look to 18th century B.C.E. Egypt you will find that the Hyksos had ruled Lower Egypt from the captiol of Avaris. There we find the typical Canaanite gods, Baal being the most prominent. In Egypt he becomes known as Seth. Ramses II has a daughter by the name of Bintanath (daugher of Anat) he relocates his capitol of Ramses which is built right next to the ruins of Avaris, and in a tomb inscription is said to celebrate the 400th year of Seth. If the Israelites were ever in Egypt, as many Asiatics were in many different time periods, they would have been already well aware of the Canaanite gods and the use of the bull iconography. Furthermore, the patriarchs are said to have lived in Canaan where they would have known of these gods. If you want to trace it back to Abraham, according to the bible he came from Ur and the Canaanite gods are hypostates of Mesopotamian gods. It is a fools errand accepting that an original monotheism became polluted only after a reintroduction into Canaan. You will recall in Exodus 6:2 Yahweh tells Moses that he didn't reveal himself by the name of Yahweh but rather El Shaddai.
• 
  129

  YHWH a minor pagan god: Ugaritic Texts and the Sons of El

  by DoomVoyager in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.

  pseudo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  showmeproof

  I have had email correspondance with both Ziony Zevit and Richard Hess recently regarding this topic. My initial email was specified to each individual, but generally asked 'Why has this knowledge, debated at length and accepted as part of the religions of Israel (specifically early Israel) by academic scholars, failed to trickle down and effect theology. Ziony Zevit a Jewish man and Richard Hess a Evangelical Christian had differing answers.

  Dear Mr. LEAVING BLANK,
  
  You ask a most interesting question, one that has interested me for a number of years.
  Part of the answer to your question (and my own) is that living theology emerges from within communities--even though an individual formulates it--and few viable religious communities view themselves as Ancient Israel. Moreover, Catholics, Jews, and many conservative Protestant churches comprehend Scriptures and the past through the lenses of traditions that have a considerable influence on what may be the subject of theologizing and on what is considered an acceptable expression of theology. The traditions set parameters within which questions may be asked and within which answers must be evaluated.
  
  Liberal religious movements, in contrast, those that view themselves as unencumbered by such traditions in particular, are more open to theologizing on the bases of historical investigations, but often they tend not to define themselves theologically with any specficity and are comfortable changing views as the consensus of scholarship shifts under the weight of accumulated research. As an example you might consider the Biblical Theology Movement in the USA and in Great Britain after WW II or any of the theological writings of George Ernest Wright mentioned in my book.
  
  Most scholars that I know are content to describe how ancients conceived of religious reality as an historical reallity (or phenomenon). They find it interesting and think that their discoveries or insights may of interest to (some) contemporary believers but not as one that must be incorporated into living theology. Concern for weighing the theological implications of historical discoveries and insights into ancient Israelite religion or early Judaism and Christianity ranks much lower than a concern for incorporating established scientific insights such as the etiology of diseases, the nature of the physical universe, and the neurological basis of consciousness into theological awareness.
  
  There is some of what you describe as "trickle down," but to find it, it is necessary to read theological journals and books such as should be available in any seminary library that subscribes to a wide variety of journals. See for example Interpretation and Journal of Theological Studies or any book written by Walter Breugeman. It is difficult, however, for me to evaluate how much of what you find in journals and specialized books on biblical theologuy trickles down from the theologians and readers of these sources to the people in the pews.
  
  I hope that these remarks respond to your questions.
  
  Cordially,
  Z. Zevit

  Thanks for your note. If you have read all the writers you mention, and read their books, then you have indeed read widely! You should be aware that for a number of years before my book appeared, Bill Dever was fond of saying that no Evangelical would ever write a book on Israelite religion because they would need to abandon their faith to do so. While I did not write the book in order to prove him wrong, the work represents something that your questions have identified. It is simply true that relatively few Evangelical scholars work in the field of Israelite religion; and yet this field has largely replaced Old Testament theology on the academic horizon. OT theology came in for hard times in the latter part of the 20th century as scholars began to argue that the Bible contains competing and often contradictory theologies. So there was not as much interest in the field except to demonstrate how it fails to achieve its goal of a comprehensive and unified interpretation of the Old Testament. Those who still write in Old Testament either believe that it is useful for teaching how the Old Testament theologians thought about the world (in all their diversity) or that it serves the purpose of deconstructing any consistent Old Testament theology. Those who still do much Old Testament theology tend to be Evangelicals who believe there is a unified teaching to the Bible, or those (such as Brueggemann and Goldingay) who are admittedly postmodernist and do not try for a consistency in the teaching of the Word of God.
  
  There is one other point that I make in my book and is germane to this discussion. Old Testament theology studies what ancient Israel should have believed about the Bible. Israelite religion(s) studies what ancient Israel actually did believe. While these are related, they are two different areas of study. So, while you may see some interaction of Israelite religion theories by some theologians (e.g., ch. 2 of Routledge's OT Theology), the assessment of the data often moves the two areas of study in different directions.
  
  I teach a course in Old Testament Theology and Israelite Religion, where we divide the time into two halves: one half deals with each topic. I think the point of my book is just the answer to your last question. I do find it possible to incorporate the findings of archaeology and ancient texts into a picture of orthodox theology. I do this by assessing all the available evidence as best I can, and then by seeking to interpret it in a manner consistent with the contexts in which that evidence is found; but also in a manner that does not ignore the biblical revelation as part of the whole picture. I believe that it is very difficult to prove statements in the Bible to be false. It is also very difficult to prove them to be true, using classic historical procedures. This is true of most ancient writing so the Bible is not exceptional here. However, it is relatively easy to bring various sources together and either pit them against each other to argue that they contradict or harmonize them into a consistent picture. I often choose the latter for the Bible and for all ancient Near Eastern literature. I would rather give the authors the benefit of the doubt than pretend I know more than they did.
  
  Best wishes,
  Rick Hess
• 
  129

  YHWH a minor pagan god: Ugaritic Texts and the Sons of El

  by DoomVoyager in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.

  pseudo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  showmeproof

  Heaven,

  You said you were surprised that the goddess disappeared. This is much the case. However, Wisdom personified is a woman and a tree in the book of Proverbs. The Jewish book Ben Sira 1:20, pertinent to know how Jews continued the theology of Wisdom, does the same "To fear the Lord is the root of wisdom, and her branches are long life" It appears she became an attribute, that can still be spoken of in anthropmorophic and aboreal terms, when monotheism took root.
• 
  129

  YHWH a minor pagan god: Ugaritic Texts and the Sons of El

  by DoomVoyager in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.

  pseudo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  showmeproof

  Sorry I haven't checked back in a while. Currently I am reading Gods, Godesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel by Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger. In an earlier post I emphasized the numerical numbers of branches coming off of the asherah and its continuity between a few artifacts. While the image is still an important and a clear, or 'transparent', connection to Asherah the numerical aspect is not as important. In the Bronze Age the image of the godess was envogue however in the transition to the Iron Age there was a move towards aniconism and the symbol came to the forefront. Keel and Uehlinger's work details seals, amulets, scarabs and some inscriptions, however spends very little time working with known literature of the time such as found at Ugarit. Thus when these artifacts bear the symbol of the tree flanked by caprids (hooved bovides) they refer to it as the "Mistress of the Animals". The naked anthropomorphic images found in earlier works are the "Naked Godess". Sometimes they refer to both as the "Branch Goddess." At times they offer possibilities of which goddess is intended, but their focues is on the motif.

  This motif occurs in several seal amulets and the number of branches can vary. The overiding principle of the sacred tree flanked by caprids (specifically ibex) is what is important and it can be tied to Asherah the goddess. Keel and Uehlinger argue that it can also be just a blessing symbol and attributed to any god or goddess and that is why it can be found in conjunction with Yahweh in the texts at Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Arjud. However, this 'blessing symbol' is clearly tied to Asherah the goddess...in other words this is not a symbol devoid of meaning or association that can be placed with any god it is as they say, a transparent reference to the "Mistress of the Animals." I am quite confused as to why they choose the terminology they do as we have much corrobrating evidence as to which gods/goddesses had which traits. I have seen many other scholars use this book as reference and not one of them adopts their vague terminology.

  This is a really good book as it provides 600+ illustrations from artifacts found in Israel during different time periods beginning from the time of the Hyksos to Iron Age III. It is really cool to see blends of Egytian/Canaanite, Syrio/Canaanite influences and clear examples from each Egypt, Canaan, and Syria.

  Another cool thing that was brought to my attention is that in the early to Mid Bronze Age the anthropomorphic goddess works were done in expensive metals like bronze and gold and then in the transition to the Iron age they were made in terra cotta. At the time of this transition the expensive metals became used to make images of gods in battle posture or dominance.
• 
  129

  YHWH a minor pagan god: Ugaritic Texts and the Sons of El

  by DoomVoyager in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.

  pseudo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  showmeproof

  The bible is clear that the Israelites were polytheists throughout. The theology is built around their castigation for their polytheism. Theology aside for a moment lets take a look at the main 'castigations'. The punishments of Israel were handed out in the form of being subjugated to other foreign powers whether the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, or the Romans. On a smaller scale the punishments are metted out in battle losses to Canaanites. Does it take divine punishment for a larger more powerful nation such as Assyria, Babylon, Persia, or Rome to subdue a smaller less powerful nation such as Israel...or is that just the natural order of things? To me this socio-political fact doesn't need explanation by divine punishment. However, their attitude towards their losses is by no means unique.

  In the Mesha Stelle, Mesha king of Moab tells of his forays against Israel. He boasts of his victories even to the point of taking plunder from the Temple of YHWH and displaying it before Chemosh/Kemosh. He then discusses his nation's oppression under Israel being due to Kemosh's anger against Moab.
• 
  129

  YHWH a minor pagan god: Ugaritic Texts and the Sons of El

  by DoomVoyager in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.

  pseudo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  showmeproof

  Another point of interest are the names of Saul, Jonathan, and David's sons; Eshbaal, Meribaal, and Beeliada (cf. 1 Chronicles 8:33, 1 Chronicles 8:34, and 1 Chronicles 14:7) respectively. Chronicles is indeed the later text than earlier attestations of Saul, Jonathan, and David's sons known respectivley as Ishbosheth, Mephiboseth, and Eliada (cf. 1 Samuel 14:49, 2 Samuel 4:4, and 2 Samuel 5:16)

  Here we must be clear that Baal can generically mean 'master', just as El can generically mean 'god'. Why would we posit that the baal is not merely a generic term, but rather a theophoric? The names found in Samuel include the Hebrew term for shame; boset. In David's son's case the baal theophoric is just dropped. If these names were not viewed as containing a theophoric from a 'foreign', i.e. non Yahwistic, god why would they include the Hebrew term for shame? More positively, why would a later Yahwist than the author of Samuel preserve the baal theophoric?

  Another example of this is Jerubaal=Jerubbesheth=Gideon (cf. Judges 6:32, 2 Samuel 11:21, and Judges 7:1). It appears that Baal was worshipped alongside YHWH even by David himself. David even names one of his sites of victory against the Philistines as Baal Peor which is often translated as lord of bursting forth. Why would David name a site in honour of Baal? Well it appears he didn't. He conflated Baal with YHWH.

  This is a very important point. As much as El is amaglamated with YHWH in epithets and most possibly consort, YHWH's characteristics are much more align with Baal's. They are both storm gods; even sharing the same enemy in Yam or Sea. There are indeed differences between the two, but not enough to be objectionable early on.

  A challenge I put forth as a thought experiment for those who object to the previous argumentation is to query the Golden Calves made at the foot of Mount Sinai. They are seen as objectionable, but whom do they represent? Apparently the derision of their enemies. Egypt or Canaan? The ironic thing is Baal was represented in both Egypt, as Seth, and in Canaan. If the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt the most prominent Semitic god during that time period was the Egyptian hypostatic of Baal. Baal was not a foriegn intrusion. For this reason, amongst others, it is reasonable to conclude that the other gods present within the pantheon that included Baal were also known from the earliest times of Israel's ancestors.
• 
  129

  YHWH a minor pagan god: Ugaritic Texts and the Sons of El

  by DoomVoyager in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.

  pseudo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  showmeproof

  MrFreeze,

  The video was well produced. The information is not 100% accurate, especially regarding the Tanaach cult stand (see above). The maker of that video was getting his information from the book A History of God by Karen Armstrong. This book, while informative, is meant as a popularized account for the public and thus leaves many generalites. That being said, the video is a decent introduction that should at the least get interest for individuals to find out more; including the nuances. The more you read on the subject more nuance is required. The most conservative viewpoint I have read regarding this information is Richard Hess' Israelite Religions. Hess admits that the majority of Old Testament Scholars have come to the consensus that Yahwistic monotheism was a later feature derived from Canaanite foundations. He states that although this consensus has been reached that it doesn't rule out the possibilty that a monotheistic movement wasn't already established in pre-exilic times. Note two things about this statement from a conservative evangelical scholar, he is reaching for a possibility where once there was certitude amongst the scholars and knows he is on the edge and secondly he states pre-exilic. Well what time of Israel are we talking about here are we talking about the patriarchs of the Bronze Age...no. Hess explicity states in his opening chapters that he is only referencing back to Iron I which starts approximatley 1200 B.C.E. In the Hebrew bible Yahweh is transposed upon a Canaanite divine beaurocratic system known as the adat el or the divine council where he is but one of many gods; but the only god for Israel.
• 
  129

  YHWH a minor pagan god: Ugaritic Texts and the Sons of El

  by DoomVoyager in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  interesting.. here is the first thing i've found on the subject, though i haven't read much of it yet.. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/text/articles/heiser-deut32-bs.htm.

  pseudo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  showmeproof

  WontLeave,

  The information regarding this is very limited on the web. If you are interested you would be best served by looking at the literature produced by the experts in Semitic languages and the history and archaeology of the Ancient Near East.