Did a group of ancient Sumerians or Egyptians believe in Monotheism?

[rakovsky]

the sign signifies 'an' meaning sky or heaven in isolation, but becomes the personal name An if dingir is added to it, or context demands it. It functions as a determinative to designate a god. Also it can be used as a syllabogram for the sounds 'an' or 'il'. Because multiple meanings can and are applied to specific signs, such determinatives become necessary. If written in isolation it does not designate a god at all unless the context makes it clear that it references a god and it is the read as An, not dingir.

Yes. It is interesting that the Akkadian or Semitic word for God was Il or El, and it turns out from what you are saying that the ⁕ sign could also mean Il (as pronunciation). Perhaps this is a reference to the idea of Il = God?

In any case, what I underlined matches what I said in my last message, namely, that ⁕ can mean a deity, as in "⁕ Nammu", meaning "the deity Nammu", or, by itself, it means specifically the Heavenly One ("An" in Sumerian). And so it turns out that in the Sumerian scheme, there are many "gods", like "the god Enlil" or "the god Nammu". But there is only one who is designated as "god", which makes "god" the designation for this god as a proper noun, thus: "God". Thus one writing was found to say ⁕⁕, that is, "the god God", or "dingir Dingir".

There is no definitive referencing of God in isolation in Sumerian Cuneiform.

When "Dingir" is used in isolation in Cuneiform, it appears to refer, as you said, either to the sky, or to the god An. Thus, "An", is designated as "God". It is interesting that some basic aspects of An match Hebrew designations of God. That is, for the Hebrews, God was the heavenly father, the "most high god", recalling the highness of An.

Isaiah 57:15 For thus said the high and lofty One that inhabits eternity...
Isaiah 66:1 Thus said the LORD, The heaven is my throne...
Isaiah 63:16 Doubtless you are our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us...
Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our father; we are the clay, and you are the potter...

An and dingir both use the same asterix cuneiform sign.

Right. Can it also mean brightness or shining?
Anyway, since you are correct, the meaning of the cuneiform sign itself is god or heaven. And is it turns that many beings are written as gods, like the god Nammu, but only one of them has the sign for god as his own designation. And this leads to the riddle of why it is that the same word for god doubles as the label for the Heavenly One in particular?

My best guess is that the same thing is happening in Sumerian religion as happened in Turkic and Chinese religion where the name for God doubled as the name for one particular god. The Turkic people worshiped Tengri, whose name doubled as the heavens, and which as I noted many scholars think is related to the word Dingir. Turkic people considered him the supreme god to the point where many scholars consider Tengrism to have a major monotheistic aspect. However, I notice that in Tengrism, there are also other "gods", called "tengri"s. (I am referring to the plural).

Culture and Customs of Hungary (Page 43, Oksana Buranbaeva, ‎Vanja Mladineo - 2011) says:

From the early followers of Tengriism to the conversion to Christianity, the history of religion in Hungary takes us back a ... Focusing on the sky deity Tengri, it was a largely monotheistic religion, even if it recognized other, lesser deities.

S G Klyashtorynjj writes in Political background of the old Turkic religion:

Tengri is obviously marked out and the blanket nature of his functions made some researchers think that the ancient Turkic religion was a special belief close to monotheism... It is the Tengri who sometimes together with the other deities administers everything in the world, especially the destinies of people...

As I understand it, in ancient Chinese religion, "Di" means god or ruler, and Shang Di was the Supreme god. Di by itself referred to Shang Di, but di I think could also refer to various other "gods" like the earth god. However, the other gods got far less ritual respect from the emperor than Shang Di. Shang Di was in a category of his own in the annual sacrifice. (See eg.: Finding God in Ancient China - Page 85, https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0310292387, Chan Kei Thong, ‎Charlene L. Fu - 2009).

Or to put it in a more common sense, there are actually many suns in the Cosmos, as each solar system has its own sun. But even though there are many suns, there is only one "Sun" in our thinking - the sun of our solar system. Thus one can say: "There are many suns, but only one Sun". Or: "There are many 'adams' (the Hebrew word for man), but only one Adam, the first man".

I understand that Sumerian religion is different from Chinese or Turkic religion, but this is my best guess on the implications of the uniqueness of An's designation as Dingir. That is, the Sumerians believed in many gods, but their religion also placed An in a supreme category of his own.

I think that the Chinese or Turkic religions do not seem like a pure monotheism. It seems like we have a mix whereby one god is designated as "God", and there are other gods who are not designated as "God". But ancient Hebrew religion in the Torah was not clear pure monotheism either, even though it went more in that direction. For the Hebrews, the "Gods"(Elohim, plural) were called "one", but when God visited Abraham, he did so in three persons. Islam and Unitarianism seem the clearest in having "pure" monotheism. I find Christianity's monotheism reasonable, but it confuses some people.

So my guess is that when the Turkics, Chinese, and Sumerians (especially the latter), call their chief deity "God" in their languages it creates a somewhat confusing situation. The Sumerian view is especially confusing because not only do they consider the Heavenly One to be God, but they also consider Him to have been born of a mother goddess, Nammu. Thus for them, "God", the supreme god, was born of a being who was only a god. Perhaps Tengrism bears in itself an inner philosophical conflict on this issue of monotheism (one god) v. polytheism (many gods), a conflict which is even stronger in the direction of polytheism in the Sumerian religion?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

But there is only one who is designated as "god", which makes "god" the designation for this god as a proper noun, thus: "God".

I think this is an extrapolation that cannot be made, as the sign itself is an determinative and the sign need not designate God as such. The idea of the gods as bright or shining is common, so to use a designation which may refer to this is a good option. That the sign can also refer to a specific god does not change this nor imply supremacy.

My son calls all pugs Louis, because our pug's name is Louis, but this does not mean he envisions our pug as the supreme Pug nor Louis as the name of such a hypothetical creature.
A similar principle applies that the referent need not be a supreme deity or even a deity, as it may just as much refer to the aspect of 'brightness' or 'heaven' associated with it.

I must admit that I have never thought of the meaning 'il' as being attached to West-Semitic El before, which is an interesting idea, but on looking it up quickly, I found that this is more common in Assyrian cuneiform and less so in old Sumerian.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Perhaps Tengrism bears in itself an inner philosophical conflict on this issue of monotheism (one god) v. polytheism (many gods), a conflict which is even stronger in the direction of polytheism in the Sumerian religion

After we started our discussion, I read up a bit on Tengri and I have to say that I agree it has a conflict of Monotheism vs polytheism inherent to it.

This can be illustrated through the Mongol Khan Ogodei telling various religious groups at his court that "God is like a hand with all the gods his fingers".

 

[rakovsky]

My son calls all pugs Louis, because our pug's name is Louis, but this does not mean he envisions our pug as the supreme Pug nor Louis as the name of such a hypothetical creature.

If your son said that the pugs are "louises", and then his own pug was Louis as a proper noun, as in "my louis Louis", then the situation would be analogous.
I suppose that as a louis, your pug Louis is special and unique to your son so far as he can distinguish all others from your pug/louis.

I must admit that I have never thought of the meaning 'il' as being attached to West-Semitic El before, which is an interesting idea, but on looking it up quickly, I found that this is more common in Assyrian cuneiform and less so in old Sumerian.

Even if it is done so at a lesser rate it would still be relevant.

"The oldest Semitic term for God is ʾel (corresponding to Akkadian ilu (m), Canaanite ʾel or ʾil, and Arabic ʾel as an element in personal names)."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07449.html

 

[rakovsky]

After we started our discussion, I read up a bit on Tengri and I have to say that I agree it has a conflict of Monotheism vs polytheism inherent to it.

This can be illustrated through the Mongol Khan Ogodei telling various religious groups at his court that "God is like a hand with all the gods his fingers".

Yes. Great example.
This kind of monotheistic side can be openly found in Hindu, Egyptian, and Babylonian religion too.
Unfortunately I am not such an expert on Sumerian religion to say whether it can be found there too in such a definitive way. The best I can look to in my limited knowledge is the word "Dingir" being unique to An. To give an analogy, I think that despite the fact your son might call all pugs louis, I think that he probably actually finds your own pug to be unique as Louis in a way no other dog is. That is, he might call them louis as a kind of slang or loose sense based on his original, Louis, which he actually does put before all others.

The task of finding monotheistic traces is made harder by the fact that in Sumeria, "Dingir"(An) was born/created by the goddess Nammu. The Hindus solve this kind of contradiction between God's eternality and a myth that he was born of another god this way: They say that God (Bhagwan, "The Munificent One") has two forms, one of them being personalized/concretized so that even as a non-human divine god he can be born by another god and yet remain God (Bhagwan). Thus for sects who equate Krishna with God, they say that his birth and youth and time in prison only occurred in this special form that allows it.

However, the Sumerian writings are not so philosophically deep I suppose that they grapple with this kind of conflict in their mythology like the Hindus do.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Amenhotep IV, who was also known as Akhenaten, reigned as Pharaoh during the 18th dynasty. He was the only Pharaoh that I know of that promoted monotheism and banned polytheism. All worship turned to the sun god Aten. Of course this upset the temple priests who were empowered formerly in the polytheistic dynasties that preceded him.
Amenhotep died and some evidence leads to thinking he was murdered. After which polytheism returned.

 

[rakovsky]

Wha

Amenhotep died and some evidence leads to thinking he was murdered.

What made you think he got killed?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Amenhotep IV, who was also known as Akhenaten, reigned as Pharaoh during the 18th dynasty. He was the only Pharaoh that I know of that promoted monotheism and banned polytheism. All worship turned to the sun god Aten. Of course this upset the temple priests who were empowered formerly in the polytheistic dynasties that preceded him.
Amenhotep died and some evidence leads to thinking he was murdered. After which polytheism returned.

I have never heard anything of Akhenaton being murdered, nor does his probable mummy recovered from kv55 point in this direction, as far as I know.
Besides, he was succeeded by Smenkhare, then Nefereneferauten and then Tutankhaten. Now Tutankhaten then ended the Monotheistic Aten religion and became Tutankhamen, so Atenism survived the death of its founder and into the admittedly short reigns of his successors.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If your son said that the pugs are "louises", and then his own pug was Louis as a proper noun, as in "my louis Louis", then the situation would be analogous.
I suppose that as a louis, your pug Louis is special and unique to your son so far as he can distinguish all others from your pug/louis.


Even if it is done so at a lesser rate it would still be relevant.

"The oldest Semitic term for God is ʾel (corresponding to Akkadian ilu (m), Canaanite ʾel or ʾil, and Arabic ʾel as an element in personal names)."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07449.html

You have run a bit too far with the pug analogy which merely illustrated the concept.
You missed my intial criticism. Dingir is a determinative. It is not the god Nammu or the god Enki, but Nammu and Enki with a sign showing that it is to be read and understood as proper names for specific gods. In cuneiform it is a form of punctuation one could say. So it is not read as the god God, but merely An - a proper name and a determinitive which just happen to use the same sign but are pronounced and read differently. There is no evidence of 'Dingir' understood as the name of a god at all or as a universal concept, to my knowledge.

A better analogy would perhaps be 'etc.' which means 'et cetera' and not 'etc full stop' or 'etc decimal point'. A full stop itself can be used alone as when people mean 'period' as ending a conversation or showing a definitive statement has been made. This does not mean it always carries the same meaning nor implies that meaning in all contexts. So to read the sign in Cuneiform alone instead of a determinative showing how other signs should be understood, is a bit erroneous.

It is significant I agree that An and the determinative bear the same sign, but this could just as well point to the subsidiary presumed meaning of 'bright' or 'shining', so to assume a connection to the god or a vague monotheism is putting the cart before the horses. As the sign also means the sky or heaven in a non-divine context and the Sumerians built ziggurats to worship gods on higher platforms, the metaphorical idea might just as well be that the gods are 'higher' than us and not presume metaphysical connections.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

I have never heard anything of Akhenaton being murdered, nor does his probable mummy recovered from kv55 point in this direction, as far as I know.
Besides, he was succeeded by Smenkhare, then Nefereneferauten and then Tutankhaten. Now Tutankhaten then ended the Monotheistic Aten religion and became Tutankhamen, so Atenism survived the death of its founder and into the admittedly short reigns of his successors.

Akhenaton , his name reflected his allegiance to the one god, "living spirit of Aten", was Nefertiti's husband. He ruled only 14 years and there's no record of his death, but ruling for such a short time the implication being he was the first monotheist in the history of Egypt, makes it suspect.

It's interesting that two years into Smenkhare's reign began he disappeared. There's no tomb or anything relating to the place of his rest.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Wha

What made you think he got killed?

The investigations I've seen on the history type channels back in the day said that the priests of the time weren't happy with the introduction of monotheism. Being he ruled but 14 years and then suddenly died it led to the implication he was murdered.

 

[rakovsky]

I have never heard anything of Akhenaton being murdered, nor does his probable mummy recovered from kv55 point in this direction, as far as I know.
Besides, he was succeeded by Smenkhare, then Nefereneferauten and then Tutankhaten. Now Tutankhaten then ended the Monotheistic Aten religion and became Tutankhamen, so Atenism survived the death of its founder and into the admittedly short reigns of his successors.

If he was illegally and secretly poisoned or otherwise assassinated like Caesar was, his line and Atenism could still continue.
However, it is hard to make this more than a guess (I have no opinion) without some archaeological evidence of it (like finding his body).

 

[rakovsky]

You have run a bit too far with the pug analogy which merely illustrated the concept.

It's what the analogy you brought up shows, and it's not a bad one, Quid. Your son calls all pugs louis, but it's based on there being for him a Louis that especially well illustrates the concept. He is using the word louis/Louis in two different senses.

This is my best educated guess - that the same thing is going on that happens in mixed-Monotheistic Turkic Tengrism and in Chinese belief in "Di" and "di"s (God and gods). As you say: "It is significant I agree that An and the determinative bear the same sign". For whatever reason, each of these religions considers their highest, heavenly father god "God" in some essential way that the other gods are not designated "God".

But since Sumerian religion does not run on for thousands of years in writing, it is hard to say what exactly they thought about this. Babylonians took over and had mixed Monotheism, but they spelled it out.

Let's consider an alternative explanation: ⁕ means heavenly, so each god was a heavenly being, and so ⁕ Nammu was the heavenly Nammu. They thought the stars were gods, and the stars were in the heavens. Meanwhile, An is the god of the heavens (⁕), and so An is designated ⁕ as his sign. So while each god was a heavenly being, An was the god of the heavens themselves. It puts him in a higher category regarding their state of being (ie. their heavenliness).

You missed my intial criticism. Dingir is a determinative. It is not the god Nammu or the god Enki, but Nammu and Enki with a sign showing that it is to be read and understood as proper names for specific gods. In cuneiform it is a form of punctuation one could say. So it is not read as the god God, but merely An - a proper name and a determinitive which just happen to use the same sign but are pronounced and read differently.

You say it is not read as the god God, but nonetheless An himself is designated that way in the script - as signified by the word for God. And then the question becomes why is An designated with the word for god so that no other god is. To say that the words God and An "just happen to use the same sign" is certainly incorrect, because Sumerians, using a pictoral system like Chinese, chose important words and symbols based on their related meanings or connotations.

There is no evidence of 'Dingir' understood as the name of a god at all or as a universal concept, to my knowledge.

I would be interested in finding out, but didn't find much in the literature I saw beyond what I've posted.

You wrote:

As the sign also means the sky or heaven in a non-divine context and the Sumerians built ziggurats to worship gods on higher platforms, the metaphorical idea might just as well be that the gods are 'higher' than us and not presume metaphysical connections.

An means "high" as a root word according to the modern Sumerian dictionaries. So in terms of worship you are saying that gods are seen as high beings. Meanwhile, "An" is etymologically "The High One" himself. Here again we see a property essential to deities being concretized in An, the High Heavenly father.

 

[rakovsky]

I have a hard time closely associating the Egyptian Ra/Horus and the Sumerian An with the Torah's identification of God mainly because those other deities (Ra, Horus, and An) are created or preceded by other gods. The legends are actually very similar between those others - Ra arises out of the waters of Nu, and An is born by the deep sea goddess Nammu. The same thing happens with the Greeks - the main god Zeus comes out of Chaos. In a sense then, Chaos, Nammu, and Nu all have a superior rank in terms of succession to the "main" god of those pantheons (supposing that Ra was in fact the main god of Egypt).

The way that Hindus deal with this problem is by saying that The Blessed One (God), Bhagwan, existed previous to His birth in another state. Egyptians solve this problem by saying that Ra is another form of God (NTR), who existed as Ptah or Amun at least as far back as the waters.

But I don't know that the Sumerians tried to explain it, which seems to me a major weakness in thinking of An's divine supremacy in the Biblical sense.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You say it is not read as the god God, but nonetheless An himself is designated that way in the script - as signified by the word for God. And then the question becomes why is An designated with the word for god so that no other god is. To say that the words God and An "just happen to use the same sign" is certainly incorrect, because Sumerians, using a pictoral system like Chinese, chose important words and symbols based on their related meanings or connotations

Sumerian cuneiform is not logographic like Chinese.
It is a mixed Logographic for proper names and syllabary for meaning and tenses, like Japanese or Korean use of Kanji and Hiragana/Katakana and Hangul respectively.

Therefore a determinative use of * to designate a proper name is to be understood as a god, need not be related to the sign's meaning. Determinitives were anyway not read aloud, but merely carried meaning of how something was to be understood.
The sign in use as a syllabogram does not indicate anything of highness or divinity in extent texts, as it merely represented a sound, so I see no reason why we need extend this meaning to its determinative role.

Its similar to the fullstop I mentioned earlier. It tells us to end a sentence or as a spaceholder, but it does not denote both senses at all times, nor is it pronounced, nor does it sometimes hold any meaning beyond altering the understanding of signs around it, as when it is used as a decimal point for instance.

I have a hard time closely associating the Egyptian Ra/Horus and the Sumerian An with the Torah's identification of God mainly because those other deities (Ra, Horus, and An) are created or preceded by other gods. The legends are actually very similar between those others - Ra arises out of the waters of Nu, and An is born by the deep sea goddess Nammu. The same thing happens with the Greeks - the main god Zeus comes out of Chaos. In a sense then, Chaos, Nammu, and Nu all have a superior rank in terms of succession to the "main" god of those pantheons (supposing that Ra was in fact the main god of Egypt).

The way that Hindus deal with this problem is by saying that The Blessed One (God), Bhagwan, existed previous to His birth in another state. Egyptians solve this problem by saying that Ra is another form of God (NTR), who existed as Ptah or Amun at least as far back as the waters.

But I don't know that the Sumerians tried to explain it, which seems to me a major weakness in thinking of An's divine supremacy in the Biblical sense.

I agree that An does not fit the bill very well for the Biblical God.

Regarding Ra and NTR, we have had this discussion before, you are assuming things here that aren't definite but highly suppositional. I don't think a definite scheme of these religious concepts vis-a-vis the Torah can be demonstrated which can be used in any meaningful way to explicate Sumerian religion.

 

[rakovsky]

Interesting argument in favor of common prehistoric ideas of monotheism and life after death:

Stone Age cultures

Lower or Early and Middle Paleolithic
The oldest burials that attest to a belief in life after death can be placed in the period between about 50,000 and 30,000 bce. The earliest evidence of human activity in any form, on the other hand, goes back more than 1,000,000 years. Yet, since religious conceptions are not always bound to material objects, and since there is evidence that truly human beings existed even during early Paleolithic times, it is inadmissible to infer that earliest man had no religion from the mere fact that no identifiable religious objects have been found.

A study of very simple hunters and gatherers of recent times shows that several religious conceptions generally considered to be especially “primitive” (e.g., fetishism) hardly play an important part, but rather that, among other things, the supposedly “advanced” conception of a personal creator and preserver of the world does play an important part.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/prehistoric-religion

 

[Uber Genius]

1. The true meaning of Dingir for Sumerians - could they envision "God"?

is the sign called Dingir, meaning God in Sumerian. And it also is the symbol for the sky/heavens' god An, their supreme deity. A connection to the god of the ancient Turkic peoples, Tengri, their supreme god, has been suggested by scholars. Polat Kaya a Turkish scholar says its the Turkish TENRI and connects it to the Egyptian word for God NTR and to the Indo-European word Deus (God).

Dingir is different from the main paternal creating god of Sumerians, An. In fact, there is no specific god named "Dingir". Does that mean that the concept of God was distinct from the "gods" of Sumer, and as a result, the Sumerians could envision God as one absolute, true being separate from the belief in many "gods"?

2. Does the observation of multiplying gods show that originally there was belief in just one God?

The Anthropologist Custance notes:


The website Earth History notes:

http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/genesis-6-11-and-other-texts/the-tradition-in-sumer

If this is correct, it suggests that the Israelite Yah is the Akkadian / West Semitic Aya and the Sumerian/East Semitic Ea or Enki. And it also suggests that "El", another god for Semites, is another name for this same "Yah".

Another thing I am not sure of is whether originally for Sumerians An, the main sky god, was self-conceived or uncreated, or if he came from another god, Nammu. For example, one writing says:


3. Do similar descriptions of God across ancient civilizations mean that the one true God, and thus monotheism, is inscribed in peoples' souls, so that it's inherent to them and some of them would think of the one true God, even if a missionary or their parents didn't tell them about Him?

Bishop Alexander Mileant wrote:

Interesting post. I would need to do some significant research to add value here. But will get to it within the next couple weeks.

Context of Scripture (3 vol. set) is the best source book here. Ugarit rather than Assyrian, Chaldean, or Egyptian seems to have the most interaction between text of OT and other culture's texts.

There are common theme -cosmic geography, sacred space, sky-riding Gods , astral signs, and divine councils.

Israel codifies some laws verbatim from existing Mesopotamian dynasties 600-1000 years older.

All of which we would expect given the flood account and the table of nations in Genesis 10 would have a natural explanatory ultimate (beginning point in common).

Dr. Michael S. Heiser has great cross-cultural references and scholarly works.
http://drmsh.com